The Kids Online Safety Act is acceptable, it just needs some work

Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced KOSA in 2022, and it has undergone a few revisions since then. Some lawmakers are disappointed with the version of the bill they see in the House. How they reach agreement on this point will determine whether the bill moves forward.

Early legislation, such as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, focused on what information platforms took from their young users and imposed restrictions. Now, the legislative focus has shifted to what the platforms pass on.

KOSA is based on the principle that a company should be concerned about the harm it is doing to its customers. According to the legislation, platforms would have to offer minors the opportunity to protect their information and be excluded from algorithmic recommendations. Platforms would also be responsible for conducting annual audits of their algorithms and data.

As noble as KOSA’s “duty of care” is, one cannot ignore that it is also vague. By leaving somewhat undefined how platforms should perform this duty, the bill leaves the details vague. The authors note that it prevents specific harms, including mental disorders (anxiety, depression, eating, substance abuse, suicide), compulsive social media use, sexual exploitation, physical violence, and drug use. However, we know very well that nowadays almost anything can be considered within the realm of causing harm.

That point is the best of the opposition to KOSA. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) argues that the bill references the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders, a document that is frequently updated. Thus, “the scope of the bill could change overnight,” in keeping with the DSM-5. All the standard conservative talking points could fall victim to serious infringements on free speech.

Critics on the left have offered similar opposition, largely out of fear that the government will censor LGBT content and other progressive issues. But KOSA focuses on “design features,” not censorship. The bill specifies that it will not restrict minors from “intentionally and independently seeking” particular content. It includes scrolling patterns, notifications, rewards and personalized recommendations.

Paul claims that “website design does not cause harm”, so KOSA is unnecessarily regulating it. The data on social media addiction and mental health suggests otherwise, especially when viewed alongside parents’ intentional screen time restrictions. Less social media use reduces the risk of mental health problems in young people. The design of these platforms determines how attractive they are to users, and thus contributes to the level of addiction and the amount of explicit content encountered.

Other data shows that students do significantly worse when learning on screens than on paper. It’s not just the goodness or badness of the content that’s hurting kids, but the screen use itself.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Regulation of website design is necessary as it relates to young people on social media. Claims that such regulation will undermine freedom of expression are certainly justified, but they can be avoided if lawmakers carefully monitor KOSA.

This outcome requires cooperation, not an immediate cancellation of the bill. The left gets things done by insistence and by not compromising. Sometimes it works, but the stakes are high with this hopeful bill, and shooting it down could delay things even further.