Kids online bill awaits House vote

A Senate-backed bill meant to safeguard what children see on social media may face stiffer challenges in the House as opponents stir up fears of government censorship and silencing of liberal and conservative opinions.

According to the Pew Research Center, 96 percent of American teenagers use social media daily, with nearly half saying they use it “almost constantly.” While experts still haven’t confirmed a direct correlation between social media use and poor mental health, growing evidence suggests a connection to anxiety, depression, and loneliness. Some parents of children who have committed suicide or died of an overdose or after participating in an online challenge point to social media as the cause.

Some social media platforms already offer options to turn off sensitive content, but the proposed law would require tech companies to make those options the default on underage accounts. Parents would also be offered more ways to monitor their kids’ accounts.

In late July, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the Kids Online Safety Act, which would require tech companies to provide safeguards for children on social media. The bill, known as KOSA, passed 91-3. That same day, the Senate also passed the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act, which would forbid tech companies from collecting data on underage users.

KOSA would require companies to make any content associated with online bullying, illicit drug sales, or sexual exploitation unaccessible on children’s accounts. It would also ban features that encourage ”addiction-like behaviors” and predatory marketing practices.

Opponents, who come from both sides of the political spectrum, say the government should focus on removing addictive or unhealthy features like autoplay, infinite scrolling, or intrusive notifications—not content.

“KOSA misses the mark by putting the federal government in the position to determine what content is and isn't harmful to kids,” wrote Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, an online activist group that runs the website stopkosa.com. “That should concern everyone. And it violates the First Amendment.”

Harm is subjective, Greer added, arguing that it sounds like government censorship if the government is defining what a child shouldn’t be able to see and then directing tech companies to filter it out.

“There is no legal definition of what kind of content ‘makes a kid depressed.’ It will be up to the [Federal Trade Commission] to decide,” Greer wrote in an email. “A Harris FTC might argue that pro-life content makes kids depressed. A Trump FTC might decide that climate change content makes kids depressed. Either way, the government is dictating what speech platforms are allowed to show to which users.”

But Josh Golin, executive director of the child advocacy group Fairplay, defends the bill.

“This isn't about the government deciding what content is safe and what isn’t,” said Golin. “This is about holding these platforms accountable for the deliberate design choices that they’re making.”

Golin mentions that various social media platforms still allow young users to apply a filter that shows what their faces might look like if they had plastic surgery. Plastic surgeons have recently reported a rise in the number of clients wanting to look better in selfies.

“If this bill were law, [Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg] might be legally forced to not have something like a plastic surgery filter, which fosters young people's dissatisfaction with the way they look, and gets them wanting plastic surgery at a ridiculously young age,” said Golin.

Groups on both sides of debates about abortion and LGBTQ issues have separately raised concerns about viewpoint suppression. Pro-LGBTQ groups worry that content about sexuality will be filtered out for children who might identify as LGBTQ. Both pro-abortion and pro-life groups are concerned that young women will not be able to see posts with information about their options.

Golin says these are unfounded arguments. “There is nothing in the bill that requires platforms to take down any content,” he said. “There is nothing that prevents minors from saying anything to each other online or searching for any kind of content or resources or community.”

Benjamin Bull, general counsel for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, said that the First Amendment does not protect certain forms of harmful speech, especially if it’s proven to be harmful for children.

“If on television, a drug company started advertising poisonous pills in a way that attracted children to buying it and eating it, would [banning] that violate the First Amendment? No, because they’re creating a dangerous situation that’s harming people,” said Bull.

Even so, Bull admits that the bill’s definition of harmful content is “overly broad and can be used for mischief by government officials with bad intent.“ That’s why last week, members of his center and others spent time finetuning the bill’s definition of preventing harm, which includes efforts to stave off mental health disorders.

Many social media companies already offer safety tools for underage users. Instagram warns users before they click on potentially harmful content, and it offers a setting to see less sensitive content. TikTok users between the ages of 13 and 15 receive private accounts by default, which means young teens cannot send or receive direct messages on the platform.

Some parents frustrated with the lack of transparency from social media companies about their children’s online habits will get more clarity if this bill gets signed into law. But some parents say they aren’t convinced social media will ever be safe—even with the proposed bills and the safety measures already in place.

Erin Loechner is a parent and recently wrote the book, The Opt-Out Family: How to Give Your Kids What Technology Can’t. She applauds the efforts to safeguard social media for children but says it will never be enough.

“KOSA is certainly a start, but it’s far from the end. There is no safe and healthy way to use social media, even with the wonderful efforts of advocates fighting for tighter restrictions,” she wrote in an email.

Loechner said that parents need to convince kids that offline activities are ultimately more fun and satisfying than anything they can find on a screen.

“Why teach our kids how to safely get to the porn store, the anxiety dispensary, the bullying yard, the self-esteem drain?” she wrote. “Instead, let’s teach them how to walk away.”