this post was submitted on 16 May 2025

211 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

37971 readers

241 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

211

The Kids Online Safety Act Will Make the Internet Worse for Everyone (www.eff.org)

submitted 6 days ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.ml

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Lawmakers who support KOSA today are choosing to trust the current administration, and future administrations, to define what youth—and to some degree, all of us—should be allowed to read online.

KOSA will not make kids safer. It will make the internet more dangerous for anyone who relies on it to learn, connect, or speak freely. Lawmakers should reject it, and fast.

top 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 40 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

i told ya they were going to try again until they succeeded.

the solution is deposing those people, not trying to fight off every attempt until they win.

[–] Libra@lemmy.ml 33 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I dunno who it was who decided that legislation should parent their kids instead of them having to do it themselves, but if I ever find them I'm going to slap the shit out of them.

[–] rozwud@beehaw.org 11 points 6 days ago

Probably the same ones that decided that teachers should parent their kids.

[–] DreamAccountant@lemmy.world 20 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Forget about children ever seeing any atheist content again. The religious wackos will definitely make sure that they can brainwash children with stupid religious fiction.

[–] Sandouq_Dyatha@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago

The religious people are also saying that the atheist wackos will brainwash kids with atheist fiction

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Nice, that means in the future only browsing with webcam on and ID card possible.

[–] JakobFel@retrolemmy.com 1 points 6 days ago

Not necessarily. I wouldnt be down for that, don't get me wrong, but when there are dedicated "children's account" options on a service, they should be legally exempt from algorithmic manipulation. Sure, without ID validation, that can be bypassed but that would be 100% on the parents. It's not their fault they don't know how these platforms push propaganda (of all sorts) on kids via algorithms, but it would be their fault if they didn't ensure their kid was running on a kids account.

[–] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What if I don't have kids? I don't need these rules.

[+] DreamAccountant@lemmy.world -6 points 6 days ago (4 children)

So, you're so stupid as to not be able to understand that children grow up and run the world. And you'll still be alive... So, their choices WILL affect you, your family, loved ones, friends, community, nation, etc...

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 6 days ago

This legislation makes the online environment for children worse, so it's a moot point; whether you think it's the government's place to take a proactive stance on this or not, it's still bad either way.

[–] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 days ago

So...I don't get a life??? I have to live in such a way that other people can have a life but I don't get one?

Sounds like a dictatorship to me. PASS!

[–] FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

Found the kid that didn't grow up right ^^^^

[–] Libra@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 days ago

And you're so stupid as to not be able to understand that it's your responsibility to decide what your kids should and should not have access to, not the government's, especially when the only tools they have to do so just make it harder for the rest of us to get access to those things at best? 'Won't some one please think of the children' has worn pretty goddamned thin: think of your own children, they're your responsibility, not mine and not Congress'.

[+] JakobFel@retrolemmy.com -12 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I fail to see how ensuring platforms don't algorithmically push negative content on children, or how enforcing better default privacy options for children, is remotely a bad thing. As with most of what the Electronic Farce Foundation publishes today, this article was a word salad of excuses without reasoning.

Also find it pretty ironic and hypocritical that there's a sudden outcry against "censorship" but just a couple years ago, it was apparently a tHrEaT to oUr dEmOcRaCy if anybody expressed any sort of skepticism over the narrative because tRuSt the sCiEnCe.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Because that's not what this is. It's just like the porn site laws

How does a site comply? Maybe they use AI to look at your face, maybe they have you send in your license. The law isn't clear what's enough to prove it.

How long until third parties step up? Nice convenient orgs that can sell the collected data that can guarantee compliance, because they sell the data to the government directly. Or even first parties... Facebook and Google are happy to sell this kind of info on their users

This isn't about protecting kids, it's about identifying users. What they say this is for is good, what the laws actually do is far removed from that

[–] JakobFel@retrolemmy.com 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

And I said elsewhere that I'm not okay with IDing users that way (though I'd absolutely love if we banned porn entirely). However, a lot of social media sites have specialized kids' accounts. In cases like that, those accounts should be legally exempt from algorithm manipulation and given special privacy defaults.

As far as I can tell, THAT is what this bill is doing.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That's what they say it does. What it really does is make sites responsible for "harmful content" shown to minors

It's all completely vague. You say it just affects the kids mode accounts... The bill doesn't say anything about that. It doesn't provide any guidance on how to properly comply, just like the porn id laws.

You can't assume the government is going to use this for what they say they will. You have to look at what this would let them do as written

Ultimately, this gives the government censorship powers over what is allowed in the "open" Internet, and to IDs users in the "adult" Internet

[–] JakobFel@retrolemmy.com 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And if that happens, I'll oppose it. But as far as I can see, that's not what's happening.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 3 days ago

It'll be a bit late then.

I know how compliance works, and this is setting off all my alarm bells, and the EFF and privacy community agrees... This has truly horrifying implications

If you're going to let human rights be further erroded because it came in a pretty explanation, not much I can do. But when the next patriot act comes back to bite us, remember one thing... When they say it's about the children, it never is

[–] Butterpaderp@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I fail to see how ensuring platforms don't algorithmically push negative content on children, or how enforcing better default privacy options for children, is remotely a bad thing

See, this is the propaganda part. 'Protect the kids!' Of course thats a good sounding thing! Let's put good sounding thing into law and not worry about any possible downsides.

[–] ok_comfortable6561@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 days ago

Any legislation presented as being for “protecting children” needs to be immediately met with skepticism.

It’s almost always a cover for egregious government interference in personal life, which sucks since there really is damaging content out there made on purpose… the only thing you can really do is pay more attention to your own kids

[–] JakobFel@retrolemmy.com -3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I know it's usually an excuse to pass surveillance legislation but I don't see how this bill even remotely promotes that. As far as I can see, it ensures platforms don't push algorithmic manipulation on kids and it requires platforms to offer better default privacy settings for kids' accounts.

Meanwhile the EFF and ACLU (usual suspects) are pushing a garbage narrative of baseless excuses. One has to wonder about their reasoning.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

I trust the reliable and reputable experts of laws of EFF (literally founded to protect digital freedoms) and the ACLU (literally founded to protect the liberties that America tries to stop) then some random person thinking more laws is better.

[–] JakobFel@retrolemmy.com 0 points 4 days ago

The ACLU has always been a joke. As for the EFF, I used to like them but they've been playing partisan politics lately and no longer focus on privacy and digital rights. Much like Mozilla, they've become some pseudo-NGO and that makes their opinions completely worthless.

[–] locuester@lemmy.zip -2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Your second paragraph is spot on, but you’ll never get those people to accept the damage they caused. Bringing it up just stirs up shit. Sucks.

[–] JakobFel@retrolemmy.com -3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It does, and it sucks even more because that's all the Fediverse is outside of a few rare instances. Love this tech but the echo chamber makes me feel like giving up on the Fediverse at least a few times per week.

[–] locuester@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Just know that plenty of ppl agree with you. We are just tired of constantly talking about it. If you find a good instance with free thinking, free speech loving, idea sharing people please let me know haha

[–] JakobFel@retrolemmy.com 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

For sure! I'm on a Mastodon instance called Retro Gaiden and while it's not free speech (because political discussions are banned), the owner is really laid back and there is literally a rule, "no discussing your sexual orientation". Basically, it's designed to be a no drama instance about discussing retro culture. I wish there were more instances like that!

[–] locuester@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Cool I joined. I haven’t used mastodon because I use X, which is fine for me and uses heavy in my industry. Will try out mastodon a bit in the eves instead of Lemmy. Ping me there for a follow, I’m @locuester@retro-gaming.com

[–] JakobFel@retrolemmy.com 1 points 3 days ago

Nice, followed!