- cross-posted to:
- bad_internet_bills@lemmy.sdf.org
- cross-posted to:
- bad_internet_bills@lemmy.sdf.org
Evan Greer of Fight for the Future:
“If KOSA were actually a privacy bill as its supporters claim, we would be all about it,” Greer told Ars. “We support cracking down on tech companies harvesting of data, we support an end to manipulative business practices like autoplay, infinite scroll, intrusive notifications, and algorithmic recommendations powered by commercial surveillance. What we don’t support is a bill that gives state attorneys general the power to dictate what content younger people can see on social media. That’s where KOSA goes off the rails and becomes a censorship bill, rather than a privacy bill.”
If you’re in the US, you can contact Congress using https://www.stopkosa.com/
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
Debate continues to rage over the federal Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which seeks to hold platforms liable for feeding harmful content to minors.
In fact, the bill’s staunchest critics told Ars that the legislation is incurably flawed—due to the barely changed duty of care provision—and that it still risks creating more harm than good for kids.
Joe Mullin, a policy analyst for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)—a leading digital rights nonprofit that opposes KOSA—told Ars that while the knowledge standard change is “actually positive” because it’s “tightened up a bit.”
In a letter to lawmakers last month, legal experts with the think tank TechFreedom similarly described the duty of care section as “incurably flawed” and cautioned that it seemingly violates the First Amendment.
ACLU’s senior policy counsel Cody Venzke agrees with Mullin and TechFreedom that the duty of care section is still the bill’s biggest flaw.
Like TechFreedom, Venzke remains unconvinced that changes are significant enough to ensure that kids won’t be cut off from some online resources if KOSA passes in its current form.