Online safety advocates have shared their views on what parents can expect following the passage of the Kids Online Safety Act and the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act in the U.S. Senate on July 30. The legislation passed by a margin of 91–3.
The bipartisan Kids Online Safety Act is intended to establish a duty of care to protect children while they are using the internet and to hold social media firms accountable for their actions. The Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act, also known as COPPA 2.0, updates and expands the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, which covered children under 13 years old, extending the rights of privacy to adolescents.
Online safety experts spoke out in support of the legislation, which places additional responsibilities on major tech companies for the safety and privacy of minors.
“Parents whose children have died by suicide after being sexually extorted by predators on Instagram; children who have been raped by predators who groomed them on Snapchat; and families who have been devastated by fentanyl-laced drugs bought on social media platforms deserve to see [the Kids Online Safety Act] signed into law to prevent these and other harms from happening to other children,” National Center on Sexual Exploitation CEO Dawn Hawkins said in an emailed statement.
“Now, the U.S. House must also pass the Kids Online Safety Act—children cannot wait any longer. It is time to hold Big Tech accountable for prioritizing people over profit.”
Parents Television and Media Council Vice President Melissa Henson weighed in on the legislation and the changes it will bring.
“The Kids Online Safety Act puts accountability on tech platforms to ensure children are protected from predators, not targeted by addictive algorithms, and cannot easily access sexually explicit and graphically violent content,” she told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.
Henson said the proposed law will also give parents “more peace of mind” as it requires tech platforms to ensure there are safeguards and tools for parents to use to protect their kids, and it means “platforms are defaulted to the most stringent safety settings.”
“The Kids Online Safety Act will change social media platforms’ focus from a duty of profit—exploiting children’s developmental vulnerabilities—to a duty of care, protecting children’s safety and wellbeing,“ Hawkins said. ”[The Kids Online Safety Act] would be the first online child protection legislation passed by Congress in 25 years.”
The Kids Online Safety Act requires web platforms to protect young users from content that could harm their mental and physical health. It allows children to protect their data and opt out of algorithmic recommendations to make the internet safer and give minors control over their online appearance and content.
It also requires platforms to give parents more control over their children’s data. A dedicated mechanism for reporting hazardous behavior also is required in the bill to help parents regulate their children’s online activities.
Under the act, platforms must also prevent and mitigate hazardous behaviors such as suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, and sexual exploitation.
The Kids Online Safety Act also requires independent examinations of social media’s effects on children’s and teens’ mental health. These audits aim to illuminate how digital material and interactions affect young viewers.
The Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act prohibits internet providers from gathering data from those younger than 17 without consent. The act also bans advertising and marketing that exploits children and teens.
The bill extends the prohibition to any platforms “reasonably likely to be used” by minors, not just those with knowledge of their age. This update closes loopholes that could allow companies to dodge accountability.
Censorship Concerns
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital rights group, stands against the Kids Online Safety Act, arguing that the bill could lead to over-censorship by platforms that may restrict protected speech to avoid legal liabilities. There are concerns that this could suppress content on sensitive topics. The EFF has said that officials could focus on information about dangerous sports or even target news and political commentary on social media platforms if it is thought to cause anxiety or depression.Additionally, the act’s requirement for age verification could infringe on privacy rights by necessitating the collection of personal identification, creating potential security risks, and necessitating tracking of online activities.
“These systems require everyone—adults and minors—to verify their age. All age verification systems burden the rights of adults to read, get information, and speak and browse online anonymously,” the EFF said in a statement.
EFF suggests that instead of the Kinds Online Safety Act, comprehensive federal privacy laws and stronger competition laws could better protect young users without compromising free speech and privacy.
The Epoch Times has reached out to social media companies for comment.
Meta’s vice president and global head of safety, Antigone Davis, said earlier this month that she doesn’t believe social media has “done harm to our children.”
“I think that it is our responsibility as a company to ensure that teens can be able to take advantage of those benefits of social media in a safe and positive environment.”
The legislation passed through the upper chamber of Congress a little more than a month after Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on social media companies to inform users about evidence linking the platforms to risks to adolescents’ mental health.
Dr. Murthy made the case for the change in an opinion piece published by The New York Times on June 17, saying, “It is time to require a surgeon general’s warning label on social media platforms.”
The measures are waiting in the House of Representatives, which is in recess until September.
President Joe Biden has offered his support for the legislation, and advocates for the bills have encouraged the House to take up the measures. While Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has promised to work to find a “consensus,” he hasn’t said whether he will bring the legislation to the House floor in its current form.
