Ding Dong KOSA’s Dead (For Now)

from the the-internet-lives-on dept

Broken clocks may be accidentally correct twice a day, and sometimes those broken clocks save the internet. The House GOP has killed KOSA over unclear “concerns” about the version of KOSA that was approved earlier this week. There were rumors this might happen, but in a note at the bottom of a Punchbowl News Congressional roundup, there’s a short report that, effectively, KOSA is dead in the House:

Breaking news: The House Republican leadership won’t bring up the children’s online safety bill that the Senate passed with 91 votes on Tuesday.

A House GOP leadership aide told us this about KOSA: “We’ve heard concerns across our Conference and the Senate bill cannot be brought up in its current form.”

This is good news, though things can always change. But it seems the message about the serious problems with KOSA is getting across. It remains disappointing that Democrats broadly supported this bill that would have been used to suppress LGBTQ content. Of course, the worry is always that an even worse version of KOSA may reappear at some point.

Still, with the GOP killing it, it sounds like Senator Rand Paul’s really excellent letter laying out the reasons he couldn’t support the bill may have had an impact. That letter was quite clear and direct about the very real problems with the bill, and presented them in a non-partisan, non-culture war fashion. Once again, a portion of the letter:

KOSA would impose an unprecedented “duty of care” on internet platforms to mitigate certain harms associated with mental health, such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders. While proponents of the bill claim that it is not designed to regulate content, imposing a “duty of care” on online platforms to mitigate harms associated with mental health can only lead to one outcome: the stifling of First Amendment protected speech.

Should platforms stop children from seeing climate-related news because climate change is one of the leading sources of anxiety amongst younger generations? Should they stop children from seeing coverage of international conflicts because it could lead to depression? Should pro-life groups have their content censored because platforms worry that it could impact the mental well-being of teenage mothers? This bill opens the door to nearly limitless content regulation.

The bill contains a number of vague provisions and undefined terms. The text does not explain what it means for a platform to “prevent and mitigate” harm, nor does it define “addiction-like behaviors.” Additionally, the bill does not explicitly define the term “mental health disorder.” Instead, it references the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders or “the most current successor edition.” As such, the definition could change without any input from Congress.

We do not impose these types of burdens on any other sector of the economy. For example, the bill seeks to protect minors from alcohol and gambling ads on certain online platforms. However, minors can turn on the TV to watch the Super Bowl or the PGA tour and see the exact same ads without any problem.

This bill is a Trojan Horse. It claims to protect our children, but in reality, it stifles free speech and deprives Americans of the numerous benefits created by the internet.

Hopefully, arguments like these were why it was killed, rather than some nonsense about it not having more censorial powers.

I’m sure this isn’t over, given the forces that lined up in favor of KOSA. It’s always possible someone tries to bring it back to life toward the end of the year, but hopefully this means that KOSA is dead for this session of Congress.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Ding Dong KOSA’s Dead (For Now)”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
43 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I personally don’t trust anything following “We’ve heard concerns…”.
The only reason I would accept is a clear statement from GOP that this bill doesn’t fix anything wrong in the society, just making more difficult to understand how much it’s wrong. It’s not what has been said yet.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

Congratulations, you’re human.

The “us vs them” polarisation of politics is a very bad thing, especially in the US where so often one side is explicitly driven there by religion rather than thought.

But, it’s certainly still possible for someone like Paul to be correct, as his father was on a few issues before. I wouldn’t trust either of them for a second and I know they’d turn on another issue I cared about if the thought it would be profitable, but even in the binary concept of the current US system there’s still room for independent thought and compromise if someone chooses to allow it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

This is the GOP we're talking about here, they deserve no benefit of the doubt

Hopefully, arguments like these were why it was killed, rather than some nonsense about it not having more censorial powers.

Given that I don’t believe for so much as a second that the republican head of the house would kill a bill his own party was champing at the bit for in order to use it to silence and harass LGBTQ+ people I’ve no doubt that he killed it either not because he thought it was bad but because he didn’t think it was bad enough, or becacuse he didn’t want to allow the dems to ‘win’ by passing it during an election year.

Whether due to political spite or a desire for even more damage the bill’s still dead for the moment though so I’ll take what I can get.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I believe this calculus is correct. Republicans have no philosophy of government, no principles, no strategy; they simply want power so that they can be the racists, bigots, misogynists, and fascists they’ve always wanted to be. So killing this bill has NOTHING to do with its content and everything to do with trying to win elections.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Republicans who voted for this bill campaigning to take credit for its defeat — just like they’ve tried to take credit for the passage of bills they voted against.

T.L. (profile) says:

Re:

The Senate version had certain provisions (like the “duty of care” provision being changed to transfer that responsibility from rather than state attorneys general to the FTC) watered down to (at least) temper opposition from civil liberties organizations and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups.

The fact it was publicly stated that the changes to the Senate bill would make it less likely for a MAGA administration to censor content they don’t like (not that it would stop them) may have played a factor in House leadership withholding approval of that version, but the fact that, even if Trump and Republicans don’t win in November, GOP attorneys general can’t sue to intimidate social media companies and search engines into censoring topics like LGBTQ+ issues and abortion might have also hurt its chances, even if they felt denying Democrats a bipartisan win on such polarizing legislation was necessary.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Please. Israel is NOT escalating into WWIII. Not only is that an utterly stupid thing to say, it reveals that you’re an imbecile who has failed to study and learn from history.

Free clue: “Israel is escalating into wWIII” has been trotted out by morons repeatedly, and yet it’s never happened. It won’t happen this time either. And the reason is simple: while Russia loves using various middle-Eastern countries as stalking horses, even they aren’t stupid enough to get into a shooting war with the west. They’re getting their asses kicked by an underfunded underequipped undermanned Ukraine; they would be annihilated by NATO forces.

Israel should continue exterminating terrorists no matter where they are and no matter who gets hurt in the process. It’s time for Hamas to die, no matter what it takes.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

while Russia loves using various middle-Eastern countries as stalking horses, even they aren’t stupid enough to get into a shooting war with the west.

So why did they, then, start a shooting war with Ukraine? Knowing full well that the American logistics machine and all of Europe (except Hungary, Orban’s got Putin’s hand so far up his ass he’s a hand puppet) would oppose any invasion?

learn from history.

The only thing I will acknowledge here is that Israel won’t cause WW3. But…

You’te also cherrypicking history here. Israel has been murdering Gazan civilians since at least 1967, and possibly as early as the 1920s. Israel’s occupation of Gaza has been ruled as illegal since the 1970s, and there is a very clear historical record since the FIRST ICJ ruling that Israel is doing something really bad there. And yes, by first I mean 1967.

Perhaps you should be hitting the history books instead of absorbing your info from Fox News.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Having checked out your assertion regarding Ron Wyden, I have to agree. He publically condemned “Iran’s (actually Hamas) attacks against Israel,” which “threaten innocent Israeli lives,” but has said absolutely nothing about the Israel Government’s decades of attacks on the Gaza Strip and the West Bank threatening innocent Palestinian lives. All in all, Wyden’s bloody good on tech policy, but when it comes to international policy, he comes off as racist and anti-Islamic.

Tdestroyer209 says:

Somewhat relieved KOSA is dead for now

I’m relieved that KOSA is dead for now but you never know what could happen in the house especially by the end of year or next year.

Either way it’s still a win and Blumenthal just got fucked and that makes my day a lot better.

I got several words to say to Blumenthal and any idiot who supported this unconstitutional bill:

GO FUCK YOURSELVES!

Apologies but I needed to get that off my chest.

Grant Gould says:

Idle speculation

I wonder if in this era of performative legislation, voting in favor of a bill is only really beneficial to a politician if the bill then fails — at the other house, at a veto, before the courts. To be in favor of a lost cause means the aesthetics of victory with no accountability for consequences.

It may well be that this passed the Senate because talk is cheap when the House is in the way; it failed in the House because then people had to wonder if there would be consequences beyond mere posturing.

They may ultimately have lost their nerve at the thought that this Supreme Court might not overturn it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

…ban on targeted advertising a blatant speech restriction…

Not really. Banning targeted advertising only means you can’t set a specific type of cookie, it doesn’t mean you can’t say things in commercials that don’t fall under exceptions to the First Amendment. Basically, a ban on targeted advertising is a ban on conduct, not speech.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Having looked into this, I have to agree. With a ban on targeted advertising, advertisers no longer have carte blanche to gather up personal data for advertising purposes and instead have to show adverts based on what you’re looking at (for example, showing adverts for sweaters because you’ve searched for sweaters during that browsing session, not because you searched for sweaters several months ago and now you’re looking for potholders).

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

“Should platforms stop children from seeing climate-related news because climate change is one of the leading sources of anxiety amongst younger generations? Should they stop children from seeing coverage of international conflicts because it could lead to depression?”

As much as I usually hate Paul and his movement’s childish Libertarian ideals, this hit for me.

I grew up in the UK, where I discovered the “greenhouse effect” and the fundamentals of climate change in my first year of high school, if not before. I also saw numerous conflicts, from the Cold War to the Irish “troubles” the the Falklands to the first Iran/Iraq war, among others, not to mention the Thatcher attacks on miners and the working class and so on that hit more locally.

There was certainly depression in those years and beyond, but nothing that matches the fact that I saw collaboration get rid of CFCs and rescue the ozone layer, but constant international expansion of polluting tech elsewhere. Or, the Troubles finally ended but then re-ignited by the folly of Brexit. Or fascist and racist coming back after we’d thought we’d mostly got rid of them.

If kids are “depressed” by the world the earlier generations are leaving them to handle, the fix should be to do what you can to make it better, not to pretend it will be better after you escaped. Basically, all of the climate concerns and most of the conflicts were there when I was a kid to some degree.

KOSA was bad for many reasons, but the idea that you can just make the world a better place by hiding things for children while not making it worse for adults is itself childish.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re:

Republicans supported it because it could and would be used to harass and silence LGBTQ+ people, and that sort of thing sells well for their base.

Democrats supported it because (at best) they didn’t care that it would be used to harass and silence LGBTQ+ people, all they wanted was a ‘Look At Me Doing Something For The Children’ PR opportunity.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

The same reason the DNC not only renewed but expanded the warrant-less domestic spying program – they want the same thing as the RNC, but just don’t want anyone to know they do.

Fortunately for them the general populace is dumber than a sack of lobster bait and are all-in on the delusion that bad things can only happen if the republicans are in charge.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

With the coming porn ban under Project 2025, some pirate IPTV services could become illegal because some of them carry porn.

One site with over 176 thousand total channels includes over 4400 porn channels.

Of course there is no way this can be enforced in the country they operate from. Based on the WhatsApp number they use they are in South Sudan.

Any website in South Sudan is not subject to any American laws, so the operators there are not subject to prosecution in the United States if the Project 2025 porn ban is ever passed. They only have to obey laws in South Sudan.

Leave a Reply to blakestacey Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...