In a House Energy and Commerce Committee markup last week, many legislators announced their intentions to support the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) even though they disfavor certain provisions in the bill. Those concerns are justified—but the decision to pass the bill anyway is not. Passing legislation with the intent to revise and revisit is neither prudent design nor responsible policymaking.
House KOSA cosponsor Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) voiced support for the bill on the condition that any remaining issues be resolved at a later date. Similarly, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) voted for the bill but is rightly concerned about empowering the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to regulate algorithms that determine content recommendations.
Congress should have fixed these policy deficiencies in committee when it had the chance. Instead, Energy and Commerce kicked the can down the road, forcing the entire House Chamber to address the many unintended consequences and risking that those needed changes go unaddressed.
Some provisions may be interpreted to increase viewpoint censorship. How, and to what extent, KOSA conflicts with First Amendment protections remains an open question. The details of implementation are still murky, and expanding the authority of the FTC to regulate content recommending algorithms remains a hotly debated and otherwise questionable decision. And even the legislation’s modest improvements to its “duty of care provision” are just that—modest. As in insufficient to correct the problem.
Earlier iterations of KOSA relied on a one-size-fits-all approach to harm reduction that makes platforms liable for vague requirements to prevent mental health disorders and behaviors. Fortunately, the post-markup version more specifically requires platforms to curtail inherently dangerous actions that would cause severe emotional disturbance, defined in the bill as a diagnosable mental illness that impairs functioning, or bodily harm. A modest improvement that clarifies some of the ambiguity that plagued previous versions of the legislation. But that change is entirely insufficient. Deciding whether content led to ”emotional disturbance” is subjective and likely to be debated in courtrooms—a costly proposition for taxpayers and the consumers that use these products and services.
Read the full article here.
Trey Price is a policy analyst with the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, visit us at www.TheAmericanConsumer.Org or follow us on X @ConsumerPal.