Joseph Battista, Editor

If you Google the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and click through a few links, you’ll notice polarizing results. Of these, two stances likely dominated the search: those supporting KOSA and those opposing KOSA. The source you read will paint a drastically different reality of the situation. At least, it did for me. I drank the Kool-Aid… In a heroic sacrifice to save others from this fated path, I will explain both stances.

So, what is KOSA? According to the legislative bill itself and KOSA’s supporters, it is a means of protecting youth, specifically 13 or under, from harmful content on online social platforms through regulations. But, according to opposition, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Stop KOSA, it is a censorship bill that threatens online freedoms for all internet users. As you can see, one side is sunshine and rainbows for the children, and the other, an eternal hellscape for everyone, with evil giant praying mantis overlords.

The generalized opposition’s stance is that KOSA may seem beneficial, but censorship of content creates potential for a dangerous future, especially considering possible penalties for KOSA non-compliers. The current state of book censorship in schools establishes a precedent that stirs concern. A majority of banned books feature LGBTQ+ or characters within marginalized groups, themes of race and racism and sexual education, according to Pen America. What will the internet look like if censorship follows the same trend?

Additionally, a concern for data privacy is raised. Electronic Frontier Foundation states that official documents could be needed to confirm a user’s age, in order to access the uncensored internet. Effectively, a user is tied to their legal identity. Those who refuse to provide documentation, for privacy’s sake, maybe they want to feet fiend in anonymity, will be surfing the same internet as Cocomelon’s biggest fans. Their perception of KOSA creates a bleak future, but is this the actual case?

KOSA’s current iteration does not seem to reflect the concerns that opposers raise. Senator Blumenthal, who proposed the KOSA bill in 2022, describes the revised legislation on his website. To begin, the bill focuses on holding social platforms responsible for the duty of care of users under the age of 13. Simply put, these platforms need to take greater responsibility in how content is served to youth. 

Mature content themes such as suicide, eating disorders and substance abuse should not be recommended to youth by algorithms under duty of care. Additionally, features that increase user consumption would not be enabled like auto-play features and push notifications.

The bill does not require users to report their age through documentation, and only applies to social sites that require an age to make a profile, not blogs or other smaller independent sites. Censorship of content in the larger scope will not be necessary; organizations are not held liable for mature content hosted. Everyone loves the occasional YouTube with dinner, but now algorithms can’t serve children their dinner with a lukewarm side of LiveLeak’s top trending. 

KOSA appears to be a rallying cry for a safer internet for children, rather than an impending dictatorship where flesh is currency. The discrepancies between stances are large. This may be because of the bill’s previous stricter iterations leaving opponents with a sour taste, or the vague description of penalties for non-compliers and some abstractness in its text. Regardless, these are the stances, and both present fair concerns. Do you stand with or against KOSA? Your decision will shape the internet’s future.