Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children?

[L'Emmerdeur]

The geriatric clowns in the US Congress want to protect children from 'harmful content' on the internet. Thus, the 'Kids Online Safety Act.' As if children who want to get access to online material could be thwarted by a law. The grandchildren of these legislators undoubtedly understand how to navigate the internet (and circumvent restrictions) far better than they do. If passed, it could have a negative impact on adult users of the net while doing little to protect children.

'The Kids Online Safety Act isn’t all right, critics say'

Evan Greer, deputy director of the nonprofit digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future, told Ars that the organization "strongly supports strict regulation of Big Tech companies," but as far as Fight for the Future can tell, KOSA is not the privacy bill that supporters claim that it is.

"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."

Because KOSA enforcement falls to state attorneys general—many of whom are elected officials— the ACLU's senior policy counsel Cody Venzke told Ars that it's easier for the government to target and censor specific viewpoints that clash with their party politics.

Mullin agreed, saying that part of the reason why KOSA has so much bipartisan support is because both Democrats and Republicans are in favor of censoring opposing viewpoints and are "assuming the censorship will go their way."

"It's just totally crazy," Mullin told Ars. "People have very different views on how you can mitigate" harms like "eating disorders, addiction, bullying, sexual exploitation, drug use, alcohol use, gambling, tobacco use, and all predatory or deceptive marketing practices" by "controlling online speech."

"People don't agree about what's harmful on any of these issues," Mullin said. "These are challenging things to deal with, and families do it differently. And I don't think it's gonna be better when the government starts creating rules about it."

Venzke told Ars that "outside of very narrow exceptions," it's "not Congress's role to decide what is good speech and what is bad speech."

And he thinks that question probably shouldn't be up to platforms to answer, either. Venzke warned that KOSA would take decisions about kids' welfare out of the family's hands.

Instead, Venzke said that platforms would be required to "look at content that causes depression or anxiety"—"which is, of course, anything that's out there in the world"—and make decisions that could result in platforms dictating what speech flies online. Beyond cutting kids off from information, that could lead to wide-ranging censorship of the entire Internet, and TechFreedom's Cohn told Ars that's why he's found the bill's widespread support "baffling."

The fact that the right wing zealot hair farmer Marsha Blackburn is a co-sponsor of the bill should be enough to make its main sponsor Richard Blumenthal have second thoughts, but then he's just another wealthy stooge.

[aufbahrung]

Moral panic - over-reaction. The Roman Empire didn't fall because of its wild and unfettered content either. Novels will send you mad, best limit their usage.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I understand the desire to shelter young minds from truly horrendous content on the internet but the US government is not equipped to do it nor should it be, in my opinion.

Moreover, I certainly don't trust the US government to make decisions regarding which content needs to be restricted. As pointed out in various items on the topic, people like Marsha Blackburn would like nothing better than to put a lock on frank discussions of LGBT issues, for instance. Show your government issued ID along with a selfie or no go for you!

[L'Emmerdeur]

Probably should have lead with this one.

'Crackdowns on Encrypted Messaging Don’t "Help the Children"'

U.K. government officials, for years, have voiced concerns that online services don’t do enough to tackle illegal content, particularly child sexual abuse material. The “solution” was the Online Safety Bill, ostensibly seeking to make the U.K. the world’s safest place to use the internet.

But the bill in its current form would achieve the opposite—by requiring websites and apps to proactively prevent harmful content from appearing on messaging services. That necessarily must lead to universal scanning of all user content: All users’ text messages, images, and videos would be checked and monitored before being posted.

It’s a 21st-century form of prior restraint, violating the very essence of free speech. It’s a death knell for end-to-end encryption, and with it, every internet user’s right to privacy.

Private communication is a fundamental human right, and in the online world, the best tool we have to defend this right is end-to-end encryption. It ensures that governments, tech companies, social media platforms, and other groups cannot view or access our private messages, the pictures we share with family and friends, or our bank account details. This is a particularly vital protection for the most vulnerable in society, such as children seeking relief from abuse or human rights defenders working in hostile environments.

Civil society organizations, security experts, and tech companies have clearly and unequivocally asked for this bill’s anti-encryption sections to be withdrawn; Apple in June joined the chorus of voices warning that the bill “could put U.K. citizens at greater risk.” Secure communications providers, including Signal and WhatsApp, have said they will halt all U.K. service if the law is passed as written.

The consensus is that there’s no backdoor to encryption that won’t be exploited by bad actors such as cyber criminals, rogue employees, domestic abusers, and authoritarian governments.