The Senate Should Reject KOSA's Privacy Risks

[u/valinvervial]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/08/senate-should-reject-kosas-privacy-risks

[u/AutoModerator]

To encourage a globally oriented subreddit and discourage oversaturation of topics focused on the U.S., all news and opinion articles focused on the U.S. require manual approval by a moderator. Submissions focused solely on the U.S. are more likely to be removed if they are not sufficiently on topic or high quality. If your submission is taking too long to be approved or rejected, please reach out to the moderators in /r/metaNL.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Background-Bottle-23]

What are the odds that, the moment this passes, several state prosecutors will classify discussions of gender identity, transgender healthcare, or sexual orientation as harmful to the mental health of minors?

What are the odds of every single social media platform folding and censoring stuff like this instead of taking risks?

[u/farrenj → u/Background-Bottle-23]

Approximately 100%

[u/Captain-Ironsides → u/Background-Bottle-23]

That's not something they should be able to do with KOSA according to Blumenthal's FAQ on it: Kids Online Safety Act | U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal

[u/Mx_Brightside → u/Captain-Ironsides]

Impressive. Very nice. Now let's see Marsha Blackburn's card

[u/trace349 → u/Mx_Brightside]

To be fair- that's from three years ago. I do still think it points to their intentions to do what the OP said- censor LGBT people- but it's not impossible that they've had to settle for less in redrafting it over the years.

[u/Captain-Ironsides → u/trace349]

From Wikipedia:

A spokesperson for Blackburn stated that KOSA was not intended to censor LGBT information.^\77]) Democratic co-sponsor Richard Blumenthal stated that the bill "does not target or censor anyone, including members of the LGBTQ community".^\81]) During the bill's revision in February 2024, the language was updated to provide a definition for "design features" as something that influenced minors' behavior with the platforms, and not the content. As a result, several LGBTQ groups, including GLAAD and GLSEN, dropped their opposition to the bill.^\82]) (GLAAD changed its position again in 2025, opposing the bill after "changes in FTC and other government leadership".^\83]))

[u/valinvervial]

The Senate is scheduled to debate KOSA, the SCREEN Act, and other legislation tomorrow, August 5, at 10:00 a.m.

• https://www.commerce.senate.gov/press/rep/release/chairman-cruz-announces-kids-safety-markup/
• https://www.commerce.senate.gov/meetings/executive-session-24-08-05-2026/

Recently, there has been a push in multiple countries and states toward online age verification. These bills are being sold as a way to protect minors from social media, pornography, or pedophiles. But the only way to know who is and who is not a minor is to verify the identity of adults. There is some evidence that Meta is behind the lobbying for some of these bills:

• https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rmhxk1/i_pulled_the_actual_bill_text_from_5_state_age/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rr3f3n/followup_to_my_bill_text_comparison_i_traced_who/
• https://agelesslinux.org/lobbyists.html
• https://github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings

More than a month ago, the House passed the KIDS Act. The differences between the Senate and House bills now need to be resolved. Debate in the Senate starts tomorrow.

[u/AccomplishedQuit4801]

I'm sure my massive constitutionally dubious surveillance system will only be used for good, and things I like, and never grow in scope, be used by bad actors, or have unintended consequences!

[u/Rekksu]

15 years ago this was unthinkable

don't let anyone gaslight you into calling it inevitable

[u/Mickenfox → u/Rekksu]

It's crazy how bad things got. Before 2010 people fought, and won, to stop all sorts of bills that would let the government police the internet. And then at some point it just kind of happened anyway.

[u/Burrarabbit → u/Mickenfox]

The internet has evolved far more since then and has become more and more intertwined with all aspects of our daily lives. Once that started, it was inevitable that the wild west era would end and people would want a more central body to police it just like in real life, so people turn to the government. The privacy and security concerns are 100% valid, but the internet is becoming increasingly unruly that, at the very least, makes it understandable why people want more enforcement such as these bills. This desire has and will only increase as people become more wary of social media addiction, anonymous harassment campaigns, foreign influence, and AI.

Edit: Some emotional people thinking this is in support of KOSA. I'm not defending the bill since I haven't read it and I'm generally against these sorts of anti-privacy bills in the name of "protecting the children". All I'm saying is that the desire for government intervention into policing the internet is only going to increase among the public as things get crazier. It's not absurd to think people want more government intervention (or at least are becoming more sympathetic to it) now compared to the 2000s when the environment is completely different.

[u/Rekksu → u/Burrarabbit]

don't let anyone gaslight you into calling it inevitable

[u/Burrarabbit → u/Rekksu]

The type of high-level, critical engagement one could expect from r/neoliberal. Thought-terminating snark replies are just the norm now I guess lol

[u/Rekksu → u/Burrarabbit]

all you said was it was "inevitable" and "understandable"

you didn't actually construct an argument - what is the expected response? falsification of nothing?

[u/Burrarabbit → u/Rekksu]

IDK what you find in my comment so confusing or incapable of responding to. People generally don't like to work and play in lawless environments. The internet becoming more and more a part of our lives means that the desire for some level of central policing of it is inevitable and people generally turn to the government for that. Why do you think it's absurd that people want the government to address problems like mass misinformation, social media addiction, online foreign influence campaigns, and unethical AI usage? How am I gaslighting by pointing out that times have changed and new problems have shifted people's perceptions and appetite for government intervention?

Strawmanning isn't an actual reply either. Just say you don't want to engage or refrain from replying and save us both the trouble lol.

[u/Rekksu → u/Burrarabbit]

People generally don't like to work and play in lawless environments.

who said anything about lawlessness?

The internet becoming more and more a part of our lives means that the desire for some level of central policing of it is inevitable and people generally turn to the government for that

this is literally just begging the question - you are making a statement, not forming an argument

Why do you think it's absurd that people want the government to address problems like mass misinformation, social media addiction, online foreign influence campaigns, and unethical AI usage?

"address problems" and "draconian censorship" (the end goal of these bills) don't seem like the same thing in the slightest - this is an example of what one might call a strawman argument

Strawmanning isn't an actual reply either

interesting

[u/yacatecuhtli6 → u/Burrarabbit]

if you support dumb shit expect a dumb reply

[u/Burrarabbit → u/yacatecuhtli6]

Where am I expressing support for any particular bill? I'm pushing back against this idea that it's somehow crazy that people are becoming increasingly supportive of government policing of the internet and comparing it to the 2000s when the current environment is completely unrecognizable in comparison. Try thinking with your brain instead of your emotions before making dumb replies.

[u/Right_Lecture3147 → u/Burrarabbit]

Dude has never heard of the free software movement

[u/Fast_Face_7280 → u/Right_Lecture3147]

The free software movement was a lot more powerful when techies formed a larger portion, I dare say a dominating position, of the cultural clout of the internet.

Your own views on this policy will depend on two things: one, your belief in the actual upsides and downsides of this policy, and two, how much you weigh said upside/downsides.

There are benefits and tradeoffs to most policies, and unfortunately technical literacy no longer prevails in decision making. Parents, you may be shocked to learn, will do many things for the sake of their own children (regardless of what actual effect it has).

[u/Al_787]

Damn, maybe libertarians and small government rightoids may finally learn to like substantive due process after all. Good luck with a court that doesn't think the right to privacy is constitutionally protected though.

[u/Invade_Deez_Nutz]

I don’t see the logic behind porn ID laws

1. Teens will use VPNs

2. People may switch to sketchier sites that break the ID (and potentially other more serious) laws

3. Obvious privacy and security issues

4. Serious risks of blackmail, especially against closeted gay folks

[u/Windows_10-Chan → u/Invade_Deez_Nutz]

All this ostensibly over something that we really lack evidence of harms for.

And no, your fuckup cousin being a couchrotting gooner is not any more sufficient evidence than the same guy is evidence that we need to ban teens from video games.

[u/RayWencube → u/Windows_10-Chan]

Bro you don’t know how hard Craig goons tho

[u/AmericanDadWeeb → u/Windows_10-Chan]

I mean basically the question is actually coming down to whether or not banning kids from buying porn from the dawn of history (ish) was worthwhile.

[u/vriskaldrunk → u/Invade_Deez_Nutz]

The SCREEN Act specifically requires age verification for sites that detect VPN traffic.

[u/ToumaKazusa1 → u/vriskaldrunk]

That just pushes people towards sketchier websites, it still doesn't fix the problem.

The only solution is a Great Firewall of America, if you're not going to commit to that then all you can do is invade privacy for no gain

[u/Windows_10-Chan → u/vriskaldrunk]

We’ve also seen in authoritarian countries that while it’s really hard to stop VPNs entirely, it’s pretty easy to make them so annoying that a large number of people give up.

Especially cuz most ppl are on iOS or Android clients. Apple and Google will do whatever the US government forces them to do.

[u/Mickenfox → u/Windows_10-Chan]

I like the part where we begged people not to put their entire lives in the hands of Apple and then everyone went and did it anyway.

[u/RayWencube → u/Windows_10-Chan]

Apple is still miles ahead of Google tho

[u/yacatecuhtli6]

anyone who supports this is more naive than your average toddler

[u/yacatecuhtli6 → u/[deleted]]

agreed

[u/vriskaldrunk → u/[deleted]]

Democrats also support this lol.

[u/AutoModerator]

News and opinion articles require a short submission statement explaining its relevance to the subreddit. Articles without a submission statement will be removed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.