Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced KOSA in 2022, and it has gone through a few revisions since. Some lawmakers are disappointed with the version of the bill they are seeing in the House. How they reach agreement on this point will determine whether the bill continues.

Early legislation, such as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, turned an eye toward what information platforms take from their young users and placed corresponding restrictions. Now the legislative gaze has shifted to consider what the platforms impart.

KOSA starts from the principle that a company ought to be concerned about the harm it does to its clients. Under the legislation, platforms would be required to provide minors the option to protect their information and to be excluded from algorithmic recommendations. Platforms would also be responsible for conducting annual audits of their algorithms and data.

As noble as KOSA’s “duty of care” is, one cannot overlook that it is also vague. By leaving somewhat undefined how platforms are to take up this task, the bill leaves specifics blurry. Its authors note preventing specific harms including mental health disorders (anxiety, depression, eating, substance abuse, suicide), compulsive social media use, sexual exploitation, physical violence, and narcotics. We know well though that these days, just about anything can be included in the realm of harm causing.

That point makes up the best of the opposition to KOSA. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) argues that the bill cites the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders, a document that often sees updating. Thus, “the scope of the bill could change overnight,” in accordance with the DSM-5. Any standard conservative talking points could fall victim to serious free speech infringement.

Critics on the Left have offered the same opposition, mainly out of fear that the government will censor LGBT content and other progressive issues. But KOSA focuses on “design features,” not censorship. The bill specifies that it will not restrict minors from “deliberately and independently searching” for any given content. It is concerned with scrolling patterns, notification, rewards, and personalized recommendations.

Paul claims that “website design does not cause harm,” so KOSA regulates it needlessly. Data on social media addiction and mental health decline say otherwise, especially as observed alongside parents’ intentional screen-time restrictions. Less social media use alleviates youth mental health risk. The designs of these platforms determine how appealing they are to users and so contribute to rates of addiction and how much explicit content is encountered.

Other data indicate that students do markedly worse when learning on screens than paper. It is not just the goodness or badness of the content that harms children, but the screen use itself.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Regulation of website design is necessary as it pertains to youth on social media. Claims that such regulation will impinge upon free speech certainly are warranted, but they can be avoided if legislators workshop KOSA carefully. 

This result requires collaboration, not immediate writing off of the bill. The Left accomplishes things by insistence and by not compromising. It works sometimes, but there is a lot at stake with this hopeful bill, and shooting it down might set things even further back.