Talk:Kids Online Safety Act

Editorialized opinions in article

“Likewise, Senator Blackburn, co-author of the bill, has argued that education about racism (which she frames as "critical race theory") is dangerous for children and should be prohibited, claiming it causes distress and depresses children; this too can be framed as harm to minors' mental health in the framework provided by the bill.”

This seems to be a bit politically biased. Wouldn’t it be better to directly quote Blackburn without giving individual opinions about what does and does not constitute racism/critical race theory? You could just not quote her and say that this “could censor contemporary discussions on race in public schools?” 2A02:A420:4C:62E6:3164:98:7160:A461 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, happy to revise. I swapped in some quotes from Blackburn (although in the press release, it was a little hard to find a single succinct, continuous quote summarizing it). I also noted that the interpretation was provided by the EFF source. Also added the expanded quote from Blackburn in the citation's quote field. (revision link) Catleeball (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Last two sentences are incomprehensible.

Here are the last two sentences:

1) Senator Blackburn, co-author of the bill, has argued is a "dangerous ideology" that can inflict "mental and emotional damage" upon children.

2)EFF columnist Jason Kelly states that with the mental health in the framework provided by the bill, that KOSA could be used to censor education about racism in schools.

In second-to-last sentence, it is not stated what is a "dangerous ideology". The most logical assumption would be that the word "it" was left out, and it should read, "Senator Blackburn, co-author of the bill, has argued it is a "dangerous ideology" that can inflict "mental and emotional damage" upon children. But I don't believe Sen Blackburn, one of the bill's authors, has said this.

In the last sentence, the phrase, "...the mental health in the framework provided by the bill...", is unclear. Does it mean "...the mental health framework provided by the bill...", "the mental health provisions in the bill...", or what?

I think these two problems were the result of editing done in response to the previous comment, "Editorialized opinions in article". Stuart.soloway (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that's completely my bad, sorry! I published a couple additional edits to clarify. Does that help? Catleeball (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Bill summary

Is the current text in the "Bill summary" needed? There are a few sources other than the bill that summarize the legislation itself in a better way:
"‘New text, same problems’: inside the fight over child online safety laws" - The Guardian
"Passing the Kids Online Safety Act just got more complicated" - The Verge
"200 groups push Senate to vote on Kids Online Safety Act in 2024" - NBC News — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the top 1 contributor to this article about this matter: Catleeball — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 17:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Follow your dreams :)

00:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Catleeball (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kids Online Safety Act/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC): Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Hi. I'll be happy to review this article.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Major Concern 1: It is quite clear this article is way too under-developed. This is a major proposed change in federal law (per the Guardian: "Kosa would be the biggest change to American tech legislation in decades") I understand it's still a bill but I highly encourage the nominator to look at other GA articles on US law (e.g, Illinois Freedom of Information Act).:

• Lead: Clearly very under-developed but why is "Blackburn has argued that resources on topics such as racism and the civil rights movement overlap with critical race theory, which she sees as "dangerous"" the last sentence? Without reading the rest of the article I have no idea what that sentence is trying to say.

• Bill summary: This bill is over 100 pages. It will take far more than 3 sentences to summarize it. Nothing on general scope of the bill
• History: Extremely limited information (about 3 sentences) on why the bill was created. What is the status quo on laws concerning social media and children? Why does Biden support it? Why do Democrats support it? Why do Republicans? So many unanswered questions.
• Reception: Ok, I'm not saying "both sides" needs to be equal in the reception section. But if you're going to start off by saying "KOSA has been supported by over 200 groups..." you're going to need to at least give a paragraph or two on why the bill is supported.

Major Concern 2: The second problem in this article is sourcing. You cite way too many advocacy groups directly. Instead, try to get their opinions from reliable, secondary sources. Other sourcing concerns:

• Teen Vogue: I don't think Teen Vogue is the best source on US politics. But beyond that, the cited article is an op-ed. You can not use an op-ed for facts.
• Substack: You can't use an SPS. I do not believe the author (Parker Molloy) would qualify as a subject matter expert. They seem more like a general blogger/writer.
• TechCrunch: Per RSP, TechCrunch isn't the strongest source and I'm sure you can easily replace it with a better one.

All-in-all, the primary sources + the advocacy group sources + the other questionable sources contribute to almost 50% of this article's sources. Due to the sheer amount of poor sources and the clear fact that this article is not broad in coverage, I will need to quick fail it because "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". Since I am still new to GA reviews, I will allow a more experienced reviewer close this. Thank you and good luck on improving the article! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I will agree with @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's resolution on this GA on the counts that it does not broadly represent the subject nor is it written with a neutral point of view. On the count of the sources - most of the less reliable sources are being specifically used in reception and have the statements preceding them delineated as "critics say..." Still, given the breadth of this topic, there's no doubt there are better sources that could be used to replace self-published ones, especially those that summarize the viewpoints of advocacy groups. Much of the article in the History section and before is well cited. The primary takeaways are that the lead, history and scope need expansion and that reception should use fewer primary sources. Reconrabbit 15:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

I want to update this page to add information about the house version of the bill,1 2 3 4,the failed attempt to add the bill to the FAA reauthorization act of 2024 1 2 4 5, and the vote for the Senate version of the bill (with like 50 billion sources and counting). 2603:6080:7202:74B0:A522:4E40:C6A:402F (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Note, it was the senate version that they tried to add to the FAA act, not the house version. 2603:6080:7202:74B0:A522:4E40:C6A:402F (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Done I've added all three points to the article Masem (t) 17:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I would also suggest to add the court challenges it might face in the wake of the Netchoice SCOTUS case and similar bills at the state level getting blocked by local judges [1] [2] [3] [4], Rand Paul and Rick Santorum’s criticism of the bill [5] [6] [7], and ACLU’s attempt to protest the bill at Capitol Hill [8] [9] 2603:6080:7202:74B0:A522:4E40:C6A:402F (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Probably too early to talk court challenges until there is an actual chance of passage from house. Masem (t) 18:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, I do feel like the other 2 points are notable enough to add to the article though. 2603:6080:7202:74B0:A522:4E40:C6A:402F (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  Those other points I will try to get to, just not at a place to digest them better to include. Masem (t) 19:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  As for the senator criticism, there could be new sections talking about both support and opposition from both chambers of congress (but that is just a suggestion). 2603:6080:7202:74B0:A522:4E40:C6A:402F (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

Following up my previous edit request, I want to make more changes and drastically expand the page (by about double the length) by including as much information about the bill as possible.

1. There is a source for Blackburn calling CRT "dangerous", but not sure where the comment of her overlapping the Civil Rights movement with CRT came from. https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/critical-race-theory-an-action-plan-to-stop-its-implementation
2. Replace the summary with something like this (you can improve it if you want);

"The Kids Online Safety Act, if passed signed into law, would require covered platforms to take measures to reduce online dangers for children by creating a liability or a "duty of care" for apps and social networking platforms regarding content that may not be suitable for minors, requiring that they change their design to reduce "harmful" design features like infinite scrolling, notifications, and "Personalized recommendation systems" to minors,[10], and allowing parents, guardians, minors, and schools to report certain harms. The bill defines covered platform as "an Online Platform, Online Video Game, Messaging Service, or Video Streaming Service that connects to the Internet and that is used, or reasonably likely to be used, by a minor".[11] Enforcement would be handled to both the FTC and individual state attorneys general.

• • Note: This is based on the version from February of 2024.

1. Expand the History section with even more info, namely;
   1. Before the committee vote on July 27th, 2023, a number of amendments were made to the bill to appeal to the critics. [12] Notably;
      1. Tightening the knowledge standard "so that websites and apps can only be held liable if they actually know there’s a young person using their service". [13]
      2. Removing filter bubbles, which the EFF argues pushes users "towards a chronological feed". [14][15]
      3. Exempting a VPN. [16]
      4. And changing the word "Gender" to "Sex". [17]
   2. In November of 2023, whistleblower and former Meta engineering director Arturo Beja testified in congress before a Senate subcommittee hearing about social media and the teen mental health crisis. This is related to KOSA as;
      1. He met with the lead sponsors of the bill before the hearing.[18]
      2. The hearing would lead to a renewed push in the bill. [19][20]
   3. In January of 2024, the Senate held a meeting with the CEOs of Meta, TikTok, Snap Inc., Discord, and Twitter regarding child safety. This hearing would lead eventually lead to further renewed interest and support for the bill. [21][22][23][24]
   4. In June of 2024, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for age ratings "Similar to tobacco warnings" to be placed on Social Media, likely furthering the push for KOSA. [25][26][27]
   5. Include in the history of the house version of the bill that the house version changes how the "duty of care" provision works to be based on a tiered knowledge system, excluding platforms where "chat, comments, or interactivity is not the predominant purpose of the service", and updating what it defines as "compulsive usage". [28]
2. Include a legislative history table (similar to the EARN IT Act page)
3. Add this section to the beginning of the reception section; "The bill has received criticism from Conservatives and Liberals. Supporters of the bill argue that the bill will protect kids from harmful content [29], help make Big Tech accountable for "failing to protect kids" [30], and enable parents to have more control on their kids[31]. Opponents on the other hand have criticized the bill for being "too vague" in what it defines as "harmful content" and for expanding the power of the FTC [32], many have argued that the bill could be used to target marginalized communities (mainly the LGBT community) [33], censor free speech protected by the 1st Amendment [34], make it harder for minors to search up information on controversial topics like Racism, Climate Change, and LGBT Issues, and implement ID-based age verification systems [35]."
4. Rework and expand the reception section by separating the into 3 subsections; "Non-governmental organizations", "Members of Congress", and "Federal Officials" (similar to how the page for the EARN IT Act does it, just with an additional subsection)
   1. Following the comments made by Blackburn to the Family Alliance, a group of 100 parents of transgender youth signed an open urging the US Senate to oppose KOSA.[36][37][38]
   2. The Heritage Foundation supports the bill so that it could be used to target transgender content, making it possible that the bill is related to Project 2025 (plus Project 2025 mentions social media addiction and Big Tech). [39][40][41]
   3. National Center on Sexual Exploitation (unsurprisingly) supports KOSA. [42][43]
   4. Common Sense Media supports KOSA and thanked the Senate for "finally listening to parents". [44][45]
   5. Ant-Abortion group Students for Life opposes KOSA, citing free speech concerns. [46]
   6. Vice President Kamala Harris supports KOSA (per Twitter), citing "This bipartisan legislation will help protect children's mental health, safety, and privacy online." [47][48]
   7. Democrat Senator Ron Wyden (unsurprisingly) opposes KOSA, saying that it "could be used to sue services that offer privacy-enhancing technologies like encryption or anonymity features that are essential to young people’s ability to communicate securely and privately without being spied on by predators online".[49][50]
   8. Republican Senator Rand Paul opposes KOSA, calling it a "Trojan horse"[51], he argues that the bill "opens the door to nearly limitless content regulation because platforms will censor users rather than risk liability", [52][53]
   9. Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum opposes KOSA and compared it to the Biden Disinformation Board, citing concerns about censorship of conservative viewpoints and concerns about the potential for increased identity theft. Blackburn responded by calling him a "Front for Big Tech" on the issue. [54]
   10. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries supports KOSA, while Representatives Frank Pallone, Maxwell Frost, and AOC all oppose KOSA (Frank citing concerns over the "duty of care" provision and Maxwell citing the concerns about censorship for LGBT youth). [55]
   11. Personal care brand Dove is a supporter of KOSA and partnered with Lizzo in 2023 to back KOSA which led to some controversy, with LGBTQ activists and Fight for the Future calling on Lizzo to drop her support. [56][57][58][59][60]

This was a lot of work and research, I hope these changes will improve the article. 2603:6080:7202:74B0:2574:6450:75DD:C6ED (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there no way to neutrally point out that her spokesperson's statement directly contradicts things Sen Blackburn has said?

It seems important to me for the article to note that her spokesperson's statement that KOSA is "not intended to censor LGBT information" is an overt lie, since Blackburn has explicitly stated that is in fact intended to do that.

I understand not using emotional or biased language concerning this, but it does seem important for Wikipedia to note when referenced statements are provably false? Okto8 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blackburn has spoken out on her stance on LGBT, and has said in quotes that we should have legislation to block that info, but she has not been quoted or said to have specifically said KOSA was to be used to block LGBT info. Inference is there, and that's why several LGBT groups have said the bill has issues and leading to her spokesperson statement, but I can't find any source that has Blackburn explicitly stating KOSA is to be used to censor LGBT info. We need a statement like that, as well as a source that states that the spokesperson's comment was contradictory. — Masem (t) 18:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Excess use of primary sources in reception

We need to trim back the use of primary sources in the reception section. Any group or their stance should be something that has been mentioned by third-parties as to avoid the problem with loading up the reception with anyone's stance they have published themselves. I know there are sources to support some of the groups mentioned, but too many included now are only based on the group's statements. — Masem (t) 00:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)