The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is back in the Senate. Sponsors are claiming\u2014again\u2014that the latest version won\u2019t censor online content. It isn\u2019t true. This bill still sets up a censorship regime disguised as a \u201cduty of care,\u201d and it will do what previous versions threatened: suppress lawful, important speech online, especially for young people.<\/p>\n
TAKE ACTION<\/a><\/p>\n KOSA\u00a0W<\/a>ill silence kids and adults<\/p>\n KOSA Still Forces Platforms to Police Legal Speech<\/p>\n At the center of the bill is a requirement that platforms \u201cexercise reasonable care\u201d to prevent and mitigate a sweeping list of harms to minors, including depression, anxiety, eating disorders, substance use, bullying, and \u201ccompulsive usage.\u201d The bill claims to bar lawsuits over \u201cthe viewpoint of users,\u201d but that\u2019s a smokescreen<\/a>. Its core function is to let government agencies sue platforms, big or small, that don\u2019t block or restrict content someone later claims contributed to one of these harms.\u00a0<\/p>\n When the safest legal option is to delete a forum, platforms will delete the forum.<\/p>\n This bill won\u2019t bother big tech. Large companies will be able to manage this regulation, which is why Apple<\/a> and X<\/a> have agreed to support it. In fact, X helped negotiate the text<\/a> of the last version of this bill we saw. Meanwhile, those companies\u2019 smaller competitors will be left scrambling to comply. Under KOSA, a small platform hosting mental health discussion boards will be just as vulnerable as Meta or TikTok\u2014but much less able to defend itself.\u00a0<\/p>\n To avoid liability, platforms will over-censor. It\u2019s not merely hypothetical. It\u2019s what happens when speech becomes a legal risk. The list of harms in KOSA\u2019s \u201cduty of care\u201d provision is so broad and vague that no platform will know what to do regarding any given piece of content. Forums won\u2019t be able to host posts with messages like \u201clove your body,\u201d \u201cplease don\u2019t do drugs,\u201d or \u201chere\u2019s how I got through depression\u201d without fearing that an attorney general or FTC lawyer might later decide the content was harmful. Support groups and anti-harm communities, which can\u2019t do their work without talking about difficult subjects like eating disorders, mental health, and drug abuse, will get caught in the dragnet.\u00a0<\/p>\n When the safest legal option is to delete a forum, platforms will delete the forum.<\/p>\n There\u2019s Still No Science Behind KOSA\u2019s Core Claims<\/p>\n KOSA relies heavily on vague, subjective harms like \u201ccompulsive usage.\u201d The bill defines it as repetitive online behavior that disrupts life activities like eating, sleeping, or socializing. But here\u2019s the problem: there is no accepted clinical definition of \u201ccompulsive usage\u201d of online services.<\/p>\n There\u2019s no scientific consensus that online platforms cause mental health disorders, nor agreement on how to measure so-called \u201caddictive\u201d behavior online. The term sounds like settled medical science, but it\u2019s legislative sleight-of-hand: an undefined concept given legal teeth, with major consequences for speech and access to information.<\/p>\n Carveouts Don\u2019t Fix the First Amendment Problem<\/p>\n The bill says it can\u2019t be enforced based on a user\u2019s \u201cviewpoint.\u201d But the text of the bill itself preferences certain viewpoints<\/a> over others. Plus, liability in KOSA attaches to the platform, not the user. The only way for platforms to reduce risk in the world of KOSA is to monitor, filter, and restrict what users say.<\/p>\n If the FTC can sue a platform because minors saw a medical forum discussing anorexia, or posts about LGBTQ identity, or posts discussing how to help a friend who\u2019s depressed, then that\u2019s censorship. The bill\u2019s stock language that \u201cviewpoints are protected\u201d won\u2019t matter. The legal incentives guarantee that platforms will silence even remotely controversial speech to stay safe.<\/p>\n Lawmakers who support KOSA today are choosing to trust the current administration, and future administrations, to define what youth\u2014and to some degree, all of us\u2014should be allowed to read online.\u00a0<\/p>\n KOSA will not make kids safer. It will make the internet more dangerous for anyone who relies on it to learn, connect, or speak freely. Lawmakers should reject it, and fast.\u00a0<\/p>\n