| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
Corrupting the Youth: KOSA and Greek Philosophy | | |
In December 2024, the Senate hardened kids’ virtual cages while softening some "harms" for covered platforms by striking language like "predatory... marketing." Previously, Sec. 101 of the bipartisan bill had defined “compulsive usage” as “any response stimulated by external factors that causes [sic] an individual to engage in repetitive behavior reasonably likely to cause psychological distress, loss of control, anxiety, or depression.” But now, it is “a persistent and repetitive use of a covered platform that significantly impacts [emphasis] one or more major life activities of an individual." Yet, how exactly is a “covered platform” to know what really impacts the lives of children?—apparently, through commercial surveillance, because Sec. 102(a) (“Duty of Care”) now says: “(III) Patterns of use that indicate compulsive usage.” | |
<
< | Ascertaining such “patterns” implies averaging across millions of online communications, so nothing would really be learned as to any one particular minor’s use of Discord or Reddit. Blindly, though, such firms must be intrusive to establish what is “compulsive,” so while Sec. 102(a)(II) may suggest that some health care professionals will play a role in guiding FTC enforcement (“clinically diagnosable symptoms”), minors’ privacy breach is probably the only foreseeable harm within the risk, as "anonymized" data can be utilized and are inherently valuable. Notably, Meta cannot even automatically flag disturbing adult content for removal, so increasing firms' vigilance against kids will likely only result in more foreign grown-ups watching Americans. Developers can build stronger nets for smaller fish, but some brain development will be misapprehended as “brainrot” whenever adults are not in on the joke. Before, it was problematic that “compulsive usage” under Sec. 101(3) was predicated on external factors “reasonably likely to cause” such compulsion, but now, it is worse that these criteria have given way to a set of factors that “significantly impacts” kids. Overall, the shift from probable to actual knowledge underscores how “covered platforms” will probably incur KYC obligations like mandatory age verification, as the EFF has predicted.[4] | >
> | Ascertaining such “patterns” implies averaging across millions of online communications, so nothing would really be learned as to any one particular minor’s use of Discord or Reddit. Blindly, though, such firms must be intrusive to establish what is “compulsive,” so while Sec. 102(a)(II) may suggest that some health care professionals will play a role in guiding FTC enforcement (“clinically diagnosable symptoms”), minors’ privacy breach is probably the only foreseeable harm within the risk, as "anonymized" data can be utilized and are inherently valuable. Notably, Meta cannot even effectively flag disturbing adult content for removal, so increasing corporate vigilance will likely only result in a greater number of overseas adults surveilling American kids. Developers can build stronger nets for smaller fish, but some brain development will be misapprehended as “brainrot” whenever adults are not in on the joke. Before, it was problematic that “compulsive usage” under Sec. 101(3) was predicated on external factors “reasonably likely to cause” such compulsion, but now, it is worse that these criteria have given way to a set of factors that “significantly impacts” kids. Overall, the shift from probable to actual knowledge underscores how “covered platforms” will probably incur KYC obligations like mandatory age verification, as the EFF has predicted.[4] | | | First Amendment, Second Act | |
<
< |
In The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Zuboff recounts the FTC’s $2.2M settlement with Vizio in 2017 after it was discovered that its TVs were watching the family at home.[5] Today, Vizio's business model depends on customer data which could make it liable as a “covered platform” under KOSA, and generally, the ever-expanding IOT complicates KOSA’s paternalistic goals (e.g. should Mattel sell at least 10 million “smart” Barbie dream homes that children play with, why would that not be an “online video game” regulated under Sec. 101(11)?).[6] Assuming arguendo that KOSA is constitutional under the First Amendment,[7] the 119th Congress should seriously reconsider KOSA’s policy goals. Recently, social media companies like Meta have publicly announced "AI agents" communicating with in-app users, and guarding against such use of large language models may better support kids’ online engagement without suffocating their self-expression. After all, statistical models are poor proxies for communicative genius, and where G2 estimated Reddit users made some 550 million posts last year alone, there was probably at least one philosophical haiku written by a kid. | >
> |
In The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Zuboff recounts the FTC’s $2.2M settlement with Vizio in 2017 after it was discovered that Vizio's TVs were secretly watching their owners at home.[5] Today, Vizio's business model depends on customer data which could make it liable as a “covered platform” under KOSA, and generally, the ever-expanding IOT complicates KOSA’s paternalistic goals (e.g. should Mattel sell at least 10 million “smart” Barbie dream homes that children play with, why would that not be an “online video game” regulated under Sec. 101(11)?).[6] Assuming arguendo that KOSA is constitutional under the First Amendment,[7] the 119th Congress should seriously reconsider KOSA’s policy goals. Recently, social media companies like Meta have publicly announced "AI agents" communicating with in-app users, and guarding against such use of large language models may better support kids’ online engagement without suffocating their self-expression. After all, statistical models are poor proxies for communicative genius, and where G2 estimated Reddit users made some 550 million posts last year alone, there was probably at least one philosophical haiku written by a kid. | | |
Endnotes: | | |
- n.b. Sec. 107(a) authorizes a joint report between the FTC and Commerce Department on age verification.
- Zuboff, p. 170.
- Zuboff, p. 171.
| |
<
< |
- See NetChoice v. Bonta (where the Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Act’s Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) requirement resembling KOSA’s “duty of care”).
| >
> |
- See NetChoice v. Bonta (where the Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Act DPIA requirement resembling KOSA’s “duty of care”).
| | |
|
|