Congress is revisiting the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), an act about child online safety that would restrict access to social media for teens ages 13 to 17, and ban access to social media for children under the age of 13. Many seem to have reservations about the new act and the harm it could bring to teenagers across the country.
The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) aims to protect children from aspects of social media that harm the privacy and mental health of children. The bill plans to enact a “duty of care” which would require social media companies to put more protections on minors.
The bill says that any platform covered in the act needs to exercise “reasonable care” to implement design features that mitigate the mental health impacts of social media, specifically in relation to anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and suicidal behaviors. Freshman Henry Cai expressed his concerns with banning social media for kids under 13 saying, “if [kids] don’t grow up with it and then immediately get introduced, will they be able to know how to handle it?”
This bill will also require companies to remove algorithms, systems that promote personalized content based on data collected about a certain person, for teens under 17 and add more parental controls to further restrict what minors can and cannot see on social media. Freshman Anabel Apfalter agrees with the rules to get rid of addictive features saying, “there’s better things to do with your life that actually positively impact it rather than doom scrolling.”
Similar laws have been established in countries such as Australia, which plans to ban social media for anyone who is under 16, and states like Utah and Texas which have already passed laws that restrict social media access for teens.
Even though many lawmakers agree that these bills should be passed for the safety of kids online, many have their doubts. Some believe that this is a violation of their First Amendment rights.
Jenna Leventoff, spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union, said, “as the ACLU and a wide array of civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy organizations have repeatedly explained, this bill would not keep kids safe, but instead threaten young people’s privacy, limit minors’ access to vital resources, and silence important online conversations for all ages.”
Many groups have raised concerns about the limits of cutting kids off from online communities, like LGBTQ+, and resources about issues like depression and anxiety.
While Health teacher Lejanika Green understands the negative impacts of social media, she said she’s “not sure if it ultimately outweighs the other positive things.” She pointed to social media “bringing together communities of people who might not otherwise be able to connect or have a voice” as one positive aspect of social media.
The bill has not yet passed the Senate or House, but support for the bill is strong. •