[OkayPhysicist]

The shameful thing about this act is that it has a few good ideas, they're just riding along with a bunch of truly abhorrent ones. If they just axed the entire censorship angle and age verification requirement, and kept the requirement of opt-in (via self-declaration of the user as a minor/guardian account pair) tools for parents and extended the tools available to minors to everybody, I wouldn't even be opposed to the bill.

Summary:

- Establishes a duty of care for covered platforms (basically any internet connected platform (social media, videogames, etc) that isn't a common carrier, an email service, a private messaging service disconnected from any broader platform, VOIP service, VPN, or education related.

- Covered platforms must take reasonable measures to mitigate harms to minors, with a list of specific harms being things like mental illness, addiction, physical violence, bullying, narcotics, and predatory or deceptive marketing tactics. Platforms do not need to hide such content if the minor is specifically searching for/requesting such content, or if the content is providing resources for the prevention of said harms.

-Covered platforms must provide certain safeguards to minors on their platform, to be used at the minor's (or guardian's) discretion. These include blocking, basic privacy settings, opting out of personalized recommendation systems, while still allowing the display of content based on a chronological format or limit types or categories of recommendations from such systems, hiding geolocation, and deleting the account and all associated data.

-The default settings for minors must be the most protective.

-Covered Platforms need to provide parental tools, including the ability to change privacy settings, restrict purchases, view metrics of usage, and restrict the amount of time the minor uses on the platform.

-Covered platforms need a system to receive reports about minor harming on their platform, and must "substantively respond" to such reports withing either 10 or 21 days depending on whether the service has more or less than 10,000,000 monthly active users

-Covered platforms are liable for advertising illegal stuff to minors (including stuff that's only illegal for minors to purchase, like alcohol and tobacco).

[Brybry]

> Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require ... a covered platform to implement an age gating or age verification functionality.

Does it even have an age verification requirement? The only part I could find was it requires the NIST to investigate age verification system creation/implementation/effectiveness/impact.

I think that part should be removed but it also made me feel like the stopkosa site might be fearmongering.

[averysmallbird]

It does not create an age verification requirement. A platform only has obligations to provide safeguards when it has knowledge that a user is 16 and under. It also provides statutory direction that it does not require further steps to infer or collect age.

(I'm staff that cowrote the bill.)

[OkayPhysicist]

Without age gating, a company would have to apply censorship site wide, if there is reasonable belief that the site is used by minors. That's also not great.

[Brybry]

In the text it says "covered platform knows is used by minors", "covered platform knows is a minor", and "platform knows is a child".

> The term “know” or “knows” means to have actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances.

Is this part the reasonable belief? Or is it that the ambiguity will cause companies to age gate to try to protect themselves?

Though I don't see how an age gate would even protect companies. Say a minor lies on the age gate, illegitimately uses the site, and their parent calls in angry.

The company now knows their service is used (illegitimately) by minors, do they then have to implement protections?