Podcast Summary
COSPA's Duty of Care: COSPA aims to increase online privacy protection for minors and impose a 'duty of care' on platforms for their safety, but faces controversy due to First Amendment concerns.
The Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (COSPA), a bill currently making its way through Congress with bipartisan support, aims to better protect the privacy of minors online and make tech platforms more accountable for the content children are exposed to. COSPA builds upon previous attempts to regulate children's online safety, such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and the Kids Online Safety Act (COSA). COSPA includes two main goals: raising the age limit for online consent from 13 to 17 and imposing a "duty of care" on platforms to ensure the safety and well-being of their younger users. However, the second part of COSPA, which creates this duty of care, has been met with controversy due to First Amendment concerns. The bill's supporters argue that the government's interest in protecting children outweighs these objections, while opponents argue that it infringes on freedom of speech. COSPA still faces hurdles in passing the House of Representatives and navigating the presidential election. Lauren Finer, a senior policy reporter for The Verge, provides further insight into the bills and their potential impact on the internet.
Online child protection vs free expression: Recent bills aim to strengthen online child protection but raise concerns over potential limitations to free expression and privacy, particularly through age verification methods and an age-gated internet.
The recently proposed bills, the Kids Online Safety Act (COSA) and COPPA 2.0, aim to enhance children's online protection, but they sparked controversy due to potential implications on free expression and privacy. COSA's studio of care approach creates a lasting responsibility for platforms, making it attractive to lawmakers. COPPA 2.0 focuses on expanding protection to a broader age range. However, critics argue that these measures could limit access to valuable resources for children, particularly those from marginalized groups, and may lead to privacy invasive age verification methods or an age-gated internet, infringing on adults' free speech. The debate revolves around finding a balance between protecting children and preserving the internet as a platform for diverse discussions and resources.
COSPA implications on free speech and privacy: COSPA, aimed at protecting children online, faces criticism for potential free speech and privacy implications. However, it has garnered bipartisan support due to its promise to shift the burden onto platforms, with recent revisions addressing concerns of previously vocal opponents.
While the Children's Online Safety Act (COSPA) aims to protect children from potential harms on the internet, some critics have raised concerns about its potential implications on free speech and privacy. However, the bill has garnered significant bipartisan support due to its promise to shift the burden of protecting kids online onto the platforms where they spend their time. Parents, who have been seeking more comprehensive ways to safeguard their children, have been leading the charge for this bill. Some previously vocal opponents, such as LGBTQ+ groups, have revised their stance after recent revisions to the bill, acknowledging that the risks to the intended protected groups have been mitigated. Ultimately, the bill's impact remains uncertain until it is implemented and potentially challenged in the courts.
COSPA bill's future in the House: The COSPA bill, aimed at protecting children from online harms, passed in the Senate with overwhelming support but faces challenges in the House due to privacy, censorship, and free speech concerns. President Biden and Vice President Harris have expressed support, but First Amendment issues and lack of consensus on Section 230 reform present challenges.
The COSPA bill, aimed at protecting children from online harms, recently passed in the Senate with overwhelming support, but its future in the House is uncertain. The bill addresses concerns by limiting the ability of state attorneys general to enforce certain aspects and specifying that it focuses on design features rather than content. Ron Wyden, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul were the three senators who voted against it due to privacy, censorship, and free speech concerns, respectively. The House, with its diverse coalition, could present challenges for the bill's passage. President Biden has encouraged the House to take up the bill, and both he and Vice President Harris have expressed support. However, the first amendment's protection of speech and the lack of consensus on Section 230 reform present challenges to regulating online content. The Senate believes the interest of America's children justifies any potential First Amendment issues. The debate on regulating the internet continues as more and more people grow up in its chaotic environment.
Regulating harmful speech on the internet: Creating regulations for harmful speech on the internet, particularly deepfakes, faces significant First Amendment challenges. Some bills, like the one in Colorado, focus on a duty of care, while others aim to regulate deepfakes. However, the success of these regulations is uncertain due to the protection of free speech.
Regulating harmful speech on the internet, particularly deepfakes, poses significant First Amendment challenges. While some bills, like the one passed in Colorado (COSA), attempt to create a new framework by focusing on a duty of care, other approaches, such as regulating deepfakes, may face more obstacles due to the protection of free speech. An intriguing bill, the Intimate Privacy Protection Act, aims to create a Section 230 carve out for intimate AI deepfakes, which would mean platforms would not be immune for hosting such content. This bill also includes the term "duty of care," potentially signaling a broader focus on kid safety in Congress. However, the success of these regulations remains uncertain, as the Supreme Court has recently made clear that content moderation and curation are First Amendment protected speech. Instead, policymakers might consider narrowly targeting design features or aspects of platforms' business that don't involve content ordering or editorial discretion to avoid First Amendment challenges.
Deepfakes and Online Harm Regulation: Lawmakers explore IP regimes for likenesses and specific content carve-outs to address deepfakes and online harm, but these solutions may have unintended consequences and raise responsibility questions. The COSPA bill aims to hold platforms accountable for harmful content, but its impact on various communities is a concern.
Lawmakers are exploring different approaches to address the issue of deepfakes and online harm, particularly when it comes to protecting children. Two potential ways are creating intellectual property regimes for likenesses and carve-outs for specific content. However, these solutions may have unintended consequences and raise questions about responsibility and whose role it is to protect children online. The COSPA bill, which aims to hold platforms accountable for hosting harmful content, is one example, but its potential impact on various communities is a concern. The bill's future remains uncertain, but it has garnered significant support and momentum, indicating that the conversation around online regulation is far from over. Regardless of political affiliations, the need to address online harm and protect vulnerable populations is a complex issue that requires careful consideration and balanced solutions.
COSA constitutionality: The Children's Online Safety Act (COSA) passed in the Senate but its constitutionality is uncertain, specifically regarding potential First Amendment challenges.
The Children's Online Safety Act (COSA), also known as COSTA or COSPA, recently passed in the Senate with a large majority, but it's unclear how the courts will handle potential lawsuits challenging its constitutionality, specifically in relation to the First Amendment. The law aims to protect children's safety online, but it may limit free speech on the internet. Notable tech companies like Google, Meta, and TikTok have yet to publicly comment on the issue. The debate around the ethics of end-of-life decisions for pets also surfaced in a separate conversation, with no clear answer on how to determine the right time for euthanasia. Instead, people are encouraged to evaluate their pet's quality of life and consider checklists available online. A surprising fact shared was that many pet owners bring their dogs a McDonald's cheeseburger as their last meal.