The KIDS Act Would Put Washington in Charge of How We Can Communicate Online

The House of Representatives is currently considering a bill that would drastically expand the government's power to regulate online speech platforms. Dubbed the KIDS Act, this legislation is framed as a child safety measure, but its true implications are far more concerning. At its core, the KIDS Act seeks to impose a litany of restrictions on social media apps and other platforms, effectively giving Washington a stranglehold on our online communication. This is a brazen power grab that undermines the fundamental rights of Americans, including the right to free speech.

For decades, Americans have enjoyed broad freedom to build tools to communicate with each other online. From the smallest message board to the biggest social media platform, the First Amendment protects our right to freely design and use platforms to talk and share content with each other online. However, the government can go after wrongdoers that use online platforms for illegal activity, but it does not get to decide how a platform is designed and operated in the first place. This delicate balance is precisely what the KIDS Act seeks to upset.

The KIDS Act would fundamentally overturn this status quo by allowing the government to decide how platforms can be built and imposing restrictions that will censor the speech of adults and minors alike. This is a staggering assertion of power that threatens the very fabric of our online community. By dictating how platforms must be designed and operated, the KIDS Act would burden the rights not just of minors (who enjoy robust First Amendment protections), but adults as well, since the platforms can't know precisely which users are minors and which are adults.

Title II of the KIDS Act contains the House's version of the Kids Online Safety Act, which we've done a deeper dive on here. However, the upshot is that the bill does two major things. First, it requires most online speech platforms to maintain policies and procedures to 'address' certain harms to minors, such as scams, physical threats, sexual abuse, and distribution or use of drugs, tobacco, gambling, or alcohol. The exact policies and procedures platforms must maintain are not spelled out, leaving room for interpretation and potential overreach.

The implications of this are far-reaching, and they go beyond just the initial restrictions on platforms. By forcing platforms to maintain policies and procedures to address these harms, the KIDS Act would create a regulatory framework that is ripe for abuse. The government would have the power to dictate how platforms must operate, effectively giving it a veto power over our online speech. This would be a devastating blow to the free speech protections that Americans enjoy, and it would have far-reaching consequences for our online community.

The second major part of KOSA goes further in dictating a litany of specific features that anyone running a covered speech platform must build. These features must be offered to anyone whom the platform 'knows or should have known' is a minor. These settings must be on by default for minors, and there must be a way for parents to view and control such settings. The idea is that minors are spending too much time on their phones, and so the platforms have to offer settings that will nudge them off social media.

However, on its face, this sounds fine, but think about the implications. If the First Amendment means anything, it means we're allowed to freely build and operate forums to communicate with each other. Yet the government claims the authority to dictate very specifically how Americans are permitted to design and operate platforms for talking to each other online. Forums large and small will now have to be designed and operated to the government's satisfaction. Smaller platforms may be unable to even afford the costs of building all of these additional settings and keeping up with the evolving compliance requirements.