This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Kids Online Safety Act is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
“Likewise, Senator Blackburn, co-author of the bill, has argued that education about racism (which she frames as "critical race theory") is dangerous for children and should be prohibited, claiming it causes distress and depresses children; this too can be framed as harm to minors' mental health in the framework provided by the bill.”
This seems to be a bit politically biased. Wouldn’t it be better to directly quote Blackburn without giving individual opinions about what does and does not constitute racism/critical race theory? You could just not quote her and say that this “could censor contemporary discussions on race in public schools?” 2A02:A420:4C:62E6:3164:98:7160:A461 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, happy to revise. I swapped in some quotes from Blackburn (although in the press release, it was a little hard to find a single succinct, continuous quote summarizing it). I also noted that the interpretation was provided by the EFF source. Also added the expanded quote from Blackburn in the citation's quote field. (revision link) Catleeball (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) Senator Blackburn, co-author of the bill, has argued is a "dangerous ideology" that can inflict "mental and emotional damage" upon children.
2)EFF columnist Jason Kelly states that with the mental health in the framework provided by the bill, that KOSA could be used to censor education about racism in schools.
In second-to-last sentence, it is not stated what is a "dangerous ideology". The most logical assumption would be that the word "it" was left out, and it should read, "Senator Blackburn, co-author of the bill, has argued it is a "dangerous ideology" that can inflict "mental and emotional damage" upon children. But I don't believe Sen Blackburn, one of the bill's authors, has said this.
In the last sentence, the phrase, "...the mental health in the framework provided by the bill...", is unclear. Does it mean "...the mental health framework provided by the bill...", "the mental health provisions in the bill...", or what?
I think these two problems were the result of editing done in response to the previous comment, "Editorialized opinions in article". Stuart.soloway (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Major Concern 1: It is quite clear this article is way too under-developed. This is a major proposed change in federal law (per the Guardian: "Kosa would be the biggest change to American tech legislation in decades") I understand it's still a bill but I highly encourage the nominator to look at other GA articles on US law (e.g, Illinois Freedom of Information Act).:
Lead: Clearly very under-developed but why is "Blackburn has argued that resources on topics such as racism and the civil rights movement overlap with critical race theory, which she sees as "dangerous"" the last sentence? Without reading the rest of the article I have no idea what that sentence is trying to say.
Bill summary: This bill is over 100 pages. It will take far more than 3 sentences to summarize it. Nothing on general scope of the bill
History: Extremely limited information (about 3 sentences) on why the bill was created. What is the status quo on laws concerning social media and children? Why does Biden support it? Why do Democrats support it? Why do Republicans? So many unanswered questions.
Reception: Ok, I'm not saying "both sides" needs to be equal in the reception section. But if you're going to start off by saying "KOSA has been supported by over 200 groups..." you're going to need to at least give a paragraph or two on why the bill is supported.
Major Concern 2: The second problem in this article is sourcing. You cite way too many advocacy groups directly. Instead, try to get their opinions from reliable, secondary sources. Other sourcing concerns:
Teen Vogue: I don't think Teen Vogue is the best source on US politics. But beyond that, the cited article is an op-ed. You can not use an op-ed for facts.
Substack: You can't use an SPS. I do not believe the author (Parker Molloy) would qualify as a subject matter expert. They seem more like a general blogger/writer.
TechCrunch: Per RSP, TechCrunch isn't the strongest source and I'm sure you can easily replace it with a better one.
All-in-all, the primary sources + the advocacy group sources + the other questionable sources contribute to almost 50% of this article's sources. Due to the sheer amount of poor sources and the clear fact that this article is not broad in coverage, I will need to quick fail it because "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". Since I am still new to GA reviews, I will allow a more experienced reviewer close this. Thank you and good luck on improving the article! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree with @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's resolution on this GA on the counts that it does not broadly represent the subject nor is it written with a neutral point of view. On the count of the sources - most of the less reliable sources are being specifically used in reception and have the statements preceding them delineated as "critics say..." Still, given the breadth of this topic, there's no doubt there are better sources that could be used to replace self-published ones, especially those that summarize the viewpoints of advocacy groups. Much of the article in the History section and before is well cited. The primary takeaways are that the lead, history and scope need expansion and that reception should use fewer primary sources. Reconrabbit15:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I want to update this page to add information about the house version of the bill,1234,the failed attempt to add the bill to the FAA reauthorization act of 2024 1245, and the vote for the Senate version of the bill (with like 50 billion sources and counting). 2603:6080:7202:74B0:A522:4E40:C6A:402F (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I would also suggest to add the court challenges it might face in the wake of the Netchoice SCOTUS case and similar bills at the state level getting blocked by local judges [1][2][3][4], Rand Paul and Rick Santorum’s criticism of the bill [5][6][7], and ACLU’s attempt to protest the bill at Capitol Hill [8][9]2603:6080:7202:74B0:A522:4E40:C6A:402F (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Following up my previous edit request, I want to make more changes and drastically expand the page (by about double the length) by including as much information about the bill as possible.
Replace the summary with something like this (you can improve it if you want);
"The Kids Online Safety Act, if passed signed into law, would require covered platforms to take measures to reduce online dangers for children by creating a liability or a "duty of care" for apps and social networking platforms regarding content that may not be suitable for minors, requiring that they change their design to reduce "harmful" design features like infinite scrolling, notifications, and "Personalized recommendation systems" to minors,[10], and allowing parents, guardians, minors, and schools to report certain harms. The bill defines covered platform as "an Online Platform, Online Video Game, Messaging Service, or Video Streaming Service that connects to the Internet and that is used, or reasonably likely to be used, by a minor".[11] Enforcement would be handled to both the FTC and individual state attorneys general.
Note: This is based on the version from February of 2024.
Expand the History section with even more info, namely;
Before the committee vote on July 27th, 2023, a number of amendments were made to the bill to appeal to the critics. [12] Notably;
Tightening the knowledge standard "so that websites and apps can only be held liable if they actually know there’s a young person using their service". [13]
Removing filter bubbles, which the EFF argues pushes users "towards a chronological feed". [14][15]
In November of 2023, whistleblower and former Meta engineering director Arturo Beja testified in congress before a Senate subcommittee hearing about social media and the teen mental health crisis. This is related to KOSA as;
He met with the lead sponsors of the bill before the hearing.[18]
The hearing would lead to a renewed push in the bill. [19][20]
In January of 2024, the Senate held a meeting with the CEOs of Meta, TikTok, Snap Inc., Discord, and Twitter regarding child safety. This hearing would lead eventually lead to further renewed interest and support for the bill. [21][22][23][24]
In June of 2024, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for age ratings "Similar to tobacco warnings" to be placed on Social Media, likely furthering the push for KOSA. [25][26][27]
Include in the history of the house version of the bill that the house version changes how the "duty of care" provision works to be based on a tiered knowledge system, excluding platforms where "chat, comments, or interactivity is not the predominant purpose of the service", and updating what it defines as "compulsive usage". [28]
Include a legislative history table (similar to the EARN IT Act page)
Add this section to the beginning of the reception section; "The bill has received criticism from Conservatives and Liberals. Supporters of the bill argue that the bill will protect kids from harmful content [29], help make Big Tech accountable for "failing to protect kids" [30], and enable parents to have more control on their kids[31]. Opponents on the other hand have criticized the bill for being "too vague" in what it defines as "harmful content" and for expanding the power of the FTC [32], many have argued that the bill could be used to target marginalized communities (mainly the LGBT community) [33], censor free speech protected by the 1st Amendment[34], make it harder for minors to search up information on controversial topics like Racism, Climate Change, and LGBT Issues, and implement ID-based age verification systems [35]."
Rework and expand the reception section by separating the into 3 subsections; "Non-governmental organizations", "Members of Congress", and "Federal Officials" (similar to how the page for the EARN IT Act does it, just with an additional subsection)
Following the comments made by Blackburn to the Family Alliance, a group of 100 parents of transgender youth signed an open urging the US Senate to oppose KOSA.[36][37][38]
The Heritage Foundation supports the bill so that it could be used to target transgender content, making it possible that the bill is related to Project 2025 (plus Project 2025 mentions social media addiction and Big Tech). [39][40][41]
Ant-Abortion group Students for Life opposes KOSA, citing free speech concerns. [46]
Vice President Kamala Harris supports KOSA (per Twitter), citing "This bipartisan legislation will help protect children's mental health, safety, and privacy online." [47][48]
Democrat Senator Ron Wyden (unsurprisingly) opposes KOSA, saying that it "could be used to sue services that offer privacy-enhancing technologies like encryption or anonymity features that are essential to young people’s ability to communicate securely and privately without being spied on by predators online".[49][50]
Republican Senator Rand Paul opposes KOSA, calling it a "Trojan horse"[51], he argues that the bill "opens the door to nearly limitless content regulation because platforms will censor users rather than risk liability", [52][53]
Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum opposes KOSA and compared it to the Biden Disinformation Board, citing concerns about censorship of conservative viewpoints and concerns about the potential for increased identity theft. Blackburn responded by calling him a "Front for Big Tech" on the issue. [54]
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries supports KOSA, while Representatives Frank Pallone, Maxwell Frost, and AOC all oppose KOSA (Frank citing concerns over the "duty of care" provision and Maxwell citing the concerns about censorship for LGBT youth). [55]
Personal care brand Dove is a supporter of KOSA and partnered with Lizzo in 2023 to back KOSA which led to some controversy, with LGBTQ activists and Fight for the Future calling on Lizzo to drop her support. [56][57][58][59][60]
It seems important to me for the article to note that her spokesperson's statement that KOSA is "not intended to censor LGBT information" is an overt lie, since Blackburn has explicitly stated that is in fact intended to do that.
I understand not using emotional or biased language concerning this, but it does seem important for Wikipedia to note when referenced statements are provably false? Okto8 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blackburn has spoken out on her stance on LGBT, and has said in quotes that we should have legislation to block that info, but she has not been quoted or said to have specifically said KOSA was to be used to block LGBT info. Inference is there, and that's why several LGBT groups have said the bill has issues and leading to her spokesperson statement, but I can't find any source that has Blackburn explicitly stating KOSA is to be used to censor LGBT info. We need a statement like that, as well as a source that states that the spokesperson's comment was contradictory. — Masem (t) 18:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to trim back the use of primary sources in the reception section. Any group or their stance should be something that has been mentioned by third-parties as to avoid the problem with loading up the reception with anyone's stance they have published themselves. I know there are sources to support some of the groups mentioned, but too many included now are only based on the group's statements. — Masem (t) 00:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]