With KOSA passed, the information i can access as a minor will be limited and censored, under the guise of "protecting me", which is the responsibility of my parents, NOT the government. I have learned so much about the world and about myself through social media, and without the diverse world i have seen, i would be a completely different, and much worse, person. For a country that prides itself in the free speech and freedom of its peoples, this bill goes against everything we stand for! - Alan, 15  

___________________

If information is put through a filter, that’s bad. Any and all points of view should be accessible, even if harmful so everyone can get an understanding of all situations. Not to mention, as a young neurodivergent and queer person, I’m sure the information I’d be able to acquire and use to help myself would be severely impacted. I want to be free like anyone else. - Sunny, 15 

 ___________________

How young people feel about the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) matters. It will primarily affect them, and many, many teenagers oppose the bill. Some have been calling and emailing legislators to tell them how they feel. Others have been posting their concerns about the bill on social media. These teenagers have been baring their souls to explain how important social media access is to them, but lawmakers and civil liberties advocates, including us, have mostly been the ones talking about the bill and about what’s best for kids, and often we’re not hearing from minors in these debates at all. We should be — these young voices should be essential when talking about KOSA.

So, a few weeks ago, we asked some of the young advocates fighting to stop the Kids Online Safety Act a few questions:  

- How has access to social media improved your life? What do you gain from it? 

- What would you lose if KOSA passed? How would your life be different if it was already law? 

Within a week we received over 3,000 responses. As of today, we have received over 5,000.

These answers are critical for legislators to hear. Below, you can read some of these comments, sorted into the following themes (though they often overlap):  

• KOSA Will Harm Rights That Young People Know They Ought to Have 
• KOSA Could Impact Young People’s Artistic Education and Opportunities 
• KOSA Will Hurt Young People’s Ability to Find Community Online 
• KOSA Could Seriously Hinder People’s Self-Discovery  
• KOSA Could Stop Young People from Learning True News and Valuable Information 

These comments show that thoughtful young people are deeply concerned about the proposed law's fallout, and that many who would be affected think it will harm them, not help them. Over 700 of those who responded reported that they were currently sixteen or under—the age under which KOSA’s liability is applicable. The average age of those who answered the survey was 20 (of those who gave their age—the question was optional, and about 60% of people responded).  In addition to these two questions, we also asked those taking the survey if they were comfortable sharing their email address for any journalist who might want to speak with them; unfortunately much coverage usually only mentions one or two of the young people who would be most affected. So, journalists: We have contact info for over 300 young people who would be happy to speak to you about why social media matters to them, and why they oppose KOSA.

Individually, these answers show that social media, despite its current problems, offer an overall positive experience for many, many young people. It helps people living in remote areas find connection; it helps those in abusive situations find solace and escape; it offers education in history, art, health, and world events for those who wouldn’t otherwise have it; it helps people learn about themselves and the world around them. (Research also suggests that social media is more helpful than harmful for young people.) 

And as a whole, these answers tell a story that is 180° different from that which is regularly told by politicians and the media. In those stories, it is accepted as fact that the majority of young people’s experiences on social media platforms are harmful. But from these responses, it is clear that many, many young people also experience help, education, friendship, and a sense of belonging there—precisely because social media allows them to explore, something KOSA is likely to hinder. These kids are deeply engaged in the world around them through these platforms, and genuinely concerned that a law like KOSA could take that away from them and from other young people.  

Here are just a few of the thousands of reasons they’re worried.  

Note: We are sharing individuals’ opinions, without editing. We do not necessarily endorse them or their interpretation of KOSA.

KOSA Will Harm Rights That Young People Know They Ought to Have 

One of the most important things that would be lost is the freedom of speech - a given right that is crucial to a healthy, functioning environment. Not every speech is morally okay, but regulating what speech is deemed "acceptable" constricts people's rights; a clear violation of the First Amendment. Those who need or want to access certain information are not allowed to - not because the information will harm them or others, but for the reason that a certain portion of people disagree with the information. If the country only ran on what select people believed, we would be a bland, monotonous place. This country thrives on diversity, whether it be race, gender, sex, or any other personal belief. If KOSA was passed, I would lose my safe spaces, places where I can go to for mental health, places that make me feel more like a human than just some girl. No more would I be able to fight for ideas and beliefs I hold, nor enjoy my time on the internet either. - Anonymous, 16 

 ___________________

I, and many of my friends, grew up in an Internet where remaining anonymous was common sense, and where revealing your identity was foolish and dangerous, something only to be done sparingly, with a trusted ally at your side, meeting at a common, crowded public space like a convention or a college cafeteria. This bill spits in the face of these very practical instincts, forces you to dox yourself, and if you don’t want to be outed, you must be forced to withdraw from your communities. From your friends and allies. From the space you have made for yourself, somewhere you can truly be yourself with little judgment, where you can find out who you really are, alongside people who might be wildly different from you in some ways, and exactly like you in others. I am fortunate to have parents who are kind and accepting of who I am. I know many people are nowhere near as lucky as me. - Maeve, 25 

 ___________________ 

I couldn't do activism through social media and I couldn't connect with other queer individuals due to censorship and that would lead to loneliness, depression other mental health issues, and even suicide for some individuals such as myself. For some of us the internet is the only way to the world outside of our hateful environments, our only hope. Representation matters, and by KOSA passing queer children would see less of age appropriate representation and they would feel more alone. Not to mention that KOSA passing would lead to people being uninformed about things and it would start an era of censorship on the internet and by looking at the past censorship is never good, its a gateway to genocide and a way for the government to control. – Sage, 15 

  ___________________

Privacy, censorship, and freedom of speech are not just theoretical concepts to young people. Their rights are often already restricted, and they see the internet as a place where they can begin to learn about, understand, and exercise those freedoms. They know why censorship is dangerous; they understand why forcing people to identify themselves online is dangerous; they know the value of free speech and privacy, and they know what they’ve gained from an internet that doesn’t have guardrails put up by various government censors.  

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: OPPOSE THE KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT

KOSA Could Impact Young People’s Artistic Education and Opportunities 

I found so many friends and new interests from social media. Inspirations for my art I find online, like others who have an art style I admire, or models who do poses I want to draw. I can connect with my friends, send them funny videos and pictures. I use social media to keep up with my favorite YouTubers, content creators, shows, books. When my dad gets drunk and hard to be around or my parents are arguing, I can go on YouTube or Instagram and watch something funny to laugh instead. It gives me a lot of comfort, being able to distract myself from my sometimes upsetting home life. I get to see what life is like for the billions of other people on this planet, in different cities, states, countries. I get to share my life with my friends too, freely speaking my thoughts, sharing pictures, videos, etc.  
I have found my favorite YouTubers from other social media platforms like tiktok, this happened maybe about a year ago, and since then I think this is the happiest I have been in a while. Since joining social media I have become a much more open minded person, it made me interested in what others lives are like. It also brought awareness and educated me about others who are suffering in the world like hunger, poor quality of life, etc. Posting on social media also made me more confident in my art, in the past year my drawing skills have immensely improved and I’m shocked at myself. Because I wanted to make better fan art, inspire others, and make them happy with my art. I have been introduce to many styles of clothing that have helped develop my own fun clothing style. It powers my dreams and makes me want to try hard when I see videos shared by people who have worked hard and made it. - Anonymous, 15 

  ___________________

As a kid I was able to interact in queer and disabled and fandom spaces, so even as a disabled introverted child who wasn’t popular with my peers I still didn’t feel lonely. The internet is arguably a safer way to interact with other fans of media than going to cons with strangers, as long as internet safety is really taught to kids. I also get inspiration for my art and writing from things I’ve only discovered online, and as an artist I can’t make money without the internet and even minors do commissions. The issue isn’t that the internet is unsafe, it’s that internet safety isn’t taught anymore. - Rachel, 19 

  ___________________

i am an artist, and sharing my things online makes me feel happy and good about myself. i love seeing other people online and knowing that they like what i make. when i make art, im always nervous to show other people. but when i post it online i feel like im a part of something, and that im in a community where i feel that i belong. – Anonymous, 15 

 ___________________ 

Social media has saved my life, just like it has for many young people. I have found safe spaces and motivation because of social media, and I have never encountered anything negative or harmful to me. With social media I have been able to share my creativity (writing, art, and music) and thoughts safely without feeling like I'm being held back or oppressed. My creations have been able to inspire and reach so many people, just like how other people's work have reached me. Recently, I have also been able to help the library I volunteer at through the help of social media. 
What I do in life and all my future plans (career, school, volunteer projects, etc.) surrounds social media, and without it I wouldn't be able to share what I do and learn more to improve my works and life. I wouldn't be able to connect with wonderful artists, musicians, and writers like I do now. I would be lost and feel like I don't have a reason to do what I do. If KOSA is passed, I wouldn't be able to get the help I need in order to survive. I've made so many friends who have been saved because of social media, and if this bill gets passed they will also be affected. Guess what? They wouldn't be able to get the help they need either. 
If KOSA was already a law when I was just a bit younger, I wouldn't even be alive. I wouldn't have been able to reach help when I needed it. I wouldn't have been able to share my mind with the world. Social media was the reason I was able to receive help when I was undergoing abuse and almost died. If KOSA was already a law, I would've taken my life, or my abuser would have done it before I could. If KOSA becomes a law now, I'm certain that the likeliness of that happening to kids of any age will increase. – Anonymous, 15 

  ___________________

A huge number of young artists say they use social media to improve their skills, and in many cases, the avenue by which they discovered their interest in a type of art or music. Young people are rightfully worried that the magic moment where you first stumble upon an artist or a style that changes your entire life will be less and less common for future generations if KOSA passes. We agree: KOSA would likely lead platforms to limit that opportunity for young people to experience unexpected things, forcing their online experiences into a much smaller box under the guise of protecting them.  

Also, a lot of young people told us they wanted to, or were developing, an online business—often an art business. Under KOSA, young people could have less opportunities in the online communities where artists share their work and build a customer base, and a harder time navigating the various communities where they can share their art.  

KOSA Will Hurt Young People’s Ability to Find Community Online 

Social media has allowed me to connect with some of my closest friends ever, probably deeper than some people in real life. i get to talk about anything i want unimpeded and people accept me for who i am. in my deepest and darkest moments, knowing that i had somewhere to go was truly more relieving than anything else. i've never had the courage to commit suicide, but still, if it weren't for social media, i probably wouldn't be here, mentally & emotionally at least. 
i'd lose the space that accepts me. i'd lose the only place where i can be me. in life, i put up a mask to appease my parents and in some cases, my friends. with how extreme the u.s. is becoming these days, i could even lose my life. i would live my days in fear. i'm terrified of how fast this country is changing and if this bill passes, saying i would fall into despair would be an understatement. people say to "be yourself", but they don't understand that if i were to be my true self tomorrow, i could be killed. – march, 14 

 ___________________ 

Without the internet, and especially the rhythm gaming community which I found through Discord, I would've most likely killed myself at 13. My time on here has not been perfect, as has anyone's but without the internet I wouldn't have been the person I am today. I wouldn't have gotten help recognizing that what my biological parents were doing to me was abuse, the support I've received for my identity (as queer youth) and the way I view things, with ways to help people all around the world and be a more mindful ally, activist, and thinker, and I wouldn't have met my mom. 
I love my chosen mom. We met at a Dance Dance Revolution tournament in April of last year and have been friends ever since. When I told her that she was the first person I saw as a mother figure in my life back in November, I was bawling my eyes out. I'm her mije, and she's my mom. love her so much that saying that doesn't even begin to express exactly how much I love her.  
I love all my chosen family from the rhythm gaming community, my older sisters and siblings, I love them all. I have a few, some I talk with more regularly than others. Even if they and I may not talk as much as we used to, I still love them. They mean so much to me. – X86, 15 

  ___________________

i spent my time in public school from ages 9-13 getting physically and emotionally abused by special ed aides, i remember a few months after i left public school for good, i saw a post online that made me realize that what i went through wasn’t normal. if it wasn’t for the internet, i wouldn’t have come to terms with my autism, i would have still hated myself due to not knowing that i was genderqueer, my mental health would be significantly worse, and i would probably still be self harming, which is something i stopped doing at 13. besides the trauma and mental health side of things, something important to know is that spaces for teenagers to hang out have been eradicated years ago, minors can’t go to malls unless they’re with their parents, anti loitering laws are everywhere, and schools aren’t exactly the best place for teenagers to hang out, especially considering queer teens who were murdered by bullies (such as brianna ghey or nex benedict), the internet has become the third space that teenagers have flocked to as a result. – Anonymous, 17 

  ___________________

KOSA is anti-community. People online don’t only connect over shared interests in art and music—they also connect over the difficult parts of their lives. Over and over again, young people told us that one of the most valuable parts of social media was learning that they were not alone in their troubles. Finding others in similar circumstances gave them a community, as well as ideas to improve their situations, and even opportunities to escape dangerous situations.  

KOSA will make this harder. As platforms limit the types of recommendations and public content they feel safe sharing with young people, those who would otherwise find communities or potential friends will not be as likely to do so. A number of young people explained that they simply would never have been able to overcome some of the worst parts of their lives alone, and they are concerned that KOSA’s passage would stop others from ever finding the help they did. 

KOSA Could Seriously Hinder People’s Self-Discovery  

I am a transgender person, and when I was a preteen, looking down the barrel of the gun of puberty, I was miserable. I didn't know what was wrong I just knew I'd rather do anything else but go through puberty. The internet taught me what that was. They told me it was okay. There were things like haircuts and binders that I could use now and medical treatment I could use when I grew up to fix things. The internet was there for me too when I was questioning my sexuality and again when my mental health was crashing and even again when I was realizing I'm not neurotypical. The internet is a crucial source of information for preteens and beyond and you cannot take it away. You cannot take away their only realistically reachable source of information for what the close-minded or undereducated adults around them don't know. - Jay, 17 

   ___________________

Social media has improved my life so much and led to how I met my best friend, I’ve known them for 6+ years now and they mean so much to me. Access to social media really helps me connect with people similar to me and that make me feel like less of an outcast among my peers, being able to communicate with other neurodivergent queer kids who like similar interests to me. Social media makes me feel like I’m actually apart of a community that won’t judge me for who I am. I feel like I can actually be myself and find others like me without being harassed or bullied, I can share my art with others and find people like me in a way I can’t in other spaces. The internet & social media raised me when my parents were busy and unavailable and genuinely shaped the way I am today and the person I’ve become. – Anonymous, 14 

   ___________________

The censorship likely to come from this bill would mean I would not see others who have similar struggles to me. The vagueness of KOSA allows for state attorney generals to decide what is and is not appropriate for children to see, a power that should never be placed in the hands of one person. If issues like LGBT rights and mental health were censored by KOSA, I would have never realized that I AM NOT ALONE. There are problems with children and the internet but KOSA is not the solution. I urge the senate to rethink this bill, and come up with solutions that actually protect children, not put them in more danger, and make them feel ever more alone. - Rae, 16 

  ___________________ 

KOSA would effectively censor anything the government deems "harmful," which could be anything from queerness and fandom spaces to anything else that deviates from "the norm." People would lose support systems, education, and in some cases, any way to find out about who they are. I'll stop beating around the bush, if it wasn't for places online, I would never have discovered my own queerness. My parents and the small circle of adults I know would be my only connection to "grown-up" opinions, exposing me to a narrow range of beliefs I would likely be forced to adopt. Any kids in positions like mine would have no place to speak out or ask questions, and anything they bring up would put them at risk. Schools and families can only teach so much, and in this age of information, why can't kids be trusted to learn things on their own? - Anonymous, 15 

   ___________________

Social media helped me escape a very traumatic childhood and helped me connect with others. quite frankly, it saved me from being brainwashed. – Milo, 16 

   ___________________

Social media introduced me to lifelong friends and communities of like-minded people; in an abusive home, online social media in the 2010s provided a haven of privacy, safety, and information. I honed my creativity, nurtured my interests and developed my identity through relating and talking to people to whom I would otherwise have been totally isolated from. Also, unrestricted internet access actually taught me how to spot shady websites and inappropriate content FAR more effectively than if censorship had been at play like it is today. 
A couple of the friends I made online, as young as thirteen, were adults; and being friends with adults who knew I was a child, who practiced safe boundaries with me yet treated me with respect, helped me recognise unhealthy patterns in predatory adults. I have befriended mothers and fathers online through games and forums, and they were instrumental in preventing me being groomed by actual pedophiles. Had it not been for them, I would have wound up terribly abused by an "in real life" adult "friend". Instead, I recognised the differences in how he was treating me (infantilising yet praising) vs how my adult friends had treated me (like a human being), and slowly tapered off the friendship and safely cut contact. 
As I grew older, I found a wealth of resources on safe sex and sexual health education online. Again, if not for these discoveries, I would most certainly have wound up abused and/or pregnant as a teenager. I was never taught about consent, safe sex, menstruation, cervical health, breast health, my own anatomy, puberty, etc. as a child or teenager. What I found online-- typically on Tumblr and written with an alarming degree of normalcy-- helped me understand my body and my boundaries far more effectively than "the talk" or in-school sex ed ever did. I learned that the things that made me panic were actually normal; the ins and outs of puberty and development, and, crucially, that my comfort mattered most. I was comfortable and unashamed of being a virgin my entire teen years because I knew it was okay that I wasn't ready. When I was ready, at twenty-one, I knew how to communicate with my partner and establish safe boundaries, and knew to check in and talk afterwards to make sure we both felt safe and happy. I knew there was no judgement for crying after sex and that it didn't necessarily mean I wasn't okay. I also knew about physical post-sex care; e.g. going to the bathroom and cleaning oneself safely. 
AGAIN, I would NOT have known any of this if not for social media. AT ALL. And seeing these topics did NOT turn me into a dreaded teenage whore; if anything, they prevented it by teaching me safety and self-care. 
I also found help with depression, anxiety, and eating disorders-- learning to define them enabled me to seek help. I would not have had this without online spaces and social media. As aforementioned too, learning, sometimes through trial of fire, to safely navigate the web and differentiate between safe and unsafe sites was far more effective without censored content. Censorship only hurts children; it has never, ever helped them. How else was I to know what I was experiencing at home was wrong? To call it "abuse"? I never would have found that out. I also would never have discovered how to establish safe sexual AND social boundaries, or how to stand up for myself, or how to handle harassment, or how to discover my own interests and identity through media. The list goes on and on and on. – June, 21 

   ___________________

One of the claims that KOSA’s proponents make is that it won’t stop young people from finding the things they already want to search for. But we read dozens and dozens of comments from people who didn’t know something about themselves until they heard others discussing it—a mental health diagnosis, their sexuality, that they were being abused, that they had an eating disorder, and much, much more.  

Censorship that stops you from looking through a library is still dangerous even if it doesn’t stop you from checking out the books you already know. It’s still a problem to stop young people in particular from finding new things that they didn’t know they were looking for.   

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: OPPOSE THE KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT

KOSA Could Stop Young People from Getting Accurate News and Valuable Information 

Social media taught me to be curious. It taught me caution and trust and faith and that simply being me is enough. It brought me up where my parents failed, it allowed me to look into stories that assured me I am not alone where I am now. I would be fucking dead right now if it weren't for the stories of my fellow transgender folk out there, assuring me that it gets better.  
I'm young and I'm not smart but I know without social media, myself and plenty of the people I hold dear in person and online would not be alive. We wouldn't have news of the atrocities happening overseas that the news doesn't report on, we wouldn't have mentors to help teach us where our parents failed. - Anonymous, 16 

  ___________________ 

Through social media, I've learned about news and current events that weren't taught at school or home, things like politics or controversial topics that taught me nuance and solidified my concept of ethics. I learned about my identity and found numerous communities filled with people I could socialize with and relate to. I could talk about my interests with people who loved them just as much as I did. I found out about numerous different perspectives and cultures and experienced art and film like I never had before. My empathy and media literacy greatly improved with experience. I was also able to gain skills in gathering information and proper defences against misinformation. More technically, I learned how to organize my computer and work with files, programs, applications, etc; I could find guides on how to pursue my hobbies and improve my skills (I'm a self-taught artist, and I learned almost everything I know from things like YouTube or Tumblr for free). - Anonymous, 15 

  ___________________ 

A huge portion of my political identity has been shaped by news and information I could only find on social media because the mainstream news outlets wouldn’t cover it. (Climate Change, International Crisis, Corrupt Systems, etc.) KOSA seems to be intentionally working to stunt all of this. It’s horrifying. So much of modern life takes place on the internet, and to strip that away from kids is just another way to prevent them from formulating their own thoughts and ideas that the people in power are afraid of. Deeply sinister. I probably would have never learned about KOSA if it were in place! That’s terrifying! - Sarge, 17 

  ___________________

I’ve met many of my friends from [social media] and it has improved my mental health by giving me resources. I used to have an eating disorder and didn’t even realize it until I saw others on social media talking about it in a nuanced way and from personal experience. - Anonymous, 15 

   ___________________

Many young people told us that they’re worried KOSA will result in more biased news online, and a less diverse information ecosystem. This seems inevitable—we’ve written before that almost any content could fit into the categories that politicians believe will cause minors anxiety or depression, and so carrying that content could be legally dangerous for a platform. That could include truthful news about what’s going on in the world, including wars, gun violence, and climate change. 

“Preventing and mitigating” depression and anxiety isn’t a goal of any other outlet, and it shouldn’t be required for social media platforms. People have a right to access information—both news and opinion— in an open and democratic society, and sometimes that information is depressing or anxiety-inducing. To truly “prevent and mitigate” self-destructive behaviors, we must look beyond the media to systems that allow all humans to have self-respect, a healthy environment, and healthy relationships—not hiding truthful information that is disappointing.  

Young People’s Voices Matter 

While KOSA’s sponsors intend to help these young people, those who responded to the survey don’t see it that way. You may have noticed that it’s impossible to limit these complex and detailed responses into single categories—many childhood abuse victims found help as well as arts education on social media; many children connected to communities that they otherwise couldn’t and learned something essential about themselves in doing so. Many understand that KOSA would endanger their privacy, and also know it could harm marginalized kids the most.  

In reading thousands of these comments, it becomes clear that social media itself was not in itself a solution to the issues they experienced. What helped these young people was other people. Social media was where they were able to find and stay connected with those friends, communities, artists, activists, and educators. When you look at it this way, of course KOSA seems absurd: social media has become an essential element of young peoples’ lives, and they are scared to death that if the law passes, that part of their lives will disappear. Older teens and twenty-somethings, meanwhile, worry that if the law had been passed a decade ago, they never would have become the person that they did. And all of these fears are reasonable.  

There were thousands more comments like those above. We hope this helps balance the conversation, because if young people’s voices are suppressed now—and if KOSA becomes law—it will be much more difficult for them to elevate their voices in the future.  

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: OPPOSE THE KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT

Why EFF Does Not Think Recent Changes Ameliorate KOSA’s Censorship 

The latest version of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) did not change our critical view of the legislation. The changes have led some organizations to drop their opposition to the bill, but we still believe it is a dangerous and unconstitutional censorship bill that would empower state officials to target services and online content they do not like. We respect that different groups can come to their own conclusions about how KOSA will affect everyone’s ability to access lawful speech online. EFF, however, remains steadfast in our long-held view that imposing a vague duty of care on a broad swath of online services to mitigate specific harms based on the content of online speech will result in those services imposing age verification and content restrictions. At least one group has characterized EFF’s concerns as spreading “disinformation.” We are not. But to ensure that everyone understands why EFF continues to oppose KOSA, we wanted to break down our interpretation of the bill in more detail and compare our views to those of others—both advocates and critics.  

Below, we walk through some of the most common criticisms we’ve gotten—and those criticisms the bill has received—to help explain our view of its likely impacts.  

KOSA’s Effectiveness  

First, and most importantly: We have serious and important disagreements with KOSA’s advocates on whether it will prevent future harm to children online. We are deeply saddened by the stories so many supporters and parents have shared about how their children were harmed online. And we want to keep talking to those parents, supporters, and lawmakers about ways in which EFF can work with them to prevent harm to children online, just as we will continue to talk with people who advocate for the benefits of social media. We believe, and have advocated for, comprehensive privacy protections as a better way to begin to address harms done to young people (and old) who have been targeted by platforms’ predatory business practices.  

A line of U.S. Supreme Court cases involving efforts to prevent book sellers from disseminating certain speech, which resulted in broad, unconstitutional censorship, shows why KOSA is unconstitutional. 

EFF does not think KOSA is the right approach to protecting children online, however. As we’ve said before, we think that in practice, KOSA is likely to exacerbate the risks of children being harmed online because it will place barriers on their ability to access lawful speech about addiction, eating disorders, bullying, and other important topics. We also think those restrictions will stifle minors who are trying  to find their own communities online.  We do not think that language added to KOSA to address that censorship concern solves the problem. We also don’t think that focusing KOSA’s regulation on design elements of online services addresses the First Amendment problems of the bill, either. 

Our views of KOSA’s harmful consequences are grounded in EFF’s 34-year history of both making policy for the internet and seeing how legislation plays out once it’s passed. This is also not our first time seeing the vast difference between how a piece of legislation is promoted and what it does in practice. Recently we saw this same dynamic with FOSTA/SESTA, which was promoted by politicians and the parents of  child sex trafficking victims as the way to prevent future harms. Sadly, even the politicians who initially championed it now agree that this law was not only ineffective at reducing sex trafficking online, but also created additional dangers for those same victims as well as others.   

KOSA’s Duty of Care  

KOSA’s core component requires an online platform or service that is likely to be accessed by young people to “exercise reasonable care in the creation and implementation of any design feature to prevent and mitigate” various harms to minors. These enumerated harms include: 

• mental health disorders (anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and suicidal behaviors) 
• patterns of use that indicate or encourage addiction-like behaviors  
• physical violence, online bullying, and harassment 

Based on our understanding of the First Amendment and how all online platforms and services regulated by KOSA will navigate their legal risk, we believe that KOSA will lead to broad online censorship of lawful speech, including content designed to help children navigate and overcome the very same harms KOSA identifies.  

A line of U.S. Supreme Court cases involving efforts to prevent book sellers from disseminating certain speech, which resulted in broad, unconstitutional censorship, shows why KOSA is unconstitutional. 

In Smith v. California, the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance that made it a crime for a book seller to possess obscene material. The court ruled that even though obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment, the ordinance’s imposition of liability based on the mere presence of that material had a broader censorious effect because a book seller “will tend to restrict the books he sells to those he has inspected; and thus the State will have imposed a restriction upon the distribution of constitutionally protected, as well as obscene literature.” The court recognized that the “ordinance tends to impose a severe limitation on the public’s access to constitutionally protected material” because a distributor of others’ speech will react by limiting access to any borderline content that could get it into legal trouble.  

Online services have even less ability to read through the millions (or sometimes billions) of pieces of content on their services than a bookseller or distributor

In Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court struck down a government effort to limit the distribution of material that a state commission had deemed objectionable to minors. The commission would send notices to book distributors that identified various books and magazines they believed were objectionable and sent copies of their lists to local and state law enforcement. Book distributors reacted to these notices by stopping the circulation of the materials identified by the commission. The Supreme Court held that the commission’s efforts violated the First Amendment and once more recognized that by targeting a distributor of others’ speech, the commission’s “capacity for suppression of constitutionally protected publications” was vast.  

KOSA’s duty of care creates a more far-reaching censorship threat than those that the Supreme Court struck down in Smith and Bantam Books. KOSA makes online services that host our digital speech liable should they fail to exercise reasonable care in removing or restricting minors’ access to lawful content on the topics KOSA identifies. KOSA is worse than the ordinance in Smith because the First Amendment generally protects speech about addiction, suicide, eating disorders, and the other topics KOSA singles out.  

We think that online services will react to KOSA’s new liability in much the same way as the bookstore in Smith and the book distributer in Bantam Books: They will limit minors’ access to or simply remove any speech that might touch on the topics KOSA identifies, even when much of that speech is protected by the First Amendment. Worse, online services have even less ability to read through the millions (or sometimes billions) of pieces of content on their services than a bookseller or distributor who had to review hundreds or thousands of books.  To comply, we expect that platforms will deploy blunt tools, either by gating off entire portions of their site to prevent minors from accessing them (more on this below) or by deploying automated filters that will over-censor speech, including speech that may be beneficial to minors seeking help with addictions or other problems KOSA identifies. (Regardless of their claims, it is not possible for a service to accurately pinpoint the content KOSA describes with automated tools.) 

But as the Supreme Court ruled in Smith and Bantam Books, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting a law that results in such broad censorship precisely because it limits the distribution of, and access to, lawful speech.  

Moreover, the fact that KOSA singles out certain legal content—for example, speech concerning bullying—means that the bill creates content-based restrictions that are presumptively unconstitutional. The government bears the burden of showing that KOSA’s content restrictions advance a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored to that interest, and are the least speech-restrictive means of advancing that interest. KOSA cannot satisfy this exacting standard.  

The fact that KOSA singles out certain legal content—for example, speech concerning bullying—means that the bill creates content-based restrictions that are presumptively unconstitutional. 

EFF agrees that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children from being harmed online. But KOSA’s broad requirement that platforms and services face liability for showing speech concerning particular topics to minors is not narrowly tailored to that interest. As said above, the broad censorship that will result will effectively limit access to a wide range of lawful speech on topics such as addiction, bullying, and eating disorders. The fact that KOSA will sweep up so much speech shows that it is far from the least speech-restrictive alternative, too.  

Why the Rule of Construction Doesn’t Solve the Censorship Concern 

In response to censorship concerns about the duty of care, KOSA’s authors added a rule of construction stating that nothing in the duty of care “shall be construed to require a covered platform to prevent or preclude:”  

• minors from deliberately or independently searching for content, or 
• the platforms or services from providing resources that prevent or mitigate the harms KOSA identifies, “including evidence-based information and clinical resources." 

We understand that some interpret this language as a safeguard for online services that limits their liability if a minor happens across information on topics that KOSA identifies, and consequently, platforms hosting content aimed at mitigating addiction, bullying, or other identified harms can take comfort that they will not be sued under KOSA. 

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: OPPOSE THE KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT

But EFF does not believe the rule of construction will limit KOSA’s censorship, in either a practical or constitutional sense. As a practical matter, it’s not clear how an online service will be able to rely on the rule of construction’s safeguards given the diverse amount of content it likely hosts.  

Take for example an online forum in which users discuss drug and alcohol abuse. It is likely to contain a range of content and views by users, some of which might describe addiction, drug use, and treatment, including negative and positive views on those points. KOSA’s rule of construction might protect the forum from a minor’s initial search for content that leads them to the forum. But once that minor starts interacting with the forum, they are likely to encounter the types of content KOSA proscribes, and the service may face liability if there is a later claim that the minor was harmed. In short, KOSA does not clarify that the initial search for the forum precludes any liability should the minor interact with the forum and experience harm later. It is also not clear how a service would prove that the minor found the forum via a search. 

The near-impossible standard required to review such a large volume of content, coupled with liability for letting any harmful content through, is precisely the scenario that the Supreme Court feared

Further, the rule of construction’s protections for the forum, should it provide only resources regarding preventing or mitigating drug and alcohol abuse based on evidence-based information and clinical resources, is unlikely to be helpful. That provision assumes that the forum has the resources to review all existing content on the forum and effectively screen all future content to only permit user-generated content concerning mitigation or prevention of substance abuse. The rule of construction also requires the forum to have the subject-matter expertise necessary to judge what content is or isn’t clinically correct and evidence-based. And even that assumes that there is broad scientific consensus about all aspects of substance abuse, including its causes (which there is not). 

Given that practical uncertainty and the potential hazard of getting anything wrong when it comes to minors’ access to that content, we think that the substance abuse forum will react much like the bookseller and distributor in the Supreme Court cases did: It will simply take steps to limit the ability for minors to access the content, a far easier and safer alternative than  making case-by-case expert decisions regarding every piece of content on the forum. 

EFF also does not believe that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Smith and Bantam Books would have been different if there had been similar KOSA-like safeguards incorporated into the regulations at issue. For example, even if the obscenity ordinance at issue in Smith had made an exception letting bookstores  sell scientific books with detailed pictures of human anatomy, the bookstore still would have to exhaustively review every book it sold and separate the obscene books from the scientific. The Supreme Court rejected such burdens as offensive to the First Amendment: “It would be altogether unreasonable to demand so near an approach to omniscience.” 

The near-impossible standard required to review such a large volume of content, coupled with liability for letting any harmful content through, is precisely the scenario that the Supreme Court feared. “The bookseller's self-censorship, compelled by the State, would be a censorship affecting the whole public, hardly less virulent for being privately administered,” the court wrote in Smith. “Through it, the distribution of all books, both obscene and not obscene, would be impeded.” 

Those same First Amendment concerns are exponentially greater for online services hosting everyone’s speech. That is why we do not believe that KOSA’s rule of construction will prevent the broader censorship that results from the bill’s duty of care. 

Finally, we do not believe the rule of construction helps the government overcome its burden on strict scrutiny to show that KOSA is narrowly tailored or restricts less speech than necessary. Instead, the rule of construction actually heightens KOSA’s violation of the First Amendment by preferencing certain viewpoints over others. The rule of construction here creates a legal preference for viewpoints that seek to mitigate the various identified harms, and punishes viewpoints that are neutral or even mildly positive of those harms. While EFF agrees that such speech may be awful, the First Amendment does not permit the government to make these viewpoint-based distinctions without satisfying strict scrutiny. It cannot meet that heavy burden with KOSA.  

KOSA's Focus on Design Features Doesn’t Change Our First Amendment Concerns 

KOSA supporters argue that because the duty of care and other provisions of KOSA concern an online service or platforms’ design features, the bill raises no First Amendment issues. We disagree.  

It’s true enough that KOSA creates liability for services that fail to “exercise reasonable care in the creation and implementation of any design feature” to prevent the bill’s enumerated harms. But the features themselves are not what KOSA's duty of care deems harmful. Rather, the provision specifically links the design features to minors’ access to the enumerated content that KOSA deems harmful. In that way, the design features serve as little more than a distraction. The duty of care provision is not concerned per se with any design choice generally, but only those design choices that fail to mitigate minors’ access to information about depression, eating disorders, and the other identified content. 

Once again, the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith shows why it’s incorrect to argue that KOSA’s regulation of design features avoids the First Amendment concerns. If the ordinance at issue in Smith regulated the way in which bookstores were designed, and imposed liability based on where booksellers placed certain offending books in their stores—for example, in the front window—we  suspect that the Supreme Court would have recognized, rightly, that the design restriction was little more than an indirect effort to unconstitutionally regulate the content. The same holds true for KOSA.  

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: OPPOSE THE KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT

KOSA Doesn’t “Mandate” Age-Gating, But It Heavily Pushes Platforms to Do So and Provides Few Other Avenues to Comply 

KOSA was amended in May 2023 to include language that was meant to ease concerns about age verification; in particular, it included explicit language that age verification is not required under the “Privacy Protections” section of the bill. The bill now states that a covered platform is not required to implement an age gating or age verification functionality to comply with KOSA.  

EFF acknowledges the text of the bill and has been clear in our messaging that nothing in the proposal explicitly requires services to implement age verification. Yet it's hard to see this change as anything other than a technical dodge that will be contradicted in practice.  

KOSA creates liability for any regulated platform or service that presents certain content to minors that the bill deems harmful to them. To comply with that new liability, those platforms and services’ options are limited. As we see them, the options are either to filter content for known minors or to gate content so only adults can access it. In either scenario, the linchpin is the platform knowing every user’s age  so it can identify its minor users and either filter the content they see or  exclude them from any content that could be deemed harmful under the law.  

EFF acknowledges the text of the bill and has been clear in our messaging that nothing in the proposal explicitly requires services to implement age verification.

There’s really no way to do that without implementing age verification. Regardless of what this section of the bill says, there’s no way for platforms to block either categories of content or design features for minors without knowing the minors are minors.  

We also don’t think KOSA lets platforms  claim ignorance if they take steps to never learn the ages of their users. If a 16-year-old user misidentifies herself as an adult and the platform does not use age verification, it could still be held liable because it should have “reasonably known” her age. The platform’s ignorance thus could work against it later, perversely incentivizing the services to implement age verification at the outset. 

EFF Remains Concerned About State Attorneys General Enforcing KOSA 

Another change that KOSA’s sponsors made  this year was to remove the ability of state attorneys general to enforce KOSA’s duty of care standard. We respect that some groups believe this addresses  concerns that some states would misuse KOSA to target minors’ access to any information that state officials dislike, including LGBTQIA+ or sex education information. We disagree that this modest change prevents this harm. KOSA still lets state attorneys general  enforce other provisions, including a section requiring certain “safeguards for minors.” Among the safeguards is a requirement that platforms “limit design features” that lead to minors spending more time on a service, including the ability to scroll through content, be notified of other content or messages, or auto playing content.  

But letting an attorney general  enforce KOSA’s requirement of design safeguards could be used as a proxy for targeting services that host content certain officials dislike.  The attorney general would simply target the same content or service it disfavored, butinstead of claiming that it violated KOSA’s duty to care, the official instead would argue that the service failed to prevent harmful design features that minors in their state used, such as notifications or endless scrolling. We think the outcome will be the same: states are likely to use KOSA to target speech about sexual health, abortion, LBGTQIA+ topics, and a variety of other information. 

KOSA Applies to Broad Swaths of the Internet, Not Just the Big Social Media Platforms 

Many sites, platforms, apps, and games would have to follow KOSA’s requirements. It applies to “an online platform, online video game, messaging application, or video streaming service that connects to the internet and that is used, or is reasonably likely to be used, by a minor.”  

There are some important exceptions—it doesn’t apply to services that only provide direct or group messages only, such as Signal, or to schools, libraries, nonprofits, or to ISP’s like Comcast generally. This is good—some critics of KOSA have been concerned that it would apply to websites like Archive of Our Own (AO3), a fanfiction site that allows users to read and share their work, but AO3 is a nonprofit, so it would not be covered.  

But  a wide variety of niche online services that are for-profit  would still be regulated by KOSA. Ravelry, for example, is an online platform focused on knitters, but it is a business.   

And it is an open question whether the comment and community portions of major mainstream news and sports websites are subject to KOSA. The bill exempts news and sports websites, with the huge caveat that they are exempt only so long as they are “not otherwise an online platform.” KOSA defines “online platform” as “any public-facing website, online service, online application, or mobile application that predominantly provides a community forum for user generated content.” It’s easily arguable that the New York Times’ or ESPN’s comment and forum sections are predominantly designed as places for user-generated content. Would KOSA apply only to those interactive spaces or does the exception to the exception mean the entire sites are subject to the law? The language of the bill is unclear. 

Not All of KOSA’s Critics Are Right, Either 

Just as we don’t agree on KOSA’s likely outcomes with many of its supporters, we also don’t agree with every critic regarding KOSA’s consequences. This isn’t surprising—the law is broad, and a major complaint is that it remains unclear how its vague language would be interpreted. So let’s address some of the more common misconceptions about the bill. 

Large Social Media May Not Entirely Block Young People, But Smaller Services Might 

Some people have concerns that KOSA will result in minors not being able to use social media at all. We believe a more likely scenario is that the major platforms would offer different experiences to different age groups.  

They already do this in some ways—Meta currently places teens into the most restrictive content control setting on Instagram and Facebook. The company specifically updated these settings for many of the categories included in KOSA, including suicide, self-harm, and eating disorder content. Their update describes precisely what we worry KOSA would require by law: “While we allow people to share content discussing their own struggles with suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, our policy is not to recommend this content and we have been focused on ways to make it harder to find.” TikTok also has blocked some videos for users under 18. To be clear, this content filtering as a result of KOSA will be harmful and would violate the First Amendment.  

Though large platforms will likely react this way, many smaller platforms will not be capable of this kind of content filtering. They very well may decide blocking young people entirely is the easiest way to protect themselves from liability. We cannot know how every platform will react if KOSA is enacted, but smaller platforms that do not already use complex automated content moderation tools will likely find it financially burdensome to implement both age verification tools and content moderation tools.  

KOSA Won’t Necessarily Make Your Real Name Public by Default 

One recurring fear that critics of KOSA have shared is that they will no longer to be able to use platforms anonymously. We believe this is true, but there is some nuance to it. No one should have to hand over their driver's license—or, worse, provide biometric information—just to access lawful speech on websites. But there's nothing in KOSA that would require online platforms to publicly tie your real name to your username.  

Still, once someone shares information to verify their age, there’s no way for them to be certain that the data they’re handing over is not going to be retained and used by the website, or further shared or even sold. As we’ve said, KOSA doesn't technically require age verification but we think it’s the most likely outcome. Users still will be forced to trust that the website they visit, or its third-party verification service, won’t misuse their private data, including their name, age, or biometric information. Given the numerous  data privacy blunders we’ve seen from companies like Meta in the past, and the general concern with data privacy that Congress seems to share with the general public (and with EFF), we believe this outcome to be extremely dangerous. Simply put: Sharing your private info with a company doesn’t necessarily make it public, but it makes it far more likely to become public than if you hadn’t shared it in the first place.   

We Agree With Supporters: Government Should Study Social Media’s Effects on Minors 

We know tensions are high; this is an incredibly important topic, and an emotional one. EFF does not have all the right answers regarding how to address the ways in which young people can be harmed online. Which is why we agree with KOSA’s supporters that the government should conduct much greater research on these issues. We believe that comprehensive fact-finding is the first step to both identifying the problems and legislative solutions. A provision of KOSA does require the National Academy of Sciences to research these issues and issue reports to the public. But KOSA gets this process backwards. It creates solutions to general concerns about young people being harmed without first doing the work necessary to show that the bill’s provisions address those problems. As we have said repeatedly, we do not think KOSA will address harms to young people online. We think it will exacerbate them.  

Even if your stance on KOSA is different from ours, we hope we are all working toward the same goal: an internet that supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world. We don’t believe KOSA will get us there, but neither will ad hominem attacks. To that end,  we look forward to more detailed analyses of the bill from its supporters, and to continuing thoughtful engagement from anyone interested in working on this critical issue. 

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: OPPOSE THE KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT

Congress’ unfounded plan to ban TikTok under the guise of protecting our data is back, this time in the form of a new bill—the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” H.R. 7521 — which has gained a dangerous amount of momentum in Congress. This bipartisan legislation was introduced in the House just a week ago and is expected to be sent to the Senate after a vote later this week.

A year ago, supporters of digital rights across the country successfully stopped the federal RESTRICT Act, commonly known as the “TikTok Ban” bill (it was that and a whole lot more). And now we must do the same with this bill. 

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: DON'T BAN TIKTOK

As a first step, H.R. 7521 would force TikTok to find a new owner that is not based in a foreign adversarial country within the next 180 days or be banned until it does so. It would also give the President the power to designate other applications under the control of a country considered adversarial to the U.S. to be a national security threat. If deemed a national security threat, the application would be banned from app stores and web hosting services unless it cuts all ties with the foreign adversarial country within 180 days. The bill would criminalize the distribution of the application through app stores or other web services, as well as the maintenance of such an app by the company. Ultimately, the result of the bill would either be a nationwide ban on the TikTok, or a forced sale of the application to a different company.

The only solution to this pervasive ecosystem is prohibiting the collection of our data in the first place.

Make no mistake—though this law starts with TikTok specifically, it could have an impact elsewhere. Tencent’s WeChat app is one of the world’s largest standalone messenger platforms, with over a billion users, and is a key vehicle for the Chinese diaspora generally. It would likely also be a target. 

The bill’s sponsors have argued that the amount of private data available to and collected by the companies behind these applications — and in theory, shared with a foreign government — makes them a national security threat. But like the RESTRICT Act, this bill won’t stop this data sharing, and will instead reduce our rights online. User data will still be collected by numerous platforms—possibly even TikTok after a forced sale—and it will still be sold to data brokers who can then sell it elsewhere, just as they do now. 

The only solution to this pervasive ecosystem is prohibiting the collection of our data in the first place. Ultimately, foreign adversaries will still be able to obtain our data from social media companies unless those companies are forbidden from collecting, retaining, and selling it, full stop. And to be clear, under our current data privacy laws, there are many domestic adversaries engaged in manipulative and invasive data collection as well. That’s why EFF supports such consumer data privacy legislation. 

Congress has also argued that this bill is necessary to tackle the anti-American propaganda that young people are seeing due to TikTok’s algorithm. Both this justification and the national security justification raise serious First Amendment concerns, and last week EFF, the ACLU, CDT, and Fight for the Future wrote to the House Energy and Commerce Committee urging them to oppose this bill due to its First Amendment violations—specifically for those across the country who rely on TikTok for information, advocacy, entertainment, and communication. The US has rightfully condemned other countries when they have banned, or sought a ban, on specific social media platforms.

Montana’s ban was as unprecedented as it was unconstitutional

And it’s not just civil society saying this. Late last year, the courts blocked Montana’s TikTok ban, SB 419, from going into effect on January 1, 2024, ruling that the law violated users’ First Amendment rights to speak and to access information online, and the company’s First Amendment rights to select and curate users’ content. EFF and the ACLU had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a challenge to the law brought by TikTok and a group of the app’s users who live in Montana. 

Our brief argued that Montana’s ban was as unprecedented as it was unconstitutional, and we are pleased that the district court upheld our free speech rights and blocked the law from going into effect. As with that state ban, the US government cannot show that a federal ban is narrowly tailored, and thus cannot use the threat of unlawful censorship as a cudgel to coerce a business to sell its property. 

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: DON'T BAN TIKTOK

Instead of passing this overreaching and misguided bill, Congress should prevent any company—regardless of where it is based—from collecting massive amounts of our detailed personal data, which is then made available to data brokers, U.S. government agencies, and even foreign adversaries, China included. We shouldn’t waste time arguing over a law that will get thrown out for silencing the speech of millions of Americans. Instead, Congress should solve the real problem of out-of-control privacy invasions by enacting comprehensive consumer data privacy legislation.

The authors of the dangerous Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) unveiled an amended version this week, but it’s still an unconstitutional censorship bill that continues to empower state officials to target services and online content they do not like. We are asking everyone reading this to oppose this latest version, and to demand that their representatives oppose it—even if you have already done so. 

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: OPPOSE THE KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT

KOSA remains a dangerous bill that would allow the government to decide what types of information can be shared and read online by everyone. It would still require an enormous number of websites, apps, and online platforms to filter and block legal, and important, speech. It would almost certainly still result in age verification requirements. Some of its provisions have changed over time, and its latest changes are detailed below. But those improvements do not cure KOSA’s core First Amendment problems. Moreover, a close review shows that state attorneys general still have a great deal of power to target online services and speech they do not like, which we think will harm children seeking access to basic health information and a variety of other content that officials deem harmful to minors.  

We’ll dive into the details of KOSA’s latest changes, but first we want to remind everyone of the stakes. KOSA is still a censorship bill and it will still harm a large number of minors who have First Amendment rights to access lawful speech online. It will endanger young people and impede the rights of everyone who uses the platforms, services, and websites affected by the bill. Based on our previous analyses, statements by its authors and various interest groups, as well as the overall politicization of youth education and online activity, we believe the following groups—to name just a few—will be endangered:  

• LGBTQ+ Youth will be at risk of having content, educational material, and their own online identities erased.  
• Young people searching for sexual health and reproductive rights information will find their search results stymied. 
• Teens and children in historically oppressed and marginalized groups will be unable to locate information about their history and shared experiences. 
• Activist youth on either side of the aisle, such as those fighting for changes to climate laws, gun laws, or religious rights, will be siloed, and unable to advocate and connect on platforms.  
• Young people seeking mental health help and information will be blocked from finding it, because even discussions of suicide, depression, anxiety, and eating disorders will be hidden from them. 
• Teens hoping to combat the problem of addiction—either their own, or that of their friends, families, and neighbors, will not have the resources they need to do so.  
• Any young person seeking truthful news or information that could be considered depressing will find it harder to educate themselves and engage in current events and honest discussion. 
• Adults in any of these groups who are unwilling to share their identities will find themselves shunted onto a second-class internet alongside the young people who have been denied access to this information. 

What’s Changed in the Latest (2024) Version of KOSA 

In its impact, the latest version of KOSA is not meaningfully different from those previous versions. The “duty of care” censorship section remains in the bill, though modified as we will explain below. The latest version removes the authority of state attorneys general to sue or prosecute people for not complying with the “duty of care.” But KOSA still permits these state officials to enforce other part of the bill based on their political whims and we expect those officials to use this new law to the same censorious ends as they would have of previous versions. And the legal requirements of KOSA are still only possible for sites to safely follow if they restrict access to content based on age, effectively mandating age verification.   

KOSA is still a censorship bill and it will still harm a large number of minors

Duty of Care is Still a Duty of Censorship 

Previously, KOSA outlined a wide collection of harms to minors that platforms had a duty to prevent and mitigate through “the design and operation” of their product. This includes self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, and bullying, among others. This seemingly anodyne requirement—that apps and websites must take measures to prevent some truly awful things from happening—would have led to overbroad censorship on otherwise legal, important topics for everyone as we’ve explained before.  

The updated duty of care says that a platform shall “exercise reasonable care in the creation and implementation of any design feature” to prevent and mitigate those harms. The difference is subtle, and ultimately, unimportant. There is no case law defining what is “reasonable care” in this context. This language still means increased liability merely for hosting and distributing otherwise legal content that the government—in this case the FTC—claims is harmful.  

Design Feature Liability 

The bigger textual change is that the bill now includes a definition of a “design feature,” which the bill requires platforms to limit for minors. The “design feature” of products that could lead to liability is defined as: 

any feature or component of a covered platform that will encourage or increase the frequency, time spent, or activity of minors on the covered platform, or activity of minors on the covered platform. 

Design features include but are not limited to 

(A) infinite scrolling or auto play; 

(B) rewards for time spent on the platform; 

(C) notifications; 

(D) personalized recommendation systems; 

(E) in-game purchases; or 

(F) appearance altering filters. 

These design features are a mix of basic elements and those that may be used to keep visitors on a site or platform. There are several problems with this provision. First, it’s not clear when offering basic features that many users rely on, such as notifications, by itself creates a harm. But that points to the fundamental problem of this provision. KOSA is essentially trying to use features of a service as a proxy to create liability for speech online that the bill’s authors do not like. But the list of harmful designs shows that the legislators backing KOSA want to regulate online content, not just design.   

For example, if an online service presented an endless scroll of math problems for children to complete, or rewarded children with virtual stickers and other prizes for reading digital children’s books, would lawmakers consider those design features harmful? Of course not. Infinite scroll and autoplay are generally not a concern for legislators. It’s that these lawmakers do not like some lawful content that is accessible via online service’s features. 

What KOSA tries to do here then is to launder restrictions on content that lawmakers do not like through liability for supposedly harmful “design features.” But the First Amendment still prohibits Congress from indirectly trying to censor lawful speech it disfavors.  

We shouldn’t kid ourselves that the latest version of KOSA will stop state officials from targeting vulnerable communities.

Allowing the government to ban content designs is a dangerous idea. If the FTC decided that direct messages, or encrypted messages, were leading to harm for minors—under this language they could bring an enforcement action against a platform that allowed users to send such messages. 

Regardless of whether we like infinite scroll or auto-play on platforms, these design features are protected by the First Amendment; just like the design features we do like. If the government tried to limit an online newspaper from using an infinite scroll feature or auto-playing videos, that case would be struck down. KOSA’s latest variant is no different.   

Attorneys General Can Still Use KOSA to Enact Political Agendas 

As we mentioned above, the enforcement available to attorneys general has been narrowed to no longer include the duty of care. But due to the rule of construction and the fact that attorneys general can still enforce other portions of KOSA, this is cold comfort. 

For example, it is true enough that the amendments to KOSA prohibit a state from targeting an online service based on claims that in hosting LGBTQ content that it violated KOSA’s duty of care. Yet that same official could use another provision of KOSA—which allows them to file suits based on failures in a platform’s design—to target the same content. The state attorney general could simply claim that they are not targeting the LGBTQ content, but rather the fact that the content was made available to minors via notifications, recommendations, or other features of a service. 

We shouldn’t kid ourselves that the latest version of KOSA will stop state officials from targeting vulnerable communities. And KOSA leaves all of the bill’s censorial powers with the FTC, a five-person commission nominated by the president. This still allows a small group of federal officials appointed by the President to decide what content is dangerous for young people. Placing this enforcement power with the FTC is still a First Amendment problem: no government official, state or federal, has the power to dictate by law what people can read online.  

The Long Fight Against KOSA Continues in 2024 

For two years now, EFF has laid out the clear arguments against this bill. KOSA creates liability if an online service fails to perfectly police a variety of content that the bill deems harmful to minors. Services have little room to make any mistakes if some content is later deemed harmful to minors and, as a result, are likely to restrict access to a broad spectrum of lawful speech, including information about health issues like eating disorders, drug addiction, and anxiety.  

The fight against KOSA has amassed an enormous coalition of people of all ages and all walks of life who know that censorship is not the right approach to protecting people online, and that the promise of the internet is one that must apply equally to everyone, regardless of age. Some of the people who have advocated against KOSA from day one have now graduated high school or college. But every time this bill returns, more people learn why we must stop it from becoming law.   

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: OPPOSE THE KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT

We cannot afford to allow the government to decide what information is available online. Please contact your representatives today to tell them to stop the Kids Online Safety Act from moving forward. 

Welcome! 

The fact that you’re reading this means that you probably care deeply about the issue of privacy, which warms our hearts. Unfortunately, even though you care about privacy, or perhaps because you care so much about it, you may feel that there's not much you (or anyone) can really do to protect it, no matter how hard you try. Perhaps you think “privacy is dead.” 

We’ve all probably felt a little bit like you do at one time or another. At its worst, this feeling might be described as despair. Maybe it hits you because a new privacy law seems to be too little, too late. Or maybe you felt a kind of vertigo after reading a news story about a data breach or a company that was vacuuming up private data willy-nilly without consent. 

People are angry because they care about privacy, not because privacy is dead.

Even if you don’t have this feeling now, at some point you may have felt—or possibly will feel—that we’re past the point of no return when it comes to protecting our private lives from digital snooping. There are so many dangers out there—invasive governments, doorbell cameras, license plate readers, greedy data brokers, mismanaged companies that haven’t installed any security updates in a decade. The list goes on.

This feeling is sometimes called “privacy nihilism.” Those of us who care the most about privacy are probably more likely to get it, because we know how tough the fight is. 

We could go on about this feeling, because sometimes we at EFF have it, too. But the important thing to get across is that this feeling is valid, but it’s also not accurate. Here’s why.

You Aren’t Fighting for Privacy Alone

For starters, remember that none of us are fighting alone. EFF is one of dozens, if not hundreds,  of organizations that work to protect privacy.  EFF alone has over thirty-thousand dues-paying members who support that fight—not to mention hundreds of thousands of supporters subscribed to our email lists and social media feeds. Millions of people read EFF’s website each year, and tens of millions use the tools we’ve made, like Privacy Badger. Privacy is one of EFF’s biggest concerns, and as an organization we have grown by leaps and bounds over the last two decades because more and more people care. Some people say that Americans have given up on privacy. But if you look at actual facts—not just EFF membership, but survey results and votes cast on ballot initiatives—Americans overwhelmingly support new privacy protections. In general, the country has grown more concerned about how the government uses our data, and a large majority of people say that we need more data privacy protections. 

People are angry because they care about privacy, not because privacy is dead.

Some people also say that kids these days don’t care about their privacy, but the ones that we’ve met think about privacy a lot. What’s more, they are fighting as hard as anyone to stop privacy-invasive bills like the Kids Online Safety Act. In our experience, the next generation cares intensely about protecting privacy, and they’re likely to have even more tools to do so. 

Laws are Making Their Way Around the World

Strong privacy laws don’t cover every American—yet. But take a look at just one example to see how things are improving: the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA). The CCPA isn’t perfect, but it did make a difference. The CCPA granted Californians a few basic rights when it comes to their relationship with businesses, like the right to know what information companies have about you, the right to delete that information, and the right to tell companies not to sell your information. 

This wasn’t a perfect law for a few reasons. Under the CCPA, consumers have to go company-by-company to opt out in order to protect their data. At EFF, we’d like to see privacy and protection as the default until consumers opt-in. Also, CCPA doesn’t allow individuals to sue if their data is mismanaged—only California’s Attorney General and the California Privacy Protection Agency can do it. And of course, the law only covers Californians. 

Remember that it takes time to change the system.

But this imperfect law is slowly getting better. Just this year California’s legislature passed the DELETE Act, which resolves one of those issues. The California Privacy Protection Agency now must create a deletion mechanism for data brokers that allows people to make their requests to every data broker with a single, verifiable consumer request. 

Pick a privacy-related topic, and chances are good that model bills are being introduced, or already exist as laws in some places, even if they don’t exist everywhere. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, for example, passed back in 2008, protects people from nonconsensual use of their biometrics for face recognition. We may not have comprehensive privacy laws yet in the US, but other parts of the world—like Europe—have more impactful, if imperfect, laws. We can have a nationwide comprehensive consumer data privacy law, and once those laws are on the books, they can be improved.  

We Know We’re Playing the Long Game

Remember that it takes time to change the system. Today we take many protections for granted, and often assume that things are only getting worse, not better. But many important rights are relatively new. For example, our Constitution didn’t always require police to get a warrant before wiretapping our phones. It took the Supreme Court four decades to get this right. (They were wrong in 1928 in Olmstead, then right in 1967 in Katz.)

Similarly, creating privacy protections in law and in technology is not a sprint. It is a marathon. The fight is long, and we know that. Below, we’ve got examples of the progress that we’ve already made, in law and elsewhere. 

Just because we don’t have some protective laws today doesn’t mean we can’t have them tomorrow. 

Privacy Protections Have Actually Increased Over the Years

The World Wide Web is Now Encrypted 

When the World Wide Web was created, most websites were unencrypted. Privacy laws aren’t the only way to create privacy protections, as the now nearly-entirely encrypted web shows:  another approach is to engineer in strong privacy protections from the start. 

The web has now largely switched from non-secure HTTP to the more secure HTTPS protocol. Before this happened, most web browsing was vulnerable to eavesdropping and content hijacking. HTTPS fixes most of these problems. That's why EFF, and many like-minded supporters, pushed for web sites to adopt HTTPS by default. As of 2021, about 90% of all web page visits use HTTPS. This switch happened in under a decade. This is a big win for encryption and security for everyone, and EFF's Certbot and HTTPS Everywhere are tools that made it happen, by offering an easy and free way to switch an existing HTTP site to HTTPS. (With a lot of help from Let’s Encrypt, started in 2013 by a group of determined researchers and technologists from EFF and the University of Michigan.) Today, it’s the default to implement HTTPS. 

Cell Phone Location Data Now Requires a Warrant

In 2018, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark opinion in Carpenter v. United States, ruling 5-4 that the Fourth Amendment protects cell phone location information. As a result, police must now get a warrant before obtaining this data. 

But where else this ruling applies is still being worked out. Perhaps the most significant part of the ruling is its explicit recognition that individuals can maintain an expectation of privacy in information that they provide to third parties. The Court termed that a “rare” case, but it’s clear that other invasive surveillance technologies, particularly those that can track individuals through physical space, are now ripe for challenge. Expect to see much more litigation on this subject from EFF and our friends.

Americans’ Outrage At Unconstitutional Mass Surveillance Made A Difference

In 2013, government contractor Edward Snowden shared evidence confirming, among other things, that the United States government had been conducting mass surveillance on a global scale, including surveillance of its own citizens’ telephone and internet use. Ten years later, there is definitely more work to be done regarding mass surveillance. But some things are undoubtedly better: some of the National Security Agency’s most egregiously illegal programs and authorities have shuttered or been forced to end. The Intelligence Community has started affirmatively releasing at least some important information, although EFF and others have still had to fight some long Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) battles.

Privacy Options Are So Much Better Today

Remember PGP and GPG? If you do, you know that generally, there are much easier ways to send end-to-end encrypted communications today than there used to be. It’s fantastic that people worked so hard to protect their privacy in the past, and it’s fantastic that they don’t have to work as hard now! (If you aren’t familiar with PGP or GPG, just trust us on this one.) 

Don’t give in to privacy nihilism. Instead, share and celebrate the ways we’re winning. 

Advice for protecting online privacy used to require epic how-to guides for complex tools; now, advice is usually just about what relatively simple tools or settings to use. People across the world have Signal and WhatsApp. The web is encrypted, and the Tor Browser lets people visit websites anonymously fairly easily. Password managers protect your passwords and your accounts; third-party cookie blockers like EFF’s Privacy Badger stop third-party tracking. There are even options now to turn off your Ad ID—the key that enables most third-party tracking on mobile devices—right on your phone. These tools and settings all push the needle forward.

We Are Winning The Privacy War, Not Losing It

Sometimes people respond to privacy dangers by comparing them to sci-fi dystopias. But be honest: most science fiction dystopias still scare the heck out of us because they are much, much more invasive of privacy than the world we live in. 

In an essay called “Stop Saying Privacy Is Dead,” Evan Selinger makes a necessary point: “As long as you have some meaningful say over when you are watched and can exert agency over how your data is processed, you will have some modicum of privacy.” 

Of course we want more than a modicum of privacy. But the point here is that many of us generally do get to make decisions about our privacy. Not all—of course. But we all recognize that there are different levels of privacy in different places, and that privacy protections aren’t equally good or bad no matter where we go. We have places we can go—online and off—that afford us more protections than others. And because of this, most of the people reading this still have deep private lives, and can choose, with varying amounts of effort, not to allow corporate or government surveillance into those lives. 

Worrying about every potential threat, and trying to protect yourself from each of them, all of the time, is a recipe for failure.

Privacy is a process, not a single thing. We are always negotiating what levels of privacy we have. We might not always have the upper hand, but we are often able to negotiate. This is why we still see some fictional dystopias and think, “Thank God that’s not my life.” As long as we can do this, we are winning. 

“Giving Up” On Privacy May Not Mean Much to You, But It Does to Many

Shrugging about the dangers of surveillance can seem reasonable when that surveillance isn’t very impactful on our lives. But for many, fighting for privacy isn't a choice, it is a means to survive. Privacy inequity is real; increasingly, money buys additional privacy protections. And if privacy is available for some, then it can exist for all. But we should not accept that some people will have privacy and others will not. This is why digital privacy legislation is digital rights legislation, and why EFF is opposed to data dividends and pay-for-privacy schemes.

Privacy increases for all of us when it increases for each of us. It is much easier for a repressive government to ban end-to-end encrypted messengers when only journalists and activists use them. It is easier to know who is an activist or a journalist when they are the only ones using privacy-protecting services or methods. As the number of people demanding privacy increases, the safer we all are. Sacrificing others because you don't feel the impact of surveillance is a fool's bargain. 

Time Heals Most Privacy Wounds

You may want to tell yourself: companies already know everything about me, so a privacy law a year from now won't help. That's incorrect, because companies are always searching for new data. Some pieces of information will never change, like our biometrics. But chances are you've changed in many ways over the years—whether that's as big as a major life event or as small as a change in your tastes in movies—but who you are today is not necessarily you'll be tomorrow.

As the source of that data, we should have more control over where it goes, and we’re slowly getting it. But that expiration date means that even if some of our information is already out there, it’s never going to be too late to shut off the faucet. So if we pass a privacy law next year, it’s not the case that every bit of information about you has already leaked, so it won’t do any good. It will.

What To Do When You Feel Like It’s Impossible

It can feel overwhelming to care about something that feels like it’s dying a death of a thousand cuts. But worrying about every potential threat, and trying to protect yourself from each of them, all of the time, is a recipe for failure. No one really needs to be vigilant about every threat at all times. That’s why our recommendation is to create a personalized security plan, rather than throwing your hands up or cowering in a corner. 

Once you’ve figured out what threats you should worry about, our advice is to stay involved. We are all occasionally skeptical that we can succeed, but taking action is a great way to get rid of that gnawing feeling that there’s nothing to be done. EFF regularly launches new projects that we hope will help you fight privacy nihilism. We’re in court many times a year fighting privacy violations. We create ways for like-minded, privacy-focused people to work together in their local advocacy groups, through the Electronic Frontier Alliance, our grassroots network of community and campus organizations fighting for digital rights. We even help you teach others to protect their own privacy. And of course every day is a good day for you to join us in telling government officials and companies that privacy matters. 

We know we can win because we’re creating the better future that we want to see every day, and it’s working. But we’re also building the plane while we’re flying it. Just as the death of privacy is not inevitable, neither is our success. It takes real work, and we hope you’ll help us do that work by joining us. Take action. Tell a friend. Download Privacy Badger. Become an EFF member. Gift an EFF membership to someone else.

Don’t give in to privacy nihilism. Instead, share and celebrate the ways we’re winning. 

Legislatures in more than half of the country targeted young people’s use of social media this year, with many of the proposals blocking adults’ ability to access the same sites. State representatives introduced dozens of bills that would limit young people’s use of some of the most popular sites and apps, either by requiring the companies to introduce or amend their features or data usage for young users, or by forcing those users to get permission from parents, and in some cases, share their passwords, before they can log on. Courts blocked several of these laws for violating the First Amendment—though some may go into effect later this year. 

Fourteen months after California passed the AADC, it feels like a dam has broken.

How did we get to a point where state lawmakers are willing to censor large parts of the internet? In many ways, California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Act (AADC), passed in September of 2022, set the stage for this year’s battle. EFF asked Governor Newsom to veto that bill before it was signed into law, despite its good intentions in seeking to protect the privacy and well-being of children. Like many of the bills that followed it this year, it runs the risk of imposing surveillance requirements and content restrictions on a broader audience than intended. A federal court blocked the AADC earlier this year, and California has appealed that decision.

Fourteen months after California passed the AADC, it feels like a dam has broken: we’ve seen dangerous social media regulations for young people introduced across the country, and passed in several states, including Utah, Arkansas, and Texas. The severity and individual components of these regulations vary. Like California’s, many of these bills would introduce age verification requirements, forcing sites to identify all of their users, harming both minors’ and adults’ ability to access information online. We oppose age verification requirements, which are the wrong approach to protecting young people online. No one should have to hand over their driver’s license, or, worse, provide biometric information, just to access lawful speech on websites.

A Closer Look at State Social Media Laws Passed in 2023

Utah enacted the first child social media regulation this year, S.B. 152, in March. The law prohibits social media companies from providing accounts to a Utah minor, unless they have the express consent of a parent or guardian. We requested that Utah’s governor veto the bill.

We identified at least four reasons to oppose the law, many of which apply to other states’ social media regulations. First, young people have a First Amendment right to information that the law infringes upon. With S.B. 152 in effect, the majority of young Utahns will find themselves effectively locked out of much of the web absent their parents permission. Second, the law  dangerously requires parental surveillance of young peoples’ accounts, harming their privacy and free speech. Third, the law endangers the privacy of all Utah users, as it requires many sites to collect and analyze private information, like government issued identification, for every user, to verify ages. And fourth, the law interferes with the broader public’s First Amendment right to receive information by requiring that all users in Utah tie their accounts to their age, and ultimately, their identity, and will lead to fewer people expressing themselves, or seeking information online. 

Federal courts have blocked the laws in Arkansas and California.

The law passed despite these problems, as did Utah’s H.B. 311, which creates liability for social media companies should they, in the view of Utah lawmakers, create services that are addictive to minors. H.B. 311 is unconstitutional because it imposes a vague and unscientific standard for what might constitute social media addiction, potentially creating liability for core features of a service, such as letting you know that someone responded to your post. Both S.B. 152 and H.B. 311 are scheduled to take effect in March 2024.

Arkansas passed a similar law to Utah's S.B. 152 in April, which requires users of social media to prove their age or obtain parental permission to create social media accounts. A federal court blocked the Arkansas law in September, ruling that the age-verification provisions violated the First Amendment because they burdened everyone's ability to access lawful speech online. EFF joined the ACLU in a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the statute was unconstitutional.

Texas, in June, passed a regulation similar to the Arkansas law, which would ban anyone under 18 from having a social media account unless they receive consent from parents or guardians. The law is scheduled to take effect in September 2024.

Given the strong constitutional protections for people, including children, to access information without having to identify themselves, federal courts have blocked the laws in Arkansas and California. The Utah and Texas laws are likely to suffer the same fate. EFF has warned that such laws were bad policy and would not withstand court challenges, in large part because applying online regulations specifically to young people often forces sites to use age verification, which comes with a host of problems, legal and otherwise. 

To that end, we spent much of this year explaining to legislators that comprehensive data privacy legislation is the best way to hold tech companies accountable in our surveillance age, including for harms they do to children. For an even more detailed account of our suggestions, see Privacy First: A Better Way to Address Online Harms. In short, comprehensive data privacy legislation would address the massive collection and processing of personal data that is the root cause of many problems online, and it is far easier to write data privacy laws that are constitutional. Laws that lock online content behind age gates can almost never withstand First Amendment scrutiny because they frustrate all internet users’ rights to access information and often impinge on people’s right to anonymity.

Of course, states were not alone in their attempt to regulate social media for young people. Our Year in Review post on similar federal legislation that was introduced this year covers that fight, which was successful. Our post on the UK’s Online Safety Act describes the battle across the pond. 2024 is shaping up to be a year of court battles that may determine the future of young people’s access to speak out and obtain information online. We’ll be there, continuing to fight against misguided laws that do little to protect kids while doing much to invade everyone’s privacy and speech rights.

There’s been plenty of bad news regarding federal legislation in 2023. For starters, Congress has failed to pass meaningful comprehensive data privacy reforms. Instead, legislators have spent an enormous amount of energy pushing dangerous legislation that’s intended to limit young people’s use of some of the most popular sites and apps, all under the guise of protecting kids. Unfortunately, many of these bills would run roughshod over the rights of young people and adults in the process. We spent much of the year fighting these dangerous “child safety” bills, while also pointing out to legislators that comprehensive data privacy legislation would be more likely to pass constitutional muster and address many of the issues that these child safety bills focus on. 

But there’s also good news: so far, none of these dangerous bills have been passed at the federal level, or signed into law. That's thanks to a large coalition of digital rights groups and other organizations pushing back, as well as tens of thousands of individuals demanding protections for online rights in the many bills put forward.

Kids Online Safety Act Returns

The biggest danger has come from the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). Originally introduced in 2022, it was reintroduced this year and amended several times, and as of today, has 46 co-sponsors in the Senate. As soon as it was reintroduced, we fought back, because KOSA is fundamentally a censorship bill. The heart of the bill is a “Duty of Care” that the government will force on a huge number of websites, apps, social networks, messaging forums, and online video games. KOSA will compel even the smallest online forums to take action against content that politicians believe will cause minors “anxiety,” “depression,” or encourage substance abuse, among other behaviors. Of course, almost any content could easily fit into these categories—in particular, truthful news about what’s going on in the world, including wars, gun violence, and climate change. Kids don’t need to fall into a  wormhole of internet content to get anxious; they could see a newspaper on the breakfast table. 

Fortunately, so many people oppose KOSA that it never made it to the Senate floor for a full vote.

KOSA will empower every state’s attorney general as well as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to file lawsuits against websites or apps that the government believes are failing to “prevent or mitigate” the list of bad things that could influence kids online. Platforms affected by KOSA would likely find it impossible to filter out this type of “harmful” content, though they would likely try. Online services that want to host serious discussions about mental health issues, sexuality, gender identity, substance abuse, or a host of other issues, will all have to beg minors to leave, and institute age verification tools to ensure that it happens. Age verification systems are surveillance systems that threaten everyone’s privacy. Mandatory age verification, and with it, mandatory identity verification, is the wrong approach to protecting young people online.

The Senate passed amendments to KOSA later in the year, but these do not resolve its issues. As an example, liability under the law was shifted to be triggered only for content that online services recommend to users under 18, rather than content that minors specifically search for. In practice, that means platforms could not proactively show content to young users that could be “harmful,” but could present that content to them. How this would play out in practice is unclear; search results are recommendations, and future recommendations are impacted by previous searches. But however it’s interpreted, it’s still censorship—and it fundamentally misunderstands how search works online. Ultimately, no amendment will change the basic fact that KOSA’s duty of care turns what is meant to be a bill about child safety into a censorship bill that will harm the rights of both adult and minor users. 

Fortunately, so many people oppose KOSA that it never made it to the Senate floor for a full vote. In fact, even many of the young people it is intended to help are vehemently against it. We will continue to oppose it in the new year, and urge you to contact your congressperson about it today. 

Most KOSA Alternatives Aren’t Much Better

KOSA wasn’t the only child safety bill Congress put forward this year. The Protecting Kids on Social Media Act would combine some of the worst elements of other social media bills aimed at “protecting the children” into a single law. It includes elements of KOSA as well as several ideas pulled from state bills that have passed this year, such as Utah’s surveillance-heavy Social Media Regulations law. 

When originally introduced, the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act had five major components: 

• A mandate that social media companies verify the ages of all account holders, including adults 
• A ban on children under age 13 using social media at all
• A mandate that social media companies obtain parent or guardian consent before minors over 12 years old and under 18 years old may use social media
• A ban on the data of minors (anyone over 12 years old and under 18 years old) being used to inform a social media platform’s content recommendation algorithm
• The creation of a digital ID pilot program, instituted by the Department of Commerce, for citizens and legal residents, to verify ages and parent/guardian-minor relationships

EFF is opposed to all of these components, and has written extensively about why age verification mandates and parental consent requirements are generally dangerous and likely unconstitutional. 

In response to criticisms, senators updated the bill to remove some of the most flagrantly unconstitutional provisions: it no longer expressly mandates that social media companies verify the ages of all account holders, including adults. Nor does it mandate that social media companies obtain parent or guardian consent before teens may use social media.  

One silver lining to this fight is that it has activated young people. 

Still, it remains an unconstitutional bill that replaces parents’ choices about what their children can do online with a government-mandated prohibition. It would still prohibit children under 13 from using any ad-based social media, despite the vast majority of content on social media being lawful speech fully protected by the First Amendment. If enacted, the bill would suffer a similar fate to a California law struck down in 2011 for violating the First Amendment, which was aimed at restricting minors’ access to violent video games. 

What’s Next

One silver lining to this fight is that it has activated young people. The threat of KOSA, as well as several similar state-level bills that did pass, has made it clear that young people may be the biggest target for online censorship and surveillance, but they are also a strong weapon against them. 

The authors of these bills have good, laudable intentions. But laws that would force platforms to determine the age of their users are privacy-invasive, and laws that restrict speech—even if only for those who can’t prove they are above a certain age—are censorship laws. We expect that KOSA, at least, will return in one form or another. We will be ready when it does.

This blog is part of our Year in Review series. Read other articles about the fight for digital rights in 2023.

Young people’s access to social media continues to be under attack by overreaching politicians. The latest effort, Senator Ted Cruz’s blunt “Eyes on the Board” Act, aims to end social media’s use entirely in schools. This heavy-handed plan to cut federal funding to any school that doesn’t block all social media platforms may have good intentions—like ensuring kids are able to focus on school work when they’re behind a desk—but the ramifications of such a bill would be bleak, and it’s not clear that it would solve any actual problem.

Eyes on the Board would prohibit any school from receiving any federal E-Rate funding subsidies if it also allows access to social media. Schools and libraries that receive this funding are already required to install internet filters; the Children’s Internet Protection Act, or CIPA, requires that these schools must block or filter Internet access to “visual depictions” that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors, as well as requiring the monitoring of the online activities of minors for the same purpose. In return, the E-Rate program subsidizes internet services for schools and libraries in districts with high rates of poverty. 

This bill is a brazen attempt to censor information and to control how schools and teachers educate.

First, it’s not clear that there is a problem here that needs fixing. In practice, most schools choose to block much, much more than social media sites. This is a problem—these filters likely stop students from accessing educational information, and many tools flag students for accessing sites that aren’t blocked, endangering their privacy. Some students’ only access to the internet is during school hours, and others’ only internet-capable device is issued by their school, making these website blocks and flags particularly troubling. 

So it’s very, very likely that many schools already block social media if they find it disruptive. In our recent research, it was common for schools to do so. And according to the American Library Association’s last “School Libraries Count!” survey, conducted a decade ago, social media platforms were the most likely type of content to be blocked, with 88% of schools reporting that they did so. Again, it’s unclear what problem this bill purports to solve. But it is clear that Congress requiring that schools block social media platforms entirely, by government decree, is far more prohibitive than necessary to keep students’ “eyes on the board.” 

In short: too much social media access, via school networks or devices, is not a problem that teachers and administrators need the government to correct. If it is a problem, schools already have the tools to fix it, and twenty years after CIPA, they know generally how to do so. And if a school wants to allow access to platforms that an enormous percentage of students already use—to help guide them on its usage, or teach them about its privacy settings, for example—they should be allowed to do so without risking the loss of federal funding. 

Second, the broad scope of this bill would ban any access to a website whose primary purpose is to allow users to communicate user-generated content to the public, including even those that are explicitly educational or designed for young people. Banning students from using any social media, even educational platforms, is a massive overreach. 

No senator should consider moving this bill forward.

Third, the bill is also unconstitutional. A government prohibition on accessing a whole category of speech–social media speech, the vast majority of which is fully legal–is a restriction on speech that would be unlikely to survive strict scrutiny under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedent. As we have written about other bills that attack young people’s access to content on social media platforms, young people have First Amendment rights to speak online and to access others’ speech, whether via social media or another channel. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that states and Congress cannot use concerns about children to ban them from expressing themselves or accessing information, and has ruled that there is no children’s exception to the First Amendment.   

Though some senators may see social media as distracting or even dangerous, it can play a useful role in society and young people’s lives. Many protests by young people against police brutality and gun violence have been organized using social media. Half of U.S. adults get news from social media, at least sometimes; likely even more teens get their news this way. Those students in lower-income communities may depend on school devices or school broadband to access valuable information on social media, and for many, this bill amounts to a flatout ban. 

People intending to limit access to information are already challenging books in schools and libraries in increasing numbers around the country. The author of this bill, Sen. Cruz, has been involved in these efforts. It is conceivable that challenges of books in schools and libraries could evolve into challenges of websites on the open internet. For now, students and library patrons can and will turn to the internet when books are pulled off shelves. 

This bill is a brazen attempt to censor information and to control how schools and teachers educate, and it would harm marginalized communities and children the most. No senator should consider moving this bill forward.

Senators who believe that children and teens must be shielded from social media have updated the problematic Protecting Kids on Social Media Act, though it remains an unconstitutional bill that replaces parents’ choices about what their children can do online with a government-mandated prohibition.  

As we wrote in August, the original bill (S. 1291) contained a host of problems. A recent draft of the amended bill gets rid of some of the most flagrantly unconstitutional provisions: It no longer expressly mandates that social media companies verify the ages of all account holders, including adults. Nor does it mandate that social media companies obtain parent or guardian consent before teens may use social media. 

However, the amended bill is still rife with issues.   

The biggest is that it prohibits children under 13 from using any ad-based social media. Though many social media platforms do require users to be over 13 to join (primarily to avoid liability under COPPA), some platforms designed for young people do not.  Most platforms designed for young people are not ad-based, but there is no reason that young people should be barred entirely from a thoughtful, cautious platform that is designed for children, but which also relies on contextual ads. Were this bill made law, ad-based platforms may switch to a fee-based model, limiting access only to young people who can afford the fee. Banning children under 13 from having social media accounts is a massive overreach that takes authority away from parents and infringes on the First Amendment rights of minors.  

The vast majority of content on social media is lawful speech fully protected by the First Amendment. Children—even those under 13—have a constitutional right to speak online and to access others’ speech via social media. At the same time, parents have a right to oversee their children’s online activities. But the First Amendment forbids Congress from making a freewheeling determination that children can be blocked from accessing lawful speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no children’s exception to the First Amendment.   

Children—even those under 13—have a constitutional right to speak online and to access others’ speech via social media.

Perhaps recognizing this, the amended bill includes a caveat that children may still view publicly available social media content that is not behind a login, or through someone else’s account (for example, a parent’s account). But this does not help the bill. Because the caveat is essentially a giant loophole that will allow children to evade the bill’s prohibition, it raises legitimate questions about whether the sponsors are serious about trying to address the purported harms they believe exist anytime minors access social media. As the Supreme Court wrote in striking down a California law aimed at restricting minors’ access to violent video games, a law that is so “wildly underinclusive … raises serious doubts about whether the government is in fact pursuing the interest it invokes….” If enacted, the bill will suffer a similar fate to the California law—a court striking it down for violating the First Amendment. 

Another problem: The amended bill employs a new standard for determining whether platforms know the age of users: “[a] social media platform shall not permit an individual to create or maintain an account if it has actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that the individual is a child [under 13].” As explained below, this may still force online platforms to engage in some form of age verification for all their users. 

While this standard comes from FTC regulatory authority, the amended bill attempts to define it for the social media context. The amended bill directs courts, when determining whether a social media company had “knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances” that a user was a minor, to consider “competent and reliable empirical evidence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including whether the operator, using available technology, exercised reasonable care.” But, according to the amended bill, “reasonable care” is not meant to mandate “age gating or age verification,” the collection of “any personal data with respect to the age of users that the operator is not already collecting in the normal course of business,” the viewing of “users’ private messages” or the breaking of encryption. 

While these exclusions provide superficial comfort, the reality is that companies will take the path of least resistance and will be incentivized to implement age gating and/or age verification, which we’ve raised concerns about many times over. This bait-and-switch tactic is not new in bills that aim to protect young people online. Legislators, aware that age verification requirements will likely be struck down, are explicit that the bills do not require age verification. Then, they write a requirement that would lead most companies to implement age verification or else face liability.  

If enacted, the bill will suffer a similar fate to the California law—a court striking it down for violating the First Amendment. 

In practice, it’s not clear how a court is expected to determine whether a company had “knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances” that a user was a minor in the event of an enforcement action. In this case, while the lack of age gating/age verification mechanisms may not be proof that a company failed to exercise reasonable care in letting a child under 13 use the site,; the use of age gating/age verification tools to deny children under 13 the ability to use a social media site will surely be an acceptable way to avoid liability. Moreover, without more guidance, this standard of “reasonable care” is quite vague, which poses additional First Amendment and due process problems. 

Finally, although the bill no longer creates a digital ID pilot program for age verification, it still tries to push the issue forward. The amended bill orders a study and report looking at “current available technology and technologically feasible methods and options for developing and deploying systems to provide secure digital identification credentials; and systems to verify age at the device and operating system level.” But any consideration of digital identification for age verification is dangerous, given the risk of sliding down the slippery slope toward a national ID that is used for many more things than age verification and that threatens individual privacy and civil liberties. 

Today is the birthday of Alaa Abd El Fattah, a prominent Egyptian-British coder, blogger, activist, and one of the most high-profile political prisoners in the entire Arab world. This will be the tenth birthday that he will spend in prison. But we are newly optimistic for his release: This week, Alaa's family and International Counsel acting on his behalf filed an urgent appeal with the United Nations requesting urgent action over his continuing and unjust imprisonment in Egypt. 

The petition asks the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNGWAD), which meets this week in Geneva, to consider Alaa’s case under its Urgent Action procedure. We hope that the Working Group will conclude that Alaa’s detention is arbitrary and contrary to international law, and to find that the appropriate remedy is a recommendation for Alaa’s immediate release, as the petition requests.

EFF submitted a petition the UNGWAD in 2014, along with the Media Legal Defence Initiative.  The Working Group issued an opinion that Alaa’s detention was arbitrary and called for his release. In 2016, the UNWGAD declared Alaa's detention (and the law under which he was arrested) a violation of international law, and called for his release.

This latest appeal comes after Alaa spent more than half of 2022 on a hunger strike in protest of his treatment in prison, which he started on the first day of Ramadan. A few days after the strike began, on April 11, Alaa’s family announced that he had become a British citizen through his mother. There was hope last year, following a groundswell of protests that began in the summer and extended to the COP27 conference, that the UK foreign secretary could secure his release, but so far, this has not happened. Alaa's hunger strike did result in improved prison conditions and family visitation rights, but only after it prompted protests and fifteen Nobel Prize laureates demanded his release. 

Though Alaa has spent much of the last decade imprisoned, his most recent sentence was for sharing a Facebook post about human rights violations in prison. His unjust conviction for "spreading false news undermining national security" follows years of targeting by multiple Egyptian heads of state. His treatment is emblematic of the plight that many Egyptian activists now face. If you’d like to learn more, this website offers actions and information on ongoing campaign efforts. 

Last year, we awarded Alaa an EFF Award for Democratic Reform Advocacy, in absentia. He has also received PEN Canada’s One Humanity Award. An anthology of his writing was recently translated into English by anonymous supporters and published in 2021 as You Have Not Yet Been Defeated. Alaa frequently writes about imprisonment and the fight for democracy, and below, we’ve excerpted a passage from “Half an Hour With Khaled,” written in December, 2011.

We rejoice at a wedding because it is a marriage. We grieve at a funeral because it is death. We love the newborn because he’s human and because he’s Egyptian. Our hearts break for the martyr because he’s human and because he’s Egyptian. We go to the square to discover that we love life outside it, and to discover that our love for life is resistance. We race towards the bullets because we love life, and we walk into prison because we love freedom. 

Generative AI gained widespread attention earlier this year, but one group has had to reckon with it more quickly than most: educators. Teachers and school administrators have struggled with two big questions: should the use of generative AI be banned? And should a school implement new tools to detect when students have used generative AI? EFF believes the answer to both of these questions is no.

AI Detection Tools Harm Students

For decades, students have had to defend themselves from an increasing variety of invasive technology in schools—from disciplinary tech like student monitoring software, remote proctoring tools, and comprehensive learning management systems, to surveillance tech like cameras, face recognition, and other biometrics. “AI detection” software is a new generation of inaccurate and dangerous tech that’s being added to the mix.

Tools such as GPTZero and TurnItIn that use AI detection claim that they can determine (with varying levels of accuracy) whether a student’s writing was likely to have been created by a generative AI tool. But these detection tools are so inaccurate as to be dangerous, and have already led to false charges of plagiarism. As with remote proctoring, this software looks for signals that may not indicate cheating at all. For example, they are more likely to flag writing as AI-created when the word choice is fairly predictable and the sentences are less complex—and as a result, research has already shown that false positives are more frequent for some groups of students, such as non-native speakers. 

Instead of demonizing it, schools should help students by teaching them how this potentially useful technology works and when it’s appropriate to use it. 

There is often no source document to prove one way or another whether a student used AI in writing. As AI writing tools improve and are able to reflect all the variations of human writing, the possibility that an opposing tool will be able to detect whether AI was involved in writing with any kind of worthwhile accuracy will likely diminish. If the past is prologue, then some schools may combat the growing availability of AI for writing with greater surveillance and increasingly inaccurate disciplinary charges. Students, administrators, and teachers should fight back against this. 

If you are a student wrongly accused of using generative AI without authorization for your school work, the Washington Post has a good primer for how to respond. To protect yourself from accusations, you may also want to save your drafts, or use a document management system that does so automatically.

Bans on Generative AI Access in Schools Hurt Students

Before AI detection tools were more widely available, some of the largest districts in the country, including New York Public Schools and Los Angeles Unified, had banned access to large language model AI tools like ChatGPT outright due to cheating fears. Thankfully, many schools have since done an about face, and are beginning to see the value in teaching about them, instead. New York City Public Schools lifted its ban after only four months, and the number of schools with a policy and curriculum that includes them is growing. New York City Public School’s Chancellor wrote that the school system “will encourage and support our educators and students as they learn about and explore this game-changing technology while also creating a repository and community to share their findings across our schools.” This is the correct approach, and one that all schools should take. 

This is not an endorsement of generative AI tools, as they have plenty of problems, but outright bans only stop students from using them while physically in school—where teachers could actually explain how they work and their pros and cons—and obviously won’t stop their use the majority of the time. Instead, they will only stop students who don’t have access to the internet or a personal device outside of school from using them. 

These bans are not surprising. There is a long history of school administrators and teachers blocking the use of a new technology, especially around the internet. For decades after they became accessible to the average student,  educators argued about whether students should be allowed calculators in the classroom. Schools have banned search engines; they have banned Wikipedia—all of which have a potentially useful place in education, and one that teachers are well-positioned to explain the nuances of. If a tool is effective at creating shortcuts for students, then teachers and administrators should consider emphasizing how it works, what it can do, and, importantly, what it cannot do. (And in the case of many online tools, what data it may collect). Hopefully, schools will take a different trajectory with generative AI technology.

Artificial intelligence will likely impact students throughout their lives. The school environment  presents a good opportunity to help them understand some of the benefits and flaws of such tools. Instead of demonizing it, schools should help students by teaching them how this potentially useful technology works and when it’s appropriate to use it. 

Over the last year, state and federal legislatures have tried to pass—and in some cases succeeded in passing—legislation that bars young people from digital spaces, censors what they are allowed to see and share online, and monitors and controls when and how they can do it. 

EFF and many other digital rights and civil liberties organizations have fought back against these bills, but the sheer number is alarming. At times it can be nearly overwhelming: there are bills in Texas, Utah, Arkansas, Florida, Montana; there are federal bills like the Kids Online Safety Act and the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act. And there’s legislation beyond the U.S., like the UK’s Online Safety Bill. 

JOIN EFF AT the neon level 

Young people, too, have fought back. In the long run, we believe we’ll win, together—and because of your help. We’ve won before: In the 1990’s, Congress enacted sweeping legislation that would have curtailed online rights for people of all ages. But that law was aimed, like much of today’s legislation, at young people like you. Along with the ACLU, we challenged the law and won core protections for internet rights in a Supreme Court case, Reno v. ACLU, that recognized that free speech on the Internet merits the highest standards of Constitutional protection. The Court’s decision was its first involving the Internet. 

Even before that, EFF was fighting on the side of teens living on the cutting edge of the ‘net (or however they described it then). In 1990, a Secret Service dragnet called Operation Sundevil seized more than 40 computers from young people in 14 American cities. EFF was formed in part to protect those youths.

So the current struggle isn’t new. As before, young people are targeted by governments, schools, and sometimes parents, who either don’t understand or won’t admit the value that online spaces, and technology generally, offer, no matter your age. 

And, as before, today’s youth aren’t handing over their rights. Tens of thousands of you have vocally opposed flawed censorship bills like KOSA. You’re using the digital tools that governments want to strip you of to fight back, rallying together on Discords and across social media to protect online rights. 

If we don’t succeed in legislatures, know that we will push back in courts, and we will continue building technology for a safe, encrypted internet that anyone, of any age, can access without fear of surveillance or government censorship. 

If you’re a young person eager to help protect your online rights, we’ve put together a few of our favorite ways below to help guide you. We hope you’ll join us, however you can.

Here’s How to Take Your Rights With You When You Go Online—At Any Age

Join EFF at a Special “Neon” Level Membership for Just $18

The huge numbers of young people working hard to oppose the Kids Online Safety Act has been inspiring. Whatever happens, EFF will be there to keep fighting—and you can help us keep up the fight by becoming an EFF member. 

We’ve created a special Neon membership level for anyone under 18 that’s the lowest price we’ve ever offered–just $18 for a year’s membership. If you can, help support the activists, technologists, and attorneys defending privacy, digital creativity, and internet freedom for everyone by becoming an EFF member with a one-time donation. You’ll get a sticker pack (see below), insider briefings, and more. 

JOIN EFF at the neon level 

We aren’t verifying any ages for this membership level because we trust you. (And, because we oppose online age verification laws—read more about why here.)

Gift a Neon Membership 

Not a young person, but have one in your life that cares about digital rights? You can also gift a Neon membership! Membership helps us build better tech, better laws, and a better internet at a time when the world needs it most. Every generation must fight for their rights, and now, that battle is online. If you know a teen that cares about the internet and technology, help make them an EFF member! 

Speak Up with EFF’s Action Center

Young people—and people of every age—have already sent thousands of messages to Congress this year advocating against dangerous bills that would limit their access to online spaces, their privacy, and their ability to speak out online. If you haven’t done so, make sure that legislators writing bills that affect your digital life hear from you by visiting EFF’s Action Center, where you can quickly send messages to your representatives at the federal and state level (and sometimes outside of the U.S., if you live elsewhere). Take our action for KOSA today if you haven’t yet: 

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: OPPOSE THE KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT

Other bills that might interest you, as of October 2023, are the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act and the RESTRICT Act. 

If you’re under 18, you should know that many more pieces of legislation at the state level have passed or are pending this year that would impact you. You can always reach out to your representatives even if we don’t have an Action Center message available by finding the legislation here, for example, and the contact info of your rep on their website.

Protect Your Privacy with Surveillance Self-Defense

Protecting yourself online as a young person is often more complicated than it is for others. In addition to threats to your privacy posed by governments and companies, you may also want to protect some private information from schools, peers, and even parents. EFF’s Surveillance Self-Defense hub is a great place to start learning how to think about privacy, and what steps you can take to ensure information about you doesn’t go anywhere you don’t want. 

Fight for Strong Student Rights

Schools have become a breeding ground for surveillance. In 2023, most kids can tell you: surveillance cameras in school buildings are passé. Nearly all online activity in school is filtered and flagged. Children are accused of cheating by algorithms and given little recourse to prove their innocence. Facial recognition and other dangerous, biased biometric scanning is becoming more and more common.

But it’s not all bad. Courts have expanded some student rights recently. And you can fight back in other ways. For a broad overview, use our Privacy for Students guide to understand how potential surveillance and censorship impacts you, and what to do about it. If it fits, consider following that guide up with our LGBTQ Youth module. 

If you want to know more, take a deep dive into one of the most common surveillance tools in schools—student monitoring software—with our Red Flag Machine project and quiz. We analyzed public records from GoGuardian, a tool used in thousands of schools to monitor the online activity of millions of students, and what we learned is honestly shocking. 

And don’t forget to follow our other Student Privacy work. We regularly dissect developments in school surveillance, monitoring, censorship, and how they can impact you. 

Start a Local Tech or Digital Rights Group 

Don’t work alone! If you have friends or know others in your area that care about the benefits of technology, the internet, digital rights—or think they just might be interested in them—why not form a club? It can be particularly powerful to share why important issues like free speech, privacy, and creativity matter to you, and having a group behind you if you contact a representative can add more weight to your message. Depending on the group you form, you might also consider joining the EFA! (See below.)

Not sure how to meet with other folks in your area? Why not join an already-started online Discord server of young people fighting back against online censorship, or start your own?

Find Allies or Join other Grassroots Groups in the Electronic Frontier Alliance

The Electronic Frontier Alliance is a grassroots network of community and campus organizations across the United States working to educate our neighbors about the importance of digital rights. Groups of young people can be a great fit for the EFA, which includes chapters of Encode Justice, campus groups in computer science, hacking, tech, and more. You can find allies, or if you build your own group, join up with others. On our EFA site you’ll find toolkits on event organizing, talking to media, activism, and more. 

Speak out on Social Media

Social networks are great platforms for getting your message out into the world, cultivating a like-minded community, staying on top of breaking news and issues, and building a name for yourself. Not sure how to make it happen? We’ve got a toolkit to get you started! Also, do a quick search for some of the issues you care about—like “KOSA,” for example—and take a look at what others are saying. (Young TikTok users have made hundreds of videos describing what’s wrong with KOSA, and Tumblr—yes, Tumblr—has multiple anti-KOSA blogs that have gone viral multiple times.) You can always join in the conversation that way. 

Teach Digital Privacy with SEC 

If you’ve been thinking about digital privacy for a while now, you may want to consider sharing that information with others. The Security Education Companion is a great place to start if you’re looking for lesson plans to teach digital security to others.

In College (or Will Be Soon)? Take the Tor University Challenge

In the Tor University Challenge, you can help advance human rights with free and open-source technology, empowering users to defend against mass surveillance and internet censorship. Tor is a service that helps you to protect your anonymity while using the Internet. It has two parts: the Tor Browser that you can download that allows you to use the Internet anonymously, and the volunteer network of computers that makes it possible for that software to work. Universities are great places to run Tor Relays because they have fast, stable connections and computer science and IT departments that can work with students to keep a relay running, while learning hands-on cybersecurity experience and thinking about global policy, law, and society. 

Visit Tor University to get started. 

Learn about Local Surveillance and Fight Back 

Young people don’t just have to worry about government censorship and school surveillance. Law enforcement agencies routinely deploy advanced surveillance technologies in our communities that can be aimed at anyone, but are particularly dangerous for young black and brown people. Our Street-Level Surveillance resources are designed for members of the public, advocacy organizations, journalists, defense attorneys, and policymakers who often are not getting the straight story from police representatives or the vendors marketing this equipment. But at any age, it’s worth learning how automated license plate readers, gunshot detection, and other police equipment works.

Don’t stop there. Our Atlas of Surveillance documents the police tech that’s actually being deployed in individual communities. Search our database of police tech by entering a city, county, state or agency in the United States. 

Follow EFF

Stay educated about what’s happening in the tech world by following EFF. Sign up for our once- or twice-monthly email newsletter, EFFector. Follow us on Meta, Mastodon, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, Twitch, YouTube, and Twitter. Listen to our podcast, How to Fix the Internet, for candid discussions of digital rights issues with some of the smartest people working in the field. 

There are so many ways for people of all ages to fight for and protect the internet for themselves and others. (Just take a look at some of the ways we’ve fought for privacy, free speech, and creativity over the years: an airship, an airplane, and a badger; encrypting pretty much the entire web and also cracking insecure encryption to prove a point; putting together a speculative fiction collection and making a virtual reality game—to name just a few.)

Whether you’re new to the fight, or you’ve been online for decades—we’re glad to have you.

This post was co-authored by legal intern Kate Prince.

Jump to our detailed report about GoGuardian and student monitoring tools.

GoGuardian is a student monitoring tool that watches over twenty-seven million students across ten thousand schools, but what it does exactly, and how well it works, isn’t easy for students to know. To learn more about its functionality, accuracy, and impact on students, we filed dozens of public records requests and analyzed tens of thousands of results from the software. Using data from multiple schools in both red and blue states, what we uncovered was that, by design, GoGuardian is a red flag machine—its false positives heavily outweigh its ability to accurately determine whether the content of a site is harmful. This results in tens of thousands of students being flagged for viewing content that is not only benign, but often, educational or informative. 

We identified multiple categories of non-explicit content that are regularly marked as harmful or dangerous, including: College application sites and college websites; counseling and therapy sites; sites with information about drug abuse; sites with information about LGBTQ issues; sexual health sites; sites with information about gun violence; sites about historical topics; sites about political parties and figures; medical and health sites; news sites; and general educational sites. 

To illustrate the shocking absurdity of GoGuardian's flagging algorithm, we have built the Red Flag Machine quiz. Derived from real GoGuardian data, visitors are presented with websites that were flagged and asked to guess what keywords triggered the alert. We have also written a detailed report on our findings, available online here (and downloadable here). 

But the inaccurate flagging is just one of the dangers of the software. 

How Does Student Monitoring Software Work? 

Along with apps like Gaggle and Bark, GoGuardian is used to proactively monitor primarily middle and high school students, giving schools access to an enormous amount of sensitive student data which the company can also access. In some cases, this has even given teachers the ability to view student webcam footage without their consent when they are in their homes. In others, this sort of software has inaccurately mischaracterized student behavior as dangerous or even outed students to their families.

Though some privacy invasions and errors may be written off as the unintentional costs of protecting students, even commonly used features of these monitoring apps are cause for concern. GoGuardian lets school officials track trends in student search histories. It identifies supposedly “at risk” students and gathers location data on where and when a device is being used, allowing anyone with access to the data to create a comprehensive profile of the student. It flags students for mundane activity, and sends alerts to school officials, parents, and potentially, police.

These companies tout their ability to make the lives of administrators and teachers easier and their students safer. Instead of having to dash around a classroom to check everyone’s computers, teachers can instead sit down and watch a real-time stream of their students’ online activity. They can block sites, get alerts when students are off task, and directly message those who might need help. And during the pandemic, many of these tools were offered to schools free of charge—exacerbating the surveillance while minimizing students’ and parents’ opportunity to push back. Along with the increased use of school issued devices, which are more common in marginalized communities, this has created an atmosphere of hypercharged spying on students.

This problem isn’t new. In 2015, EFF submitted a complaint to the FTC that Google’s Apps for Education (GAFE) software suite was collecting and data mining school children’s personal information, including their Internet searches. In a partial victory, Google changed its tune and began explicitly stating that even though they do collect information on students’ use of non-GAFE services, they treat that information as “student personal information” and do not use it to target ads.

But the landscape has shifted since then. The use of “edtech” software has grown considerably, and with monitoring-specific apps like GoGuardian and Gaggle, students are being taught by our schools that they have no right to privacy and that they can always be monitored.  

Knowing how you’re being surveilled—and how accurate that surveillance is—must be the first step to fighting back, and protecting your privacy.  This blog is a run-down of some of the most common GoGuardian features.

GoGuardian Admin is God Mode for School Administrators

School administrators using GoGuardian’s “Admin” tool have nearly unfettered access to huge amounts of data about students, including browsing histories, documents, videos, app and extension data, and content filtering and alerts. It’s unclear why so much data is available to administrators, but GoGuardian makes it easy for school admins to view detailed information about students that could follow them for the rest of their lives. (The Center for Democracy And Technology has released multiple reports indicating that student monitoring software like GoGuardian is primarily used for disciplinary, rather than safety, reasons.) Administrators can also set up “alerts” for when a student is viewing “offensive” content, though it’s not clear what is and is not “offensive,” to whom. These alerts could be used to stifle a student’s First Amendment right to information--for example, if a school decides that anything from an opposing political party or anything related to the LGBTQ community is harmful, it can prevent students from viewing it. These flags and filters can be applied to all students, or individualized for specific students, and allow administrators to see everything a student looks at online. 

GoGuardian claims that they de-identify data before sharing it with third parties or other entities. But this data can easily be traced back to an individual. This means advertisers could target students based on their internet usage, something explicitly prohibited by federal law and in the student privacy pledge taken by many EdTech companies. 

GoGuardian Teacher: A 24/7 Lesson in Surveillance

GoGuardian gives teachers a real-time feed of their students’ screens, and allows them to block any websites for individuals or groups. Students have no way of opting out of scenes and do not have to confirm that they know they are being monitored. The only indication is the appearance of an extension in their browser. 

This monitoring can happen whether or not a student is on school grounds. “Scenes” can last for eight hours and can be scheduled in advance to start at any time of the day or night, and if a teacher schedules a scene to start immediately after the next, then they could monitor a student 24/7. During a scene, GoGuardian collects minute by minute records of what is on a student’s screen and what tabs they have open, all of which can be easily viewed in a timeline.

GoGuardian takes no responsibility for these potential abuses of their technology, instead putting the onus on school administrators to anticipate abuse and put systems in place to prevent them. In the meantime GoGuardian is still accessing and collecting the data. 

GoGuardian Beacon: Replacing Social Workers with Big Brother

GoGuardian’s “Beacon” tool supposedly uses machine learning and AI to monitor student behavior for flagged key terms, track their history, and provide analysis on their likelihood to commit harmful acts to themselves or others. GoGuardian claims it can detect students who are at risk and “identify students’ online behaviors that could be indicative of suicide or self-harm.” Instead of spending money on an investment in social workers and counselors, people who are trained to detect this same behavior, GoGuardian claims that schools can rely on its tools to do it with algorithms.

GoGuardian touts anecdotal evidence of the system working, but from our research, the flagging inside of Beacon may not be much more accurate than its other flagging features. And while schools can determine to whom Beacon sends alerts, but if those staffers are not trained in mental health, they may not be able to determine whether the alert is accurate.This could lead to inappropriate interventions by school administrators who erroneously believe a student is in the “active planning” stage of a harmful act. If a student is accused of planning a school shooting when in reality they were researching weapons used during historical events, or planning a suicide when they were not, that student will likely not trust the administration in the future and feel their privacy has been violated. You can learn more about GoGuardian Beacon from this detailed documentary by VICE News.

Protecting Students First

Schools should be safe places for students, but they must also be places where students feel safe exploring ideas. Student monitoring software not only hinders that exploration, but endangers those who are already vulnerable. We know it will be an uphill battle to protect students from surveillance software. Still, we hope this research will help people in positions of authority, such as government officials and school administrators, as well as parents and students, to push for the companies that make this software to improve, or to abandon their use entirely.

TAKE the red flag machine quiz

Learn more about our findings in our detailed report.  

Sound Thinking, the company behind ShotSpotter—an acoustic gunshot detection technology that is rife with problems—is reportedly buying Geolitica, the company behind PredPol, a predictive policing technology known to exacerbate inequalities by directing police to already massively surveilled communities. Sound Thinking acquired the other major predictive policing technology—Hunchlab—in 2018. This consolidation of harmful and flawed technologies means it’s even more critical for cities to move swiftly to ban the harmful tactics of both of these technologies.

ShotSpotter is currently linked to over 100 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. PredPol, on the other hand, was used in around 38 cities in 2021 (this may be much higher now). Shotspotter’s acquisition of Hunchlab already lead the company to claim that the tools work “hand in hand;” a 2018 press release made clear that predictive policing would be offered as an add-on product, and claimed that the integration of the two would “enable it to update predictive models and patrol missions in real time.” When companies like Sound Thinking and Geolitica merge and bundle their products, it becomes much easier for cities who purchase one harmful technology to end up deploying a suite of them without meaningful oversight, transparency, or control by elected officials or the public. Axon, for instance, was criticized by academics, attorneys, activists, and its own ethics board for their intention to put tasers on indoor drones. Now the company has announced its acquisition of Sky-Hero, which makes small tactical UAVS–a sign that they may be willing to restart the drone taser program that led a good portion of their ethics board to resign. Mergers can be a sign of future ambitions.

In some ways, these tools do belong together. Both predictive policing and gunshot recognition are severely flawed and dangerous to marginalized groups. Hopefully, this bundling will make resisting them easier as well.

As we have written, studies have found that Shotspotter’s technology is inaccurate, and its alerts sometimes result in the deployment of armed police who are expecting armed resistance to a location where there is none, but where innocent residents could become targets of suspicion as a result.

PredPol’s claim is that algorithms can predict crime. This is blatantly false. But that myth has helped propel the predictive policing industry to massive profits; it's projected to be worth over $5 billion by the end of 2023. This false promise creates the illusion that police departments who buy predictive policing tech are being proactive about tackling crime. But the truth is, predictive policing just perpetuates centuries of inequalities in policing and exacerbates racial violence against Black, Latine, and other communities of color.

Predictive policing is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If police focus their efforts in one neighborhood, most of their arrests are likely to be in that neighborhood, leading the data to reflect that area as a hotbed of criminal activity, which can be used to justify even more police surveillance. Predictive policing systems are often designed to incorporate only reported crimes, which means that neighborhoods and communities where the police are called more often might see a higher likelihood of having predictive policing technology concentrate resources there. This cycle results in  further victimization of communities that are already mass policed—namely, communities of color, unhoused individuals, and immigrants—by using the cloak of scientific legitimacy and the supposedly unbiased nature of data.

Some cities have already banned predictive policing to protect their residents. The EU is also considering a ban, and federal elected officials have raised concerns on the dangers of the technology. Sen. Ron Wyden penned a probing letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland asking about how the technology is being used. And big cities and major customers of Shotspotter have been canceling their contracts as well, and now, the U.S. Justice Department has been asked to investigate how cities use the technology, because there is “substantial evidence” it is deployed disproportionately in majority-minority neighborhoods.

Skepticism about the efficacy and ethics of both of these technologies are on the rise, and as these companies consolidate, we must engage in more robust organizing to counter them. At the moment of this alarming merger we say–ban predictive policing! And stop using dangerous, inaccurate gunshot detection technology! The fact that these flawed tools reside in just one company is all the more reason to act swiftly. 

Updated October 20, 2023: Removed two sentences for clarity. 

Are you a young person fighting back against bad bills like KOSA? Become an EFF member at a new, discounted Neon membership level specifically for you--stickers included! 

For the past two years, Congress has been trying to revise the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) to address criticisms from EFF, human and digital rights organizations, LGBTQ groups, and others, that the core provisions of the bill will censor the internet for everyone and harm young people. All of those changes fail to solve KOSA’s inherent censorship problem: As long as the “duty of care” remains in the bill, it will still force platforms to censor perfectly legal content. (You can read our analyses here and here.)

Despite never addressing this central problem, some members of Congress are convinced that a new change will avoid censoring the internet: KOSA’s liability is now theoretically triggered only for content that is recommended to users under 18, rather than content that they specifically search for. But that’s still censorship—and it fundamentally misunderstands how search works online. 

Congress should be smart enough to recognize this bait-and-switch fails to solve KOSA’s many faults

As a reminder, under KOSA, a platform would be liable for not “acting in the best interests of a [minor] user.” To do this, a platform would need to “tak[e] reasonable measures in its design and operation of products and services to prevent and mitigate” a long list of societal ills, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, physical violence, online bullying and harassment, sexual exploitation and abuse, and suicidal behaviors. As we have said, this will be used to censor what young people and adults can see on these platforms. The bills’ coauthors agree, writing that KOSA “will make platforms legally responsible for preventing and mitigating harms to young people online, such as content promoting suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, bullying, and sexual exploitation.” 

Our concern, and the concern of others, is that this bill will be used to censor legal information and restrict the ability for minors to access it, while adding age verification requirements that will push adults off the platforms as well. Additionally, enforcement provisions in KOSA give power to state attorneys general to decide what is harmful to minors, a recipe for disaster that will exacerbate efforts already underway to restrict access to information online (and offline). The result is that platforms will likely feel pressured to remove enormous amounts of information to protect themselves from KOSA’s crushing liability—even if that information is not harmful.

The ‘Limitation’ section of the bill is intended to clarify that KOSA creates liability only for content that the platform recommends. In our reading, this is meant to refer to the content that a platform shows a user that doesn’t come from an account the user follows, is not content the user searches for, and is not content that the user deliberately visits (such as by clicking a URL). In full, the ‘Limitation’ section states that the law is not meant to prevent or preclude “any minor from deliberately and independently searching for, or specifically requesting, content,” nor should it prevent the “platform or individuals on the platform from providing resources for the prevention or mitigation of suicidal behaviors, substance use, and other harms, including evidence-informed information and clinical resources.” 

In layman’s terms, minors will supposedly still have the freedom to follow accounts, search for, and request any type of content, but platforms won’t have the freedom to share some types of content to them. Again, that fundamentally misunderstands how social media works—and it’s still censorship. 

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: OPPOSE THE KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT

Courts Have Agreed: Recommendations are Protected

If, as the bills’ authors write, they want to hold platforms accountable for “knowingly driving toxic, addicting, and dangerous content” to young people, why stop at search—which can also show toxic, addicting, or dangerous content? We think this section was added for two reasons. 

First, members of Congress have attacked social media platforms’ use of automated tools to present content for years, claiming that it causes any number of issues ranging from political strife to mental health problems. The evidence supporting those claims is unclear (and the reverse may be true). 

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the authors of the bill likely believe pinning liability on recommendations will allow them to square a circle and get away with censorship while complying with the First Amendment. It will not.

Platforms’ ability to “filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;” “pick [and] choose” content; and make decisions about how to “display,” “organize,” or “reorganize” content is protected by 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”), and the First Amendment. (We have written about this in various briefs, including this one.) This “Limitation” in KOSA doesn’t make the bill any less censorious. 

Search Results Are Recommendations

Practically speaking, there is also no clear distinction between “recommendations” and “search results.” The coauthors of KOSA seem to think that content which is shown as a result of a search is not a recommendation by the platform. But of course it is. Accuracy and relevance in search results are algorithmically generated, and any modern search method uses an automated process to determine the search results and the order in which they are presented, which it then recommends to the user. 

KOSA’s authors also assume, incorrectly, that content on social media can easily be organized, tagged, or described in the first place, such that it can be shown when someone searches for it, but not otherwise. But content moderation at infinite scale will always fail, in part because whether content fits into a specific bucket is often subjective in the first place.

The coauthors of KOSA seem to think that content which is shown as a result of a search is not a recommendation by the platform. But of course it is.

For example: let’s assume that using KOSA, an attorney general in a state has made it clear that a platform that recommends information related to transgender healthcare will be sued for increasing the risk of suicide in young people. (Because trans people are at a higher risk of suicide, this is one of many ways that we expect an attorney general could torture the facts to censor content—by claiming that correlation is causation.) 

If a young person in that state searches social media for “transgender healthcare,” does this mean that the platform can or cannot show them any content about “transgender healthcare” as a result? How can a platform know which content is about transgender healthcare, much less whether the content matches the attorney general’s views on the subject, or whether they have to abide by that interpretation in search results? What if the user searches for “banned healthcare?” What if they search for “trans controversy?” (Most people don’t search for the exact name of the piece of content they want to find, and most pieces of content on social media aren’t “named” at all.) 

In this example, and in an enormous number of other cases, platforms can’t know in advance what content a person is searching for—and will, at the risk of showing something controversial that the person did not intend to find, remove it entirely—from recommendations as well as search results. If liability exists for showing it, platforms will remove users’ ability to access all content that relates to a dangerous topic rather than risk showing it in the occasional instance when they can determine, for certain, that is what the user is looking for. This blunt response will not only harm children who need access to information, but adults who also may seek the same content online.

“Nerd Harder” to Remove Content Will Never Work

Third, as we have written before, it is impossible for platforms to know what types of content they would be liable for recommending (or showing in search results) in the first place. Because there is no definition of harmful or depressing content that doesn’t include a vast amount of protected expression, almost any content could fit into the categories that platforms would have to censor.  This would include truthful news about what’s going on in the world, such as wars, gun violence, and climate change. 

This Limitation section will have no meaningful effect on the censorial nature of the law. If KOSA passes, the only real option for platforms would be to institute age verification and ban minors entirely, or to remove any ‘recommendations’ and ‘search’ functions almost entirely for minors. As we’ve said repeatedly, these efforts will also impact adult users who either lack the ability to prove they are not minors or are deterred from doing so. Most smaller platforms would be pressured to ban minors entirely, while larger ones, with more money for content moderation and development, would likely block them from finding enormous swathes of content unless they have the exact URL to locate it. In that way, KOSA’s censorship would further entrench the dominant social media platforms.

Congress should be smart enough to recognize this bait-and-switch fails to solve KOSA’s many faults. We urge anyone who cares about free speech and privacy online to send a message to Congress voicing your opposition. 

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS YOU WON'T ACCEPT INTERNET CENSORSHIP

Are you a young person fighting back against bad bills like KOSA? Become an EFF member at a new, discounted Neon membership level specifically for you--stickers included!