In response, digital and human rights organization Fight for the Future is hosting a week of events on Reddit, LinkedIn and various livestreams – to raise awareness of how it believes these bills are setting a dangerous precedent by making the internet more exploitative rather than safer. Many of the proposed bills include a clause for ID or age verification, requiring people to upload an ID, allow a facial scan, or otherwise certify that they are not a minor before viewing adult content. Fight for the Future says the policies will lead to increased censorship and surveillance.
Among the 19 bills considered at the hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Committee were the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which passed the Senate last year with broad bipartisan approval, and the Reducing Exploitative Social Media Exposure to Teens Act, which would ban tech companies from allowing minors under the age of 16 on their platforms. Apart from age verification, the bill raised concerns over parental controls, consumer research of minors, AI and data privacy issues.
“We’re seeing this huge wave of ID checks becoming the norm in tech policy, and felt like we needed to capture already-active communities that aren’t feeling heard in Congress,” says Sarah Phillips, campaigner for Fight for the Future. “If you look on YouTube, if you see people creating content about COSA or reacting to this legislation, it’s very unpopular with people. But it’s seen as very common sense on the Hill.”
Missouri’s age-gate law took effect earlier this week, meaning 25 US states have passed a form of age verification. This process usually involves third-party services, which may be particularly at risk for data breaches. This year, the UK also passed an order requiring age verification—the Online Safety Act—and Australia’s teen social media ban, which requires social media companies to deactivate the accounts of users under the age of 16, went into effect on December 10. Instagram, YouTube, Snap and TikTok are complying with the historic ban.
Phillips believes that these laws are a direct threat to democratic freedoms. “These are censorship laws,” she says. “In the South, where I live, these same proposals mimic a lot of the reasoning you see behind bans on books and behind laws that criminalize access to gender-affirming health care or abortion information.”
<a href