The uproar was specifically about the implemented ID checks. KOSA hasn't been passed in any form & its most recent forms introduced to the House & Senate don't include ID checks. To imply that KOSA includes some kind of ID check or that the only way to provide any type of protections is via an ID check is ignorant.

▲

fc417fc802 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ignorant? Hardly. It's ignorant to assume anything but the worst from proposed regulation until proven otherwise. Particularly if past proposals from the same people included ID checks.

It falls to the people proposing regulation to clearly demonstrate to everyone else that they aren't up to no good. (Spoiler, they usually are up to no good.)

▲

dfxm12 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's awfully convenient that you require others to prove or clearly demonstrate things, while you allow yourself to merely assume things :)

I know you've already made up your mind, but just humor me. What can the government do to clearly demonstrate to everyone else that they aren't up to no good?

	▲	m4nu3l 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's not just about intentions. To convince me that the Government can improve things through regulations, you'd need to do a few things: 1) You must convince me that optimising for some utility function you defined is the right thing to do. 2) You must convince me that the Government can effectively estimate the utility function. 3) Finally, you must convince me that the Government can predict how the utility function will change after the policies are implemented. For 1) I'd have problems with any utility function you could come up with. If you want to maximise total utility, for instance, does it mean that I get to assault someone as long as I gain more utility than the other person loses? What about the "Utility Monster" thought experiment? For 2) and 3), I'm pretty sure the Government has no idea of how to measure and/or predict the result. Does the scrolling addiction of a teenager cause more loss in utility than the loss of friends to a teenager with disabilities? https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/06/ive-l... Because of these basic philosophical principles, the burden of proof that some regulation is required is always on the Government side, and the standard of proof should be much higher than it is today. I don't believe that the concept of utility is entirely useless, though. I believe that by respecting people's individual freedoms and allowing for voluntary arrangements, you'll also get more utility in the long term, whereas if you try to force your utility optimisations, you might, maybe, get utility increases in the short term, but much worse utility in the longer term.

▲

Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The uproar was specifically about the implemented ID checks.

I disagree. The uproar was clearly that ID checks were going to be required at all. All of the "Discord alternative" articles were about platforms that didn't require ID checks.

> To imply that KOSA includes some kind of ID check or that the only way to provide any type of protections is via an ID check is ignorant.

KOSA has specific language about minors and children under 13.

How do you think platforms are expected to comply with these requirements without identifying their userbase? This goes right back to the Discord situation last week.

▲

dfxm12 3 hours ago | parent [-]

KOSA has regulations regarding "users that the covered platform knows is a minor". Nothing in KOSA suggests that a platform has to proactively maintain each user's age or that ID checks have to be used.

If you're still curious, Meta has a page talking about how they might determine a user's age, specifically without ID: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/07/age-verification

▲

Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Discord also announced that they would use algorithmic decision making to decide which accounts are old enough to not require ID. This didn't change the uproar at all.

If you think KOSA style regulations would allow social networks to avoid ID checks, I don't think you're paying attention. Just read the article we're all commenting on to see how people are willing to attack Facebook for even having internal statistical ideas about problems. If a KOSA style law was passed and Facebook could be shown to have knowledge that some percentage of minors were evading their algorithm, they would be pulled in front of Congress again.

There is no way to reasonably look at these laws and think that it would not result in ID check requirements. We don't even have these laws yet and platforms like Discord are already rolling out ID verification.

▲

dfxm12 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Actions taken unilaterally by private platforms are distinct from government regulation. That is an important distinction that your posts are not addressing. What Meta or another company would decide to do on their own is not "regulation" & is up to them. You haven't addressed the fact that KOSA is calling for regulation for kids online without forcing everyone to go through age verification with anything but your own assertions grounded in nothing in particular & other unrelated topics.

▲

Aurornis an hour ago | parent [-]

> You haven't addressed the fact that KOSA is calling for regulation for kids online without forcing everyone to go through age verification

And you're still ignoring the fact that any regulations targeted at kids online inherently requires that all users' ages are known somehow.

You can't have regulations that require companies to do something for kids' accounts without implicitly requiring that they identify which accounts belong to kids.

You can't identify which accounts belong to kids without having all accounts verify their age.

If this was presented as a "parental controls option" bill I could believe the angle you're trying to go with. However, any regulations that say platforms must do something for kids' accounts will inherently lead to a requirement to verify all accounts

	▲	dfxm12 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		And you're still ignoring the fact that any regulations targeted at kids online inherently requires that all users' ages are known somehow. No, this has already been addressed. :(

▲

hrimfaxi 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The full text is here for the interested: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/174...