Rand Paul Is Right: Censoring The Internet Doesn’t Protect Kids

Last month, we shared the details of a really good “Dear Colleague” letter that Senator Rand Paul sent around urging other Senators not to vote for KOSA. While the letter did not work and the Senate overwhelmingly approved KOSA (only to now have it stuck in the House), Paul has now expanded upon that letter in an article at Reason.

It’s well worth the read, though the title makes the point clear: Censoring the Internet Won’t Protect Kids.

It starts out by pointing out how much good the internet can be for families:

Today’s children live in a world far different from the one I grew up in and I’m the first in line to tell kids to go outside and “touch grass.”

With the internet, today’s children have the world at their fingertips. That can be a good thing—just about any question can be answered by finding a scholarly article or how-to video with a simple search.

While doctors’ and therapists’ offices close at night and on weekends, support groups are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for people who share similar concerns or have had the same health problems. People can connect, share information, and help each other more easily than ever before. That is the beauty of technological progress.

He correctly admits that the internet can also be misused, and that not all of it is appropriate for kids, but that’s no reason to overreact:

It is perhaps understandable that those in the Senate might seek a government solution to protect children from any harms that may result from spending too much time on the internet. But before we impose a drastic, first-of-its-kind legal duty on online platforms, we should ensure that the positive aspects of the internet are preserved. That means we have to ensure that First Amendment rights are protected and that these platforms are provided with clear rules so that they can comply with the law.

He points out that the law empowers the FTC to police content that could impact the mental health of children, but does not clearly define mental health disorders, and those could change drastically with no input from Congress.

What he doesn’t mention is that we’re living in a time when some are trying to classify normal behavior as a mental health disorder, and thus this law could be weaponized.

From there, he talks about the “duty of care.” That’s a key part of both KOSA and other similar bills and says that websites have a “duty of care” to make efforts to block their sites from causing various problems. As we’ve explained for the better part of a decade, a “duty of care” turns itself into a demand for censorship, as it’s the only way for companies to avoid costly litigation over whether or not they were careful enough.

Just last week, I got into a debate with a KOSA supporter on social media. They insisted that they’re not talking about content, but just about design features like “infinite scroll.” When asked about what kind of things they’re trying to solve for, I was told “eating disorders.” I pointed out that “infinite scroll” doesn’t lead to eating disorders. They’re clearly targeting the underlying content (and even that is way more complex than KOSA supporters realize).

Senator Paul makes a similar point in the other direction. Things like “infinite scroll” aren’t harmful if the underlying content isn’t harmful:

For example, if an online service uses infinite scrolling to promote Shakespeare’s works, or algebra problems, or the history of the Roman Empire, would any lawmaker consider that harmful?

I doubt it. And that is because website design does not cause harm. It is content, not design, that this bill will regulate.

As for stopping “anxiety,” Paul makes the very important point that there are legitimate and important reasons why kids may feel some anxiety today, and KOSA shouldn’t stop that information from being shared:

Last year, Harvard Medical School’s magazine published a story entitled “Climate Anxiety; The Existential Threat Posed by Climate Change is Deeply Troubling to Many Young People.” That article mentioned that among a “cohort of more than 10,000 people between the ages of 16 and 25, 60 percent described themselves as very worried about the climate and nearly half said the anxiety affects their daily functioning.”

The world’s most well-known climate activist, Greta Thunberg, famously suffers from climate anxiety. Should platforms stop her from seeing climate-related content because of that?

Under this bill, Greta Thunberg would have been considered a minor and she could have been deprived from engaging online in the debates that made her famous.

Anxiety and eating disorders are two of the undefined harms that this bill expects internet platforms to prevent and mitigate. Are those sites going to allow discussion and debate about the climate? Are they even going to allow discussion about a person’s story overcoming an eating disorder? No. Instead, they are going to censor themselves, and users, rather than risk liability.

He also points out — as he did in his original letter — that the KOSA requirements to block certain kinds of ads makes no sense in a world in which kids see those same ads elsewhere:

Those are not the only deficiencies of this bill. The bill seeks to protect minors from beer and gambling ads on certain online platforms, such as Facebook or Hulu. But if those same minors watch the Super Bowl or the PGA tour on TV, they would see those exact same ads.

Does that make any sense? Should we prevent online platforms from showing kids the same content they can and do see on TV every day? Should sports viewership be effectively relegated to the pre-internet age?

Even as I’ve quoted a bunch here, there’s way more in the article. It is, by far, one of the best explanations of the problems of KOSA and many other bills that use false claims of “regulating design” as an attempt to “protect the kids.” He also talks about the harms of age verification, how it will harm youth activism, and how the structure of the bill will create strong incentives for websites to pull down all sorts of controversial content.

There is evidence that kids face greater mental health challenges today than in the past. Some studies suggest this is more because of society’s openness to discussing and diagnosing mental health challenges. But there remains no compelling evidence that the internet and social media are causing it. Even worse, as Paul’s article makes abundantly clear, there is nothing out there suggesting that censoring the internet will magically fix those problems. Yet, that’s what KOSA and many other bills are designed to do.