WCongress of chickens delayed for holidays in December, the landmark meant overhaul how technical companies protect their youngest users, officially did not pass. Introduced 2022. year, the children’s online act of safety (hair) was replaced to be a mass calculation for Big Tech. Instead, despite the sailboat through the Senate with a vote from 91 to 3 in July, the account failed and died in the house.
The hair was passionately fried by families that their children fell by the victim of harmful policies and advocates who said that the bill on abolishes the improper power of great technology long delay. They are bitterly disappointed that a strong chance for checking great technology failed due to congress apathy. But human rights organizations claimed that legislation could lead to unintentional consequences that affect the freedom of speech online.
What is a child’s childhood nation?
The hair was introduced almost three years ago in the Fair Facial Facebook Facial Facebook FRANCES HAUGEN on the scope and seriousness of the social media effects on young users. The mandate would be to make platforms like Instagram and Tictok address addresses on the hazard network affected children through changes in design and allowing young users to exclude from algorithm recommendations.
“This is the basic product responsibility account,” said Alix Fraser, the director of the issuance of one’s council for responsible social media. “It’s complicated, because the Internet is complicated, and social media is complicated, but in essence, only the effort is to create a basic standard of responsibility for these companies.”
Central – and controversial – The component of the law was the clause “Duty of Care”, which declared the companies to have a “obligation to act in the best interests of juveniles” and would be open to interpreting the regulator. It would also require that the platforms implement measures to reduce damage by establishing “protective measures for minors”.
Critics claimed that the lack of clear guidelines on what is harmful content can prompt companies to aggressively filter content, leading to unintentional consequences for freedom of speech. Sensitive, but important topics such as violence and racial justice can be viewed as potentially harmful and subsequently filtered by the company themselves. This censure concern would be particularly imposed for the LGBTQ + community that said opponents, could be disproportionately affected by conservative regulators, reducing access to vital resources.
“With the hair we saw a really good-naturer, but in the end of the vague account that requires an unspecified action to keep children safe, and all marginalized users,” said Aliya Bhatia, and the policy analyst in the Center for Democracy and Technology, which opposed the legislation and receiving money from technical donors, including Amazon, Google and Microsoft.
Hair complex history
When the account was first introduced, more than 90 human rights organizations have signed a letter in the opposition, emphasizing these and other problems. In response to such a critique, Bill authors issued audits in February 2024. years – the most important thing, transferring the execution of its “duty of care” by the General’s State Advistributors in the Federal Trade Commission. Following these changes, numerous organizations, including Glad, the Human Campaign and Project Trevor withdrew, stating that the audits “significantly relieve the risk of LGBTQ + resources or suffocated access to young people.”
But other civic rights groups have maintained their opposition, including the electronic foundor (EFF), ACLU and fights for the future, inviting hair and “Censure Bilge” that would greatly harm the vulnerable users and freedom of speech. They claimed that the provision of care could be so easy to be a weapon of the conservative FTC chair against LGBTQ + youth as state lawyers. These concerns were reflected in Trump’s appointment of the FTC Steel Republican Andrew Ferguson, who said in a leak statements He planned to use his role to “fight a transsogen.”
Concerning about how Ferguson will manage the Internet content “Exactly what LGBTQ Youth young people in this fight wrote and called the Congress for hundreds of times in recent years,” said Sarah Philips Fighting Future. “The situation that was afraid to reach the fruit, and everyone ignores that it really just puts heads in the sand.”
Opponents say that even with the failure of hair is to pass, the cold effect has already materialized in connection with what content is available on certain platforms. Recently report In the MAG user, it has detected that Hashtags for LGBTQ + -relete topics are categorized as “sensitive content” and restricted from the search. Legislation such as hair does not take into account the complexity of the Internet landscape, said Bhatia, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and will probably specify the CENSOR receiver platform to avoid litigation.
“The safety of children occupies an interesting paradoxical positioning in technical policy, where they are sudden children vulnerable actors on the internet, but at the same time, in the same time,” she said. “Using a blunt instrument for protection policy can often lead to results that do not take into account.”
Proponents attribute background to hair to aggressive lobbying from the technology industry, although two main opponents – struggle for the future and EFF – do not support large technical donors. Meanwhile, the main technological companies are divided into hair, with X, Snap, Microsoft and Pinterest outside support the account and targets and Google quietly opposing it.
After promoting the newsletter
“The hair was extremely strong legislation, but what Robusta is the strength of the Big Tech,” Fraser said, betrayed, betray one. “They hired every lobbyist in the city to put him down, and they were successful in that.”
Fraser added that the proponents were disappointed in the hair that did not miss, but “he will not rest until the Federal Legislation is made to protect children online, and the technical sector is considered responsibility for their actions.”
A slowed potential revival
In addition to Ferguson as an FTC chair, what is exactly the new trump card and the movement of the congress Make of the Congress means for the future of hair. Although Trump did not directly indicate his attitudes on hair, several people in his close circle have expressed support After Last-minute amendments to 2024 facilitated Elon Musk’s X.
Congress death can seem like an end of winding and controversial path, but advocates both sides of the fight say that it is too early to write the obituary legislation.
“We should not expect hair silently disappearing,” said Prem M Trivadi, the director of the policy in the open Technology Institute, which opposes hair. “Shall we see that this is re-introduced or different incarnations, which will strengthen the focus on child’s network security.”
Richard Blumenthal, the Senator who the co-author, proposed with the Senator Marsh Blackburn, promised to re-enter him in the upcoming congressional session, and the other law bills say they will not give up.
“I worked with a lot of these parents who were willing to recount the worst day of my life and time, in front of the legislator, in front of the staff, in front of the press, because they know something to change,” Fraser said. “He won’t stop.”
2025-02-16 13:00:00
