Estimated Time to Read: 6 minutes
The internet offers incredible opportunities for learning, connection, and creativity, but it also presents unique challenges for children. Governments around the world are introducing regulations aimed at addressing these risks and protecting minors online. In the United States, the Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (KOSA) and Texas’ House Bill 186 (HB 186) are leading examples of such efforts. Meanwhile, in November 2024, Australia enacted a groundbreaking law banning social media for users under the age of 16, signaling a growing global trend toward government intervention.
These measures raise fundamental questions: Is the government overstepping its bounds? Should the responsibility for protecting children online rest primarily with parents instead of the state?
KOSA: A Federal Push for Oversight
The Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act proposes a series of measures to safeguard children online. These include mandatory parental control tools, transparency through annual platform audits, and a duty of care requiring platforms to mitigate risks such as harmful content or addictive designs. Additionally, KOSA emphasizes exploring age verification systems that minimize data collection risks.
Despite its ambitious goals, KOSA has faced widespread criticism. Organizations like NetChoice argue that its vague definitions of “harmful content” incentivize platforms to over-censor, potentially suppressing legitimate speech and disproportionately impacting marginalized voices. Privacy concerns also loom large. KOSA’s age verification requirements necessitate the collection of sensitive personal data, increasing the risk of breaches and misuse. Critics, including the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA), note that these measures could erode privacy while failing to meaningfully address online harms.
David Williams, TPA’s President, expressed concerns about the law’s impact on free speech, stating:
“KOSA would require government officials to make subjective determinations about what kinds of online content could trigger negative psychological reactions in children. Social media would then act as a second-hand censor to remove that content. While some of the categories enumerated in the bill’s Duty of Care are objectively horrific, others – such as content that could contribute to ‘anxiety disorders’ – are vague and would be prone to be misdefined or abused.”
Source: Statement by Taxpayers Protection Alliance President David Williams, 12.9.2024
Vance Ginn, President of Ginn Economic Consulting and a board member of Texas Policy Research, echoed these concerns, arguing:
“We should empower parents, not bureaucrats and politicians! Say no to KOSA.”
Source: Twitter/X Post by Vance Ginn, Ph.D., 12.7.2024
Texas House Bill 186: A Restrictive Approach
In Texas, House Bill 186, authored by State Representative Jared Patterson (R-Frisco), takes a more aggressive stance than KOSA. The bill bans minors under 18 from using social media, requiring platforms to verify users’ ages and allowing parents to demand the deletion of their children’s accounts. Platforms that fail to comply face significant penalties.
While the bill seeks to shield children from online harms, its sweeping measures raise significant issues. A blanket ban on minors’ access to social media could alienate young people from crucial resources for education, social interaction, and self-expression. Social media isn’t just entertainment—it’s a space where young people engage with peers, stay informed, and participate in public discourse. Critics argue that this broad restriction infringes on minors’ First Amendment rights.
Moreover, HB 186 shares KOSA’s reliance on invasive age verification measures, creating similar privacy risks. Collecting and storing sensitive personal information to verify users’ ages exposes platforms to security vulnerabilities. The financial and logistical burdens of compliance would also disproportionately impact smaller platforms, stifling competition and innovation.
Australia’s Recent Ban: A Global Perspective
In November 2024, Australia enacted a law prohibiting individuals under 16 from using social media platforms, with fines of up to A$49.5 million ($32 million) for noncompliance. This move aims to combat social media’s negative effects on youth mental health, such as body image issues and cyberbullying.
However, Australia’s ban has sparked intense debate. Critics question its enforceability and warn of potential unintended consequences, such as marginalizing vulnerable groups who rely on social media for connection and support. Patterson has praised Australia’s actions, calling for Texas to follow its lead. In contrast, organizations like NetChoice argue that Australia’s ban reflects an erosion of individual freedoms, noting that such measures are incompatible with the First Amendment protections afforded to U.S. citizens.
The Case for Parental Responsibility
At the heart of the debate lies the question of responsibility. Parents are uniquely equipped to understand their children’s needs, guide their behavior, and manage their online interactions. Tools like device-level parental controls, content filters, and open family communication provide effective ways for parents to foster safe digital environments.
Critics of laws like KOSA and HB 186 argue that these measures undermine parental authority by shifting responsibility to the government and platforms. By imposing blanket restrictions, such laws fail to account for the diverse needs of children and families. Instead of empowering parents, they create unintended consequences such as privacy risks, over-censorship, and barriers to innovation.
Why Government Overreach Fails
Relying on broad government intervention to ensure online safety raises numerous concerns. Laws like KOSA, HB 186, and Australia’s social media ban often employ vague standards that lead to over-censorship, suppressing legitimate speech, and reducing content diversity. Age verification requirements exacerbate privacy issues, forcing platforms to collect and store sensitive data, which could be exploited in the event of breaches.
These measures also impose significant compliance costs, disproportionately affecting smaller platforms and consolidating power among tech giants. Such overreach risks transforming the internet into a surveillance-heavy environment that undermines trust and freedom.
NetChoice argues that the Department of Justice is already not enforcing existing laws, like the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008. The Director of Policy at NetChoice, Patrick Hedger expanded on that sentiment:
“This is the most frustrating thing about this debate. Bills with deep constitutional problems keep getting introduced while the government isn’t even doing what existing law demands in terms of protecting kids.”
Source: Twitter/X Post by Patrick Hedger, 12.10.2024
Conclusion: Protecting Children Is a Parental Responsibility
Efforts like KOSA, Texas HB 186, and Australia’s social media ban reflect a growing trend of government intervention in online safety. However, these measures fail to address the root issue: the need for parents to take an active role in guiding their children’s digital lives. Government mandates often overstep their bounds, creating privacy risks, stifling free expression, and undermining parental authority.
True online safety begins at home. Parents, not governments, should lead the charge in protecting children online. Empowering families with the tools, resources, and knowledge to navigate digital spaces effectively is the best way to ensure children’s safety without compromising their freedom or privacy. The government’s role should be to support parents—not replace them—in fostering a safer, more empowering online environment for the next generation.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
