Internet platforms shouldn’t be expected to design their sites to mitigate and prevent harms associated with mental health.

If good intentions created good laws, there would be no need for congressional debate. While I deeply sympathize with the families of those who have tragically lost loved ones to suicide, and I have no doubt the authors of the Kids Online Safety Act genuinely want to protect children, KOSA is not the solution

KOSA would impose an unprecedented duty of care on internet platforms to design their sites to mitigate and prevent harms associated with mental health, such as anxiety, depression and eating disorders. This requirement will not only stifle free speech, but it will deprive Americans of the benefits of our technological advancements.

With the internet, today’s children have the world at their fingertips. While doctors’ and therapists’ offices close at night and on weekends, support groups are available 24 hours a day seven days a week for people who share similar concerns or have the same health problems. Any solution to protect kids online must ensure the positive aspects of the internet are preserved.

KOSA only leads to silencing free speech

KOSA supporters will tell you that they have no desire to regulate content. But the requirement that platforms mitigate undefined harms belies the bill’s effect to regulate online content. Imposing a “duty of care” on online platforms to mitigate harms associated with mental health can only lead to one outcome: The silencing of constitutionally protected speech.

The bill empowers the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the duty of care requirement to prevent mental health disorders, yet KOSA does not explicitly define the term “mental health disorder.” Instead, it references the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders . . . or “the most current successor edition.” That mean the scope of the bill could change overnight without any action from America’s elected representatives.

Additionally, KOSA supporters say they have no desire to regulate content. But the requirement that platforms mitigate undefined harms belies the bill’s effect to regulate content.

For example, if a platform uses an endless scroll to promote Shakespeare’s works, or algebra problems, or the history of the Roman Empire, would anyone consider that harmful? I doubt it, because website design does not cause harm. KOSA will inevitably regulate content.

How would platforms comply with KOSA’s requirement to mitigate and prevent undefined harms such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders? Should platforms stop children from seeing war coverage because it could lead to depression? Should pro-life messages be censored because platforms worry it could impact the mental well-being of teenage mothers? Would sites permit discussion of a teenager overcoming an eating disorder?

KOSA opens the door to nearly limitless content regulation

The world’s most well-known climate activist, Greta Thunberg, famously suffers from climate anxiety. Would KOSA deprive the next Greta Thunberg from engaging in online climate activism?

KOSA opens the door to nearly limitless content regulation because platforms will censor users rather than risk liability. Financial concerns may cause online forums to eliminate anxiety-inducing content for all users, regardless of age, if the expense of policing teenage users is prohibitive.

This bill does not merely regulate the internet; it threatens to suppress important and diverse discussions that are essential to a free and healthy society. That is why a legion of advocacy groups on the left and the right, such as Students for Life and the American Civil Liberties Union, oppose KOSA.

Government mandates and censorship will not protect children online. The internet may pose new problems, but there is an age old solution to this issue. Free minds and parental guidance are the best means to protect our children online.