Today, the House Energy and Commerce Committee marked up a series of kids’ online safety bills limiting young people’s autonomy and internet access.
Many of these bills – including “Sammy’s Law” and the “App Store Accountability Act” – shift responsibility for product safety from the very platforms designing unsafe products onto families. Additionally, the House version of these bills, namely the “Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), preempt state law, barring states from enacting their own online safety bills that could force platforms to design safer products in the first place. Public Knowledge contends that the best way for Congress to make the internet safer for children is to focus on how platforms are designed rather than on controlling who can use them.
The following can be attributed to Morgan Wilsmann, Policy Analyst at Public Knowledge:
“Today, Congress passed out of committee a package of bills aimed at kids’ online safety. The bills range from uncontroversial, bipartisan Federal Trade Commission study bills to those facilitating privacy-threatening surveillance. Lawmakers continue spending time on bills that simply pass on the responsibility for child safety online entirely to parents, rather than pushing platforms to make their products safer for everyone.
“In an otherwise bleak package of bills threatening free expression and the Open Internet, there are some bright spots – specifically, bills that target particular harmful design features rather than blocking kids from the internet altogether or forcing them to give up all semblance of privacy. We hope Congress can push forward conversations around what actually perpetuates harms to kids online – namely, risky design features like live chat with strangers or endless scroll – rather than content young users may come across.”
You may view our recent article, “Congress Is Still Getting Kids’ Online Safety Wrong,” to learn more about the consequences of these bills, as well as our in-depth scorecard evaluation on each one. You may also view our white paper, “The Kids Aren’t Alright Online: How To Build a Safer, Better Internet for Everyone,” to discover how to make the internet safer for everyone, including children.
Members of the media may contact Communications Director Shiva Stella with inquiries, interview requests, or to join the Public Knowledge press list at shiva@publicknowledge.org or 405-249-9435.
Facts Only
The House Energy and Commerce Committee marked up a series of bills focused on kids’ online safety.
Proposed bills include "Sammy’s Law," the "App Store Accountability Act," and the "Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA)."
Some bills shift responsibility for online safety from platforms to families.
The House version of KOSA preempts state laws, preventing states from enacting their own online safety regulations.
Public Knowledge, a policy advocacy group, argues that Congress should focus on platform design rather than restricting user access.
Morgan Wilsmann, a Policy Analyst at Public Knowledge, stated that some bills facilitate privacy-threatening surveillance.
Wilsmann noted that certain bills target harmful design features, such as live chat with strangers or endless scroll.
Public Knowledge has published articles and a white paper critiquing these bills and proposing alternative approaches.
Media inquiries can be directed to Shiva Stella, Communications Director at Public Knowledge.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that Congress is prioritizing a misguided approach to online safety—one that burdens families and restricts access rather than holding platforms accountable for harmful design choices. Public Knowledge’s critique is principled: it acknowledges a few positive elements in the legislative package while systematically dismantling the premise that surveillance or access restrictions are the solution. The argument gains credibility by focusing on structural issues (e.g., algorithmic amplification of harm) rather than moral panic about content.
Pattern scan: The framing risks slipping into a false binary—either platforms are unregulated or families bear full responsibility—while ignoring intermediate solutions like design mandates. The emphasis on "privacy-threatening surveillance" could also exploit fear, though the critique itself remains evidence-based. No overt manipulation patterns are detected, but the narrative leans on an implicit assumption that platforms *can* design safer products if compelled, which may underestimate technical or economic constraints.
Root cause: The paradigm here is a clash between libertarian-leaning tech policy (platforms as neutral intermediaries) and interventionist regulation (design mandates as public safety measures). The unstated assumption is that harm reduction is primarily a design problem, not a societal one—ignoring, for example, how offline vulnerabilities (e.g., mental health crises) manifest online.
Implications: If these bills pass, platforms may face weaker incentives to reform, while families—especially marginalized ones—could bear disproportionate costs (e.g., surveillance tools, access barriers). Second-order effects might include fragmented state-level innovation being stifled by federal preemption, or platforms doubling down on age verification systems that erode privacy.
Bridge questions: What evidence exists that design-focused regulations (e.g., banning endless scroll) actually reduce harm? How might these bills interact with existing laws like COPPA or Section 230? Would a "duty of care" model for platforms—rather than preemption—better balance safety and innovation?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign pushing this narrative might amplify fear (e.g., "kids are in danger online!") while dismissing platform accountability as "censorship." The actual content avoids this trap, focusing on policy mechanics rather than emotional appeals. No structural alignment with manipulative playbooks is detected.
Patterns detected: none