The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
A US proposal called the KIDS Act would require age verification for many “covered platforms,” effectively tying online access to government‑issued identity under the banner of protecting children from social media harms and pornography. Commenters argue this risks ending online anonymity, enabling mass surveillance and regulatory capture by big tech, while doing little to stop determined minors and shifting power away from parents and local controls. Alternatives raised include stronger on‑device parental controls, non‑identifying age signals like California’s OS‑level age flag, and broader cultural or economic changes to reduce children’s dependence on addictive online platforms.
Who Wants Age Checks and Why
- Governments and politicians framed as wanting more control, citing terrorism, child safety, and “protect the kids” narratives.
- Some see this as aligned with social-conservative agendas (e.g., outlawing porn, enforcing specific sexual morality).
- Big tech, especially Meta, is said to support it: to gain more data (including biometrics), shift liability, and raise barriers to new competitors.
- Some parents and a few politicians/tech leaders are described as genuinely seeking tools to protect children from addictive or harmful content.
Surveillance, Control, and Regulatory Capture
- Many view the bill as a step toward universal digital ID, mass surveillance, and easier censorship, with “kids” as political cover.
- Fears include: linkage of browsing to government ID, blackmail of officials, future denial of jobs/loans, and repression of disfavored groups.
- Several comments frame this as classic regulatory capture: big tech shaping inevitable regulation to entrench itself.
Child Protection vs. Parental Responsibility
- Strong frustration that tech products are intentionally addictive and difficult for non‑technical parents to supervise.
- Others argue this is fundamentally a parenting and inequality problem (time, money, attention), not a technical one; state power shouldn’t replace parenting.
Effectiveness and Risks
- Skeptics say porn and social media will remain accessible via workarounds, foreign sites, or shared devices.
- Concern that age-gated “kid spaces” may actually help predators find and target minors, while also eroding anonymity for everyone.
- Some argue harms from social media are real (addiction, body image, extremism), others note research is mixed and causality unclear.
Scope and Legal Issues
- Debate over how broad “covered platforms” are: ad-funded, recommendation-driven sites vs. narrower porn/social-media targets.
- Some say the EFF title (“to get online”) overstates scope; others respond that for normal users “online” effectively means big platforms.
- Comparisons to alcohol/nicotine age checks appear, but countered by First Amendment concerns and the permanence/centralization of digital records.
Proposed Alternatives
- OS/device-level age flags without ID (e.g., California approach).
- Stronger, usable parental controls and manual moderation at smaller scale.
- Privacy-preserving age proofs (zero-knowledge) or separate “kid internet” ideas.
- Non-technical fixes: banning ads to children, limiting algorithmic feeds, improving social supports for parents.