The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a bipartisan legislative proposal currently moving through the U.S. Congress, aims to hold social media platforms accountable for the content minors encounter online. While proponents argue the bill protects children from harmful algorithms, creators in the independent publishing and comics communities have raised concerns that the legislation’s broad language could inadvertently trigger widespread censorship of LGBTQ+ literature, health resources, and artistic expression.
Legislative Intent and the Mechanics of KOSA
The primary objective of the Kids Online Safety Act (S. 1409) is to impose a "duty of care" on platforms that provide services used by minors. According to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, this duty requires companies to prevent and mitigate specific harms, including online bullying, sexual exploitation, and the promotion of self-harm or eating disorders.
Platforms would be required to provide minors with the strongest privacy settings by default and offer tools for parents to monitor usage. The legislation grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general the authority to enforce these requirements.
Concerns Regarding Comics and Independent Publishing
Critics of the bill, including the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF), argue that the "duty of care" standard is dangerously vague. The primary fear is that social media platforms—seeking to avoid legal liability or costly enforcement actions—will proactively remove any content that could be labeled as "harmful" to minors.
In the context of comics and zines, which often explore complex themes of identity, social justice, and personal experience, this could lead to the suppression of LGBTQ+ content. Because the bill does not explicitly define "harmful," creators worry that platforms will default to over-censorship. This phenomenon, often referred to as "algorithmic scrubbing," could effectively hide or delete independent works that fall outside traditional, conservative social norms.
The Comparison: KOSA vs. Existing Content Moderation
The debate over KOSA echoes previous industry battles regarding digital speech. Unlike the Communications Decency Act (Section 230), which provides platforms with a degree of immunity for user-generated content, KOSA shifts the burden of responsibility onto the platform itself.
| Feature | Section 230 (Current) | Kids Online Safety Act (Proposed) |
|---|---|---|
| Liability | Limited for third-party content | Increased for platform design |
| Primary Goal | Encourages platform growth | Mitigates "design-based" harm |
| Enforcement | Generally private lawsuits | FTC and State Attorneys General |
Legal analysts from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have noted that while the bill’s intent is to protect children, the mechanism relies on platforms acting as arbiters of what content is appropriate for minors. For independent publishers, this creates a landscape where the cost of compliance could outweigh the benefit of hosting diverse or niche artistic content.
The Future of Independent Digital Spaces
The tension surrounding KOSA centers on the balance between child safety and the preservation of an open internet. If enacted, the bill would force a fundamental change in how social media companies manage user-generated content. For comics creators and zine makers who rely on digital platforms to reach audiences, the risk is not just the removal of specific titles, but the potential loss of the digital infrastructure necessary to distribute work that does not fit mainstream corporate standards. As the bill progresses, the publishing industry remains focused on whether amendments will be introduced to clarify the definitions of "harm" and protect creators from broad, automated content moderation.
Worth a look