The idea would be that devices could "opt in" to safety rather than opt out. Allow parents to purchase a locked-down device that always includes a "kids" flag whenever it requests online information, and simply require online services to not provide kid-unfriendly information if that flag is included.

I know a lot of people believe that this is just all just a secret ploy to destroy privacy. Personally, I don't think so. I think they genuinely want to protect kids, and the privacy destruction is driven by a combination of not caring and not understanding.

The worst that can happen is you don't change things.

The best? Maybe you'll find a receptive ear. Your lawmaker stops co-sponsoring KOSA. Your state AG stops pushing for it.

"Many social media platforms deliberately target minors, fueling a nationwide youth mental health crisis."

". These platforms are intentionally designed to be addictive, particularly for underaged users, and generate substantial profits by monetizing minors’ personal data through targeted advertising. These companies fail to adequately disclose the addictive nature of their products or the well-documented harms associated with excessive social media use. Increasing evidence demonstrates that these companies are aware of the adverse mental health consequences imposed on underage users, yet they have chosen to persist in these practices. Accordingly, many of our Offices have initiated investigations and filed lawsuits against Meta and TikTok for their role in harming minors. "

Yet, the comapnies aren't being regulated, nor the algorithims, the marketing or even the existence. It's the users that are the problem therefore everyone has to submit their Identity to use the Internet if this passes.

Here's the actual title of the article, which is much more concerning than the HN title.

That doesn't mean they should get what they might want, or that its Constitutional.

"The attorneys general argue that social media companies deliberately design products that draw in underage users and monetize their personal data through targeted advertising. They contend that companies have not adequately disclosed addictive features or mental health risks and point to evidence suggesting firms are aware of adverse consequences for minors."

Okay, so why aren't they going after the social media companies?

Aren't there sound reasons to support anonymous whistleblowing?

Would there be critical feedback without pseudo-anonymity on the internet?

But you folks just have to dom all the haters.

What is their favorite thing: stuffed animal brand, candy, musical artist?

But then wouldn't undercover ops be obvious?

Is this similar to the "ban all crypto" movements that periodically forget everything we've learned about infosec and protecting folks?

Do protectees' deserve privacy for their safety?

In the 1990s, they told us kids not to use our real names or addresses on the internet.

I suggest to (re)read

- https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_Mapping%...

- https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%2...

These predictions have largely come true.

You can’t illegally retaliate against citizens if you don’t know where they sleep at night.

This loophole, “think of the children,” would not exist if SV had gotten over itself and not called very solution unworkable while insisting that any solution parents receive, no matter how sloppy or confusing, is workable.