Does the Kids Online Safety Act threaten free speech? As a former Google whistleblower who was caught red-handed when YouTube manually manipulated search results for abortion, I know a thing or two about threats to free speech. have. Yellow dust is not a threat to free speech.
What should we make of “experts” who claim that yellow dust threatens free speech? These people often take bold and unpopular stands in defense of free speech. They envision themselves as brave truth-tellers and whistleblowers. But let's compare my whistleblowing to their whistleblowing.
At one point, these “experts” recreate Principal Skinner's “Out of Contact” meme from “The Simpsons.” With people like Elon Musk and Jonathan Haidt supporting KOSA, and KOSA passing the Senate by a vote of 91-3, perhaps the “experts” should take a step back and say they don't disagree. You should ask yourself.
If you want to blow the whistle like I do, you can't make empty-handed claims about censorship. It must be proven with concrete evidence. Whistleblowing, even when done for good reason, carries significant personal and career risks. It's not as glamorous as many people think.
In my case, what I found was “Smoking gun”: The exact code changes that changed YouTube's search results for abortion. The change came just hours after Slate's pro-choice writer sent an email to YouTube. complain Search results are too anti-abortion. (Ironically, this writer, April Glaser, is currently technology journalist for NBC News)
But what will happen to the brave whistleblowers who speak out against the dust? Firstly, many of them exist in a bubble, and taking this stance will advance their careers rather than hinder them. But that aside, this actual whistleblower would ask a simple question: What is the concrete evidence? Where is the smoke bomb?
You don't have to go undercover like I did. of KOSA legislative text Open to the public. The evidence is self-explanatory. To find conclusive evidence of that, two things are necessary. First, you must cite specific parts of the legislative text that threaten free speech. Second, you must explain in specific, practical terms how the text threatens free speech.
If you're making yourself an “expert,” what I'm asking shouldn't be difficult. However, many “experts” are completely incapable of this task. After Elon Musk and X support KOSA, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression Defendant X He said he supported “the government's takeover of online speech” and also referenced FIRE's past statements opposing KOSA.
in this statementFIRE claimed that KOSA allows the government to “enforce vaguely defined requirements for social media accounts that may belong to users under the age of 17.” But what makes KOSA's specific requirements vague? FIRE doesn't say. There's certainly an ambiguity problem here, but it's not that KOSA is ambiguous. FIRE's criticism of Kosa is hopelessly vague. That's ironic.
Other critics, like Shoshana Wiseman of the R Street Institute, Claim “KOSA requires age verification.” One need only read the bill to understand the problem with that argument. The legislative text specifies that nothing in KOSA “shall be construed as requiring a covered platform to implement age restrictions or age verification features.”
In the high-stakes environment of whistleblowing against Google, such a hole in my argument would have destroyed my reputation and credibility. However, I suspect that in the low-stakes environment of technology policy “experts” in Washington, D.C., it would be done differently.
(Some critics argue that KOSA is instead “Effectively” Age verification is required – as if the word “effectively” magically corrects the argument's flaws. Perhaps this mythical requirement for age confirmation could be found by examining the emissions from the Kosa penumbra. Alternatively, you can apply common sense. For example, if the Tide Pod Challenge goes viral on social media, do we need to verify the age of every user to address that issue?Obviously not. )
At one point, these “experts” recreate Principal Skinner's “out of touch” meme from “The Simpsons.” With people like Elon Musk and Jonathan Haidt supporting KOSA, and KOSA passing the Senate by a vote of 91-3, perhaps the “experts” should take a step back and realize that they disagree. You should ask yourself if there is. No, it's Elon Musk, Jonathan Hight, and 91 senators who are wrong.
If the “experts” can legitimately claim authority, it is that – at least in theory – they know the legal text of KOSA better than Elon or Haidt. But what if they instead rely on pundits and fear-mongering claims? At that point, it becomes a question of whether people believe the “experts” or Elon. And most people will believe Elon.
