KOSA and other Bad Internet Bills (US-specific for now)
In late 2025, Congress is once again considering KOSA along with a package of other #BadInternetBills internet bills. EFF, Fight for the Future, ACLU, Woodhull Foundation, and dozens of other groups continue been sounding the alarm, and grassroots activisms have joined in to make it it clear that these bills are terrible ideas. Alas, Congress is now considering packaging them together—possibly into must-pass legislation. We're organizing to keep them from sneaking these bad internet bills through.
This community is for news stories, opinion pieces, and action links about these bad internet bills. Please help get the word out!
And if you use microblogging software like Mastodon, please also check out the #BadInternetBills hashtag.
Icon originally from Why we need to openly protest KOSA on Five Nights at Freddy's Wiki, used by permission.
view the rest of the comments
I think a key fact is rather downplayed in the article: the first amendment applies to Americans not non-Americans. While Americans use TikTok, it is owned and run by a non-american entity so it is not afforded the protections of the first amendment.
The district courts ruling was that the government had acted to protect freedom of speech from a foreign adversary by banning TikTok. Essentially arguing that this is not breaching the first amendment as the intention is not to abridge freedom of speech but rather protect it.
I can see both sides of this debate but I think the article is probably right - the intention is probably irrelevant as it is defacto abridging the freedom of speech of the american users who will lose access to the platform.
And as others have said the real solution may have been proper privacy laws in the US that stop all tech companies farming and selling users data. But the US companies don't want that and neither seemingly does the US government - they seem to not mind US companies abusing their citizens, it's only when it's foreign governments that it's wrong.
What? Where does the First Amendment say that or where has a court interpreted it that way before?