Beyond KOSA
Where might a Republican Congress act to help protect kids online?
Welcome back to Family Matters, where we apologize for the absence last Friday, but you didn’t really expect us to miss a child’s Christmas pageant to bring you fresh family policy takes, did you?
To make it up to you, we’ll run a special “Best of 2024” episode at some unannounced date during the Christmas holidays, before getting back on our weekly grind January 10. Consider it our Christmas gift to you, our dear readers. But one last round of business before the break. On tap:
The Main Event: The future of battles over kids and tech
Hill Happenings: Hawley goes big; bipartisan paid leave draft
Relive the Magic: Brown v. Pakaluk debate video available
It’s Me, Hi: PolicySphere, Family Studies, American Compass, Capita
Quick Slants
The Main Event
Barring something truly unexpected, it appears that the House will not take up the bipartisan Kids Online Safety Act, which would, among other things, create a “duty of care” for social media platforms. Despite some last-minute lobbying efforts, including interventions from Donald Trump, Jr. and Elon Musk, Speaker Mike Johnson was content to let the legislative calendar expire before bringing the bill up for a vote.
Ironically enough, some of the loudest voices against KOSA’s passage have been advocacy groups who wouldn’t usually find themselves on the same side as the staunchly conservative Speaker Johnson. When KOSA was initially introduced, over 100 groups, including many LGBT advocacy organizations, expressed their fear “bad actors [would] weaponiz[e] the law to suppress affirming content for LGBTQ+ young people.” A provision that would have given state attorneys general the authority to decide what was inappropriate for children was stripped out, with that authority handed to the Federal Trade Commission instead. As a result, groups like GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign withdrew their opposition, though others, like LGBT Tech and the ACLU, still oppose KOSA on the grounds the bill would “incentivize platforms to remove LGBTQ+ content.”
KOSA remains a worthwhile bipartisan effort — I would point you to my EPPC colleague ’s argument in favor of it from this summer, or the Institute for Family Studies’ Michael Toscano from earlier this year. It passed the Senate by a vote of 91-3 earlier this summer (Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) voted against it on censorship concerns,) suggesting future bites at the apple might present themselves.
The “duty of care” debate remains fraught, with some conservative groups joining the side of the aforementioned progressive organizations in sounding the alarm about censorship. Not all of these concerns are wholly organic. As the Wall Street Journal reported, these concerns have been fueled by some lobbying efforts from social media giants like Meta (the artist formerly known as Facebook) and Alphabet (neé Google):
Meta Platforms and Alphabet are leaning on culture-war issues to try to leverage divisions among lawmakers, according to lawmakers and people familiar with the matter. For liberal lawmakers, they focus on LGBTQ expression, amplifying worries that officials could censor queer youth. With conservative lawmakers they talk about how they fear antiabortion positions could be censored. The rear-guard effort shows the stakes for the companies: Assigning a duty of care would hold the companies liable for design decisions.
KOSA is not a perfect bill, but it would be a fairly hefty shake-up of the current legal status quo. (As an aside, as much as I favor the goals of KOSA and its champions, I find myself instinctively bristling at the rhetoric from some of its sponsors. “Every day that goes by without KOSA passing, more children are dying,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) told the Washington Examiner. “Suicide, self-harm, bullying, eating disorders, fentanyl poisoning, sexual exploitation…All of it happening right now, right here in America in real time to our young people,” says Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) Of course there are real harms and real lives at stake, but “we need to pass this bill because kids are dying” remains a kind soft soft emotionally blackmail aimed at short-circuiting debate — another triumph of Alasdair MacIntyre’s concept of emotivism, though of course that ship sailed a long time ago…) But if the bill as currently constituted can’t make its way through Congress, it’s worth thinking through which elements of a kids and tech agenda might be able to break through some of the logjam — particularly in a context in which Republicans will hold a razor-thin legislative majority.
Lawmakers interested in keeping kids safe online might consider moving the debate upstream. After all, KOSA wasn’t the only tech-related bill pending Congressional approval by the end of the year — The TAKE IT DOWN Act, co-sponsored by Senators Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) would have criminalized the publication of so-called "revenge porn," including AI-generated imagery, and unanimously pased the Senate (earlier this year, the New York Times Magazine profiled a Florida councilwoman whose face was used to create AI-generated explicit videos, and the impact that had on her life and career.) The bill even got attached to the original, 1,500-page version of the continuing resolution that got blown up thanks to unrest among conservative influencers. So it will have to work its way through Congress again next year, and — if Congress worked in anything close to regular order — should be a bipartisan priority.
Likewise, if KOSA itself can’t get over the hump, Congress should at least consider advancing COPPA 2.0, co-sponsored by Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) which would update the “minimum age” of the internet from 13 to 16. (COPPA 2.0 was incorporated into the broader KOSA legislation, but could still stand on its own as an important intermediary step to broader reforms.)
There are plenty of other ideas that could pick up steam in the second Trump administration. Age verification for explicit content remains an incredibly popular idea. Morell and Toscano would like to see Congress go after app stores’ lax handling of age requirements. Brad Wilcox and Thomas Lehrman have proposed a know-your-customer requirement for social media companies before they permit a minor to open an account. I’ve proposed Congress consider steps to require social media companies to give parents administrator-level access to their teens’ accounts, allowing them to keep tabs on what content they’re viewing and who they’re messaging with. My suspicion is that the legislative tools that stand the best chance at passing in a narrowly divided Congress will be the ones that are most clearly seen as empowering parents, such as COPPA 2.0.
Because proponents of prioritizing keeping kids safe online should take heart in knowing they are winning the ideological battle, if not the legislative one. Musk’s intervention in the KOSA battle was an interesting sign in that regard. And in September, Instagram announced they would be defaulting teenage users into new teen accounts, with limited direct message interactions, sensitive content restrictions, time limit reminders, “sleep mode,” and — importantly — the requirement of parental permission to opt out of some of these additional settings. This is proof of technological concept, and a recognition that the company saw the vulnerability about treating kids like adults online.
Voluntary steps are a great first step; making them mandatory should be a no-brainer. A pro-parent agenda should find ways or prioritizing action on kids and tech, along the lines Wilcox, Morell, Toscano, and myself have written about, among others. Identifying the right legislative vehicles, and side-stepping battles that lead to heavy-handed lobbying and Congressional in-fighting, could make that possibility a reality even amid precarious political waters.
Hill Happenings
Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) came out guns blazing on the upcoming tax negotiations, proposing a $5,000 top-line value for the Child Tax Credit, an enhanced eligibility period for pregnant moms, a boost to refundabile payments, and more. With Senators Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance, and Mitt Romney leaving the Senate, the CTC needs more vocal Republican champions, and Hawley’s opening bid suggests he wants to fill that gap. The full package would be quite expensive and unlikely to make it into the tax bill as-is, but is an unquestionable throwing down of the gauntlet about where Hawley thinks the TCJA reauthorization talks should focus.
The bipartisan House Paid Family Leave Working Group, co-chaired by Reps. Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.) and Chrissy Houlahan (D-Penn.), released some draft ideas for a realistic and achievable path to supporting paid leave efforts at the state level. The most notable is a competitive grant program, not dissimilar to "Race to the Top," that would provide grants to states interested in launching a public-private partnership approach to paid leave. The goal of any bipartisan commission is not to make any particular camp completely happy, but to find something that could be actually doable — and this plan firmly meets that goal. Its light-touch approach and relatively friendly price tag could make this a proposal well worth watching if paid leave takes the spotlight under a GOP Congress.
Relive the Magic
The video from my recent debate with the Catholic University of America’s Catherine Ruth Pakaluk is now live!
Just for fun, I asked ChatGPT to summarize our arguments in a way that would make a casual viewer feel like they didn’t miss anything, but might intrigue them into wanting to watch the whole thing. Here’s what it came up with:
• Pakaluk’s Argument: Deeply rooted in traditional conservatism, her arguments prioritize philosophical consistency and the preservation of historical institutions over adaptation or pragmatism.
• Brown’s Argument: Reflects a willingness to blend conservative principles with data-driven, forward-looking policy, placing him in a camp of reformist or neoconservative thinkers who prioritize action over ideological purity.
But don’t take it from ChatGPT, watch it for yourself!
It’s Me, Hi
Approximately zero people in this world were worried about not having enough high-def PTB content for their Christmas break, but the great news is that for that ill-defined group of people, they have an hour-long video podcast with PolicySphere’s Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry that starts with some Child Tax Credit wonkery, takes a detour down YIMBY Lane, and finishes up with some talk about diaper changes and artificial wombs. Don’t miss it!
For American Compass, I suggest that the shifting contours of the GOP coalition should lead conservatives to embrace a difference set of priorities when it comes to whatever tax bill Congress takes up in 2025:
As Congress now prepares to revisit TCJA in the upcoming year, it’s important for Republicans to grapple with the ongoing political realignment. Simply tapping copy-paste to extend 2017’s tax bill—something some in the party seem intent on doing—will be a missed opportunity. A TCJA 2.0 should put meat on the bones of an authentically conservative approach to tax policy—fiscally prudent, parent-friendly, and pro-worker.
For the Institute for Family Studies, I found that in 2012, congressional districts where babies were more likely to be born to married parents were heavily Republican, but by 2024 that relationship had virtually flattened out. This has ramifications for American families and politics:
Tapping into populist sentiments is a powerful way to win elections, but it can’t remain election rhetoric. Authentic, problem-solving conservative populism should seek to address the reality that too many Americans have the sense that their country’s key institutions—not least marriage— are failing them.
Part of the lesson from the 2024 election should be a conservative coalition that recognizes the electoral power of its working-class base. That should include prioritizing pro-family efforts, from eliminating marriage penalties and expanding the Child Tax Credit to offering a ‘Baby Bonus’ to new parents and more.
And, for Capita, an updated version on a election-season Family Matters riff — that red-meat culture war approaches to family policy are one thing, but they’ll be most effective when paired with substantive policies to support families:
If the 2024 election results show us anything, they suggest that a trendy cultural progressivism is out of step with many voters, particularly those without a college degree. But mere “anti-wokeness” isn’t enough to take the place of a more substantive policy agenda. Cultural issues and economic ones work best as complements, not substitutes—a lesson today’s pro-family populists will learn if they re-orient the Right in a pro-parent direction.
Quick Slants
A couple of stories for the “abundance agenda” files — well-intentioned but overbearing fire code regulations in Maine and California are forcing child care providers to delay expansion, or even risk shutting down. And in the Big Apple, Maya Kurien of the Real Estate Board of New York and Grace Rauh of the 5BORO Institute write that “We Need to Make it Easier to Open a Day Care in NYC” (CityLimits)
Senate Republicans see agriculture and abortion, not vaccines, as making or breaking the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as HHS Secretary, report Burgess Everett and Shelby Talcott (Semafor). Politico reports that his day of Hill meetings allayed some concerns among some GOP Senators.
Cool new resource from the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, if you want to get a quick snapshot of why a given intervention works (or, more likely, doesn't)
The Philly Joy Bank program will give $1,000 per month to 250 Philadelphia moms, from the second trimester up to the baby's first birthday (Newsweek)
Calum Miller, a pro-life doctor from the U.K., writes that the pro-life movement faces treacherous waters, and that being too acquiescent to decisions made for political reasons may lead to their ultimate marginalization (First Things)
Karin Brulliard profiles a struggling child care provider in Idaho (Washington Post)
“The Trump administration seems to not want to be perceived as the aggressor in our abortion debates…[yet] returning abortion to the states, as they promised during the campaign, requires revoking every Biden abortion policy, especially when they tried to subvert state pro-life laws,” EPPC President Ryan Anderson told Our Sunday Visitor’s Kate Scanlon
The city of Tokyo has announced it will be offering free daycare to parents in an effort to boost birth rates; though I give Motherly's Elizabeth Tenety credit for noting such efforts have been ineffective elsewhere, something the positive write-ups often miss
A new report from the Georgia Senate Study Committee on Child Care proposes expanding the state's tax credit for employer-sponsored child care, creating a tax credit for child care employees and (siren alert) prioritizing the creation of a Georgia Child Tax Credit
Alabama, North Carolina, Michigan, and Nevada will be participating in a new early childhood pilot program aimed at buttressing support for home-based child care providers (NIEER)
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed bills to expands access to doulas, require insurance companies to cover dyslexia exams, among other provisions, reports Luke Parsnow
Comments and criticism both welcome, albeit not quite equally; send me a postcard, drop me a line, and then sign up for more content and analysis from EPPC scholars.
Interested to watch that debate with Pakaluk!