Congress stands days from a vote on the KIDS Act. The sprawling package bundles a revised Kids Online Safety Act with measures on chatbots, explicit content, and more. Lawmakers push it through an expedited process. No separate debate. No detailed hearings on each piece.
Supporters say it shields minors from harm. Critics see something else. A framework that pressures every online service to verify ages. One that risks turning the open internet into a gated network. And one that hands Big Tech an easy out while smaller players and open-source projects scramble.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation laid it out plainly. “Buried inside the KIDS Act are provisions that will push online services to verify all users’ ages, require government-directed moderation policies for online speech, and even create new rules about private and encrypted communications.” Joe Mullin wrote the analysis on June 24, 2026. The bill’s complexity creates massive legal risk. Companies won’t gamble. They will age-check everyone.
Short version: the “knows or should have known” standard. Platforms face liability if they fail to spot users under 17. Child means under 13. Teen covers 13 to 16. The negligence bar sits low. Courts and regulators decide later whether a service “should” have known. That uncertainty breeds caution. Extreme caution.
So platforms collect data. Driver’s licenses. Passports. Facial scans. Age-estimation algorithms. These tools falter. They err more often on people of color, those with disabilities, and trans or nonbinary individuals. The very groups the bill claims to protect suffer most. Yet the text includes a disclaimer. Nothing in KOSA shall be read to require age verification. The EFF calls it hollow. Obligations tied to knowing a user’s age make the disclaimer meaningless for risk-averse operators. Startups especially cannot afford the lawsuits.
The Surveillance Playbook Takes Shape
This isn’t new. State laws already map the terrain. California’s AB 1043 demanded operating systems collect age data at setup. The 2027 deadline loomed over developers, including those behind Linux distributions. Open-source maintainers voiced alarm. How does a volunteer project comply with enterprise-grade verification?
WebProNews reported the firestorm. Linux distros found themselves in the crossfire. The mandate threatened to swallow projects that lack resources for age-gating infrastructure. Similar bills in Illinois, Colorado and elsewhere showed the pattern. Big Tech writes the rules. Politicians follow. The companies gain liability shields. Everyone else builds the surveillance apparatus.
System76, a Linux hardware maker, called out the real agenda in earlier coverage. These bills let large platforms dodge accountability by shifting the burden to age verification systems they already control or can afford. Government gets the data flows. Users lose anonymity. Recent amendments in California propose carving out open-source licenses that permit copying, redistribution and modification. That would spare most mainstream distros. But the exemption arrived only after sustained backlash. It signals the default impulse: regulate first, fix later.
Federal action now threatens to nationalize the approach. The KIDS Act folds in the SCREEN Act. Services hosting sexually explicit material must determine whether users are “more likely than not” above the age limit. The SAFE BOTS Act adds similar pressures for AI chat features. Different standards. Overlapping requirements. The result looks predictable. Broad age checks across platforms to minimize exposure.
And the moderation rules. KOSA no longer carries the controversial duty-of-care language. Progress, some say. Yet platforms must still “establish, implement, maintain, and enforce” policies addressing broad categories. True threats and exploitation, yes. But also discussions of drugs, alcohol, gambling, tobacco, even financial fraud. A 15-year-old seeking advice on a parent’s drinking problem? A teen sharing harm-reduction resources? Lawful speech. Platforms will over-remove to stay safe. We’ve watched it happen when legal pressure rises.
Private messaging faces new scrutiny too. Rules target disappearing messages and direct chats. The bill nods to encryption but stops short. How does a service “address” harms inside encrypted channels it cannot read? Pressure builds to weaken those protections or limit features for suspected minors. Ephemeral messaging mimics real conversation. It isn’t a loophole. Yet the KIDS Act treats it with suspicion.
Recent coverage echoes the warnings. The Hill reported on the House breakthrough just days ago. Bipartisan deal on the package. Senate counterparts already pushing their versions. Odds of final passage remain uncertain. Still, the momentum feels familiar. Child safety sells. Privacy concerns get labeled obstruction.
Politico highlighted the backlash. A coalition raised alarms over age verification that funnels personal data into databases ripe for breaches. Their June 17 update captured the tension. App Store Accountability Act provisions would demand verification before downloads. Parental consent for minors. The privacy risks compound.
Open-source faces the same squeeze at the federal level that states previewed. Device-level or OS-level verification studies sit inside related provisions. Commerce Department, FCC, FTC would examine options. Data collection. Accuracy. Accessibility. Privacy safeguards. The language sounds measured. Implementation rarely is. Volunteer developers cannot hire compliance teams. Small services cannot absorb endless legal discovery.
Big Tech, by contrast, already invests in these systems. They shape the bills. They deploy the tech. They limit their own exposure while the infrastructure spreads. The Trojan horse rolls forward. Age checks sold as protection become permanent identity gates. Anonymity fades. Speech narrows. Encrypted channels grow fragile.
But the EFF’s call remains direct. Contact Congress. Reject the age-gating bill. The vote could come as soon as Monday. Lawmakers bundled too much, too fast. The package rewards scale over safety. It favors control over openness. And it risks locking the internet behind checkpoints that everyone must clear.
State experiments already show the cracks. Exemptions appear only after protest. Linux dodged one bullet in California. Federal law could close that escape. The KIDS Act doesn’t solve the hard problems of online harm. It outsources them to technology that doesn’t exist reliably and to companies that prioritize risk avoidance above all.
Users notice. Recent chatter on X shows growing pushback. Accounts warn of ID scans, faulty AI moderation, lost accounts, data breaches. The pattern from other countries repeats. What starts as child protection ends as routine surveillance for all. Congress has one chance to slow down. To separate the pieces. To debate the trade-offs in public. The expedited path offers none of that.
The internet that emerges will reflect the choice. Gated and verified. Or open and imperfect. The KIDS Act points clearly toward the first. Whether it passes will decide how far that vision spreads.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication