The Age Verification Wave in the US: Activists Challenge the Changes

New age-verification laws are gaining traction across the United States, potentially reshaping the digital landscape as we know it.

In opposition to these measures, a collective of digital and human rights organizations has embarked on a campaign, utilizing platforms like YouTube, LinkedIn, and others, to shed light on what they argue are harmful precedents set by these laws. The legislation predominantly mandates that users prove their age by providing ID or consenting to facial recognition before accessing adult content, sparking fears of greater censorship and surveillance.

A significant aspect of this issue is the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which received substantial bipartisan backing in the Senate last year, along with another bill that seeks to block minors under 16 from accessing tech platforms. These proposals have raised alarms about parental control, research involving minors, the use of AI, and data privacy.

Sarah Philips, from the organization Fight for the Future, emphasizes that these ID validations are becoming a standard in technology policy, largely going unheard in Congressional discussions, despite significant public opposition online.

Missouri's enactment of an age-gated internet law followed closely by 25 other US states reflects a nation-wide trend toward such measures, which typically involve third-party verifications and are susceptible to data breaches. This trend is mirrored in international contexts, as evidenced by the UK's Online Safety Act and Australia's impending social media restrictions for users under 16.

Philips and her colleagues view these laws as direct threats to freedom and compare their logic to that underlying other restrictive measures like book bans or laws limiting access to information about reproductive health and gender care.

Over 90 organizations have formally resisted these mandates, arguing that the digital realm shouldn't treat users as potential offenders nor serve corporate profits over personal privacy, pointing out the incongruence in funding priorities.

The Discourse in Legislative Bodies

Although recent hearings didn't push forward any laws, they featured discussions from experts like Joel Thayer from the Digital Progress Institute and Kate Ruane, who stressed that neither the government nor tech companies should singularly dictate what minors can access online.

Philips criticizes current legislative efforts, remarking that while Congress claims to control big tech, their focus is mainly on enforcement of identity checks which sidesteps bigger issues like comprehensive privacy protections or curbing monopolistic tech behaviors.

Fight for the Future's leadership has been vocal in critiques against KOSA, arguing that it extends controversial censorship akin to bans on cultural expressions to online information, ostensibly to shield youths.

Anticipating the Legislative Future

With several bills awaiting decisions, it's unclear which will prevail, especially as some might be appended to unrelated legal measures, raising the stakes for future tech policy.

Philips remains motivated despite the challenges, urging greater understanding of the broader implications of these legal battles.

She clarifies a common misunderstanding: age verification encompasses everyone, not just minors, compelling all internet users to constantly prove their age.