Talk:Kids Online Safety Act

Editorialized opinions in article
“Likewise, Senator Blackburn, co-author of the bill, has argued that education about racism (which she frames as "critical race theory") is dangerous for children and should be prohibited, claiming it causes distress and depresses children; this too can be framed as harm to minors' mental health in the framework provided by the bill.”

This seems to be a bit politically biased. Wouldn’t it be better to directly quote Blackburn without giving individual opinions about what does and does not constitute racism/critical race theory? You could just not quote her and say that this “could censor contemporary discussions on race in public schools?” 2A02:A420:4C:62E6:3164:98:7160:A461 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure, happy to revise. I swapped in some quotes from Blackburn (although in the press release, it was a little hard to find a single succinct, continuous quote summarizing it). I also noted that the interpretation was provided by the EFF source. Also added the expanded quote from Blackburn in the citation's quote field. (revision link) Catleeball (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Last two sentences are incomprehensible.
Here are the last two sentences:

1) Senator Blackburn, co-author of the bill, has argued is a "dangerous ideology" that can inflict "mental and emotional damage" upon children.

2)EFF columnist Jason Kelly states that with the mental health in the framework provided by the bill, that KOSA could be used to censor education about racism in schools.

In second-to-last sentence, it is not stated what is a "dangerous ideology". The most logical assumption would be that the word "it" was left out, and it should read, "Senator Blackburn, co-author of the bill, has argued  it  is a "dangerous ideology" that can inflict "mental and emotional damage" upon children. But I don't believe Sen Blackburn, one of the bill's authors, has said this.

In the last sentence, the phrase, "...the mental health in the framework provided by the bill...", is unclear. Does it mean "...the mental health framework provided by the bill...", "the mental health provisions in the bill...", or what?

I think these two problems were the result of editing done in response to the previous comment, "Editorialized opinions in article". Stuart.soloway (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's completely my bad, sorry! I published a couple additional edits to clarify. Does that help? Catleeball (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Bill summary
Is the current text in the "Bill summary" needed? There are a few sources other than the bill that summarize the legislation itself in a better way:"‘New text, same problems’: inside the fight over child online safety laws" - The Guardian "Passing the Kids Online Safety Act just got more complicated" - The Verge "200 groups push Senate to vote on Kids Online Safety Act in 2024" - NBC News — Davest3r08 > : )  (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging the top 1 contributor to this article about this matter: Catleeball — Davest3r08 > : )  (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Follow your dreams :)
 * 00:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Catleeball (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)