TLDR;
This episode of "Free Speech Friday" discusses the Screen Act, a bill framed as a child safety measure but viewed as a threat to online freedom and privacy. The conversation covers the origins of the bill, its specific requirements for age verification, and the potential consequences of its enactment, including mass censorship, surveillance, and disproportionate harm to vulnerable communities.
- The Screen Act mandates age verification for accessing sites with content deemed harmful to minors, potentially leading to mass surveillance and censorship.
- The bill is supported by right-wing groups and some Democrats, who argue it protects children, but critics warn it could lead to identity theft, extortion, and restricted access to information.
- The Act may disproportionately affect smaller websites and marginalized communities, while larger platforms may comply by implementing restrictive measures that limit free expression.
Introduction to the Screen Act [0:05]
The Screen Act is presented as a child safety bill but is actually a dangerous attempt at mass censorship and surveillance. It has gained support from far-right groups and the religious right, with some Democrats also backing it under the guise of protecting children online. The law could potentially force users to scan their faces to access websites and ban VPNs. Mike Stable from the Free Speech Coalition, who has experience fighting similar censorship laws, joins the discussion to explain the Screen Act, its origins, and why it needs to be stopped.
Origins and Purpose of the Screen Act [1:08]
The Screen Act originated from Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a state known for introducing censorship-related bills. More broadly, it stems from the Heritage Foundation and similar groups seeking to control online content. Despite its conservative origins, the Screen Act has also garnered support from some Democrats in Congress. The Screen Act mandates age verification for accessing sites with material harmful to minors, potentially including major platforms like X, Reddit, Facebook, and Netflix. This verification may involve scanning faces or uploading IDs, and the bill also includes restrictions on VPN usage.
Problems with Mass Age Verification [4:35]
Advocates claim the Screen Act is easy to comply with and presents no burden for adults, but this is misleading. In practice, users are required to scan their faces and upload IDs to third parties, which most people are unwilling to do, leading to a significant chilling effect. Approximately 95% of users confronted with these requirements leave the site or use a VPN to bypass them. People are wary of submitting their information due to concerns about security, identity theft, extortion, and the general inconvenience of the process.
Impact on Vulnerable Populations and Freedom of Information [7:08]
Requiring government-issued IDs shuts out vulnerable populations who may not have such documentation, limiting their access to online resources and information, especially on social media. Many people lack webcams or have visual impairments, making it difficult to comply with face-scanning requirements. Some states require re-verification every hour, adding to the burden. Faith-based groups are the primary drivers behind these bills, aiming for backdoor censorship by creating restrictions that deter people from accessing certain sites.
Censorship and Corporate Compliance [9:57]
The vague liability clauses in these laws allow anyone to bring a lawsuit, leading many sites to preemptively shut down or remove content to avoid legal challenges. Tech companies prioritize making money in a friendly regulatory environment over protecting free expression. Platforms often default to the most restrictive state laws, limiting content discovery and recommendations. Unlike Facebook, which users may feel compelled to verify on due to lack of alternatives, adult sites face users who will simply find unregulated alternatives based in other countries if verification is required.
The Screen Act vs. Other Safety Laws [13:40]
The Screen Act was introduced by Senator Mike Lee and Representative Mary Miller, but it has not progressed significantly in the Senate or House. The Senate version applies to any site with material harmful to minors, while the House bill targets adult sites more specifically. Unlike KOSA, which doesn't specify how to age verify, the Screen Act mandates collecting and deleting user information, with the FTC enforcing compliance. The Screen Act is more prescriptive in mandating age and identity verification, while KOSA is broader and focused on social media.
Trojan Horse Arguments and the Left's Misguided Support [17:09]
The same groups pushing online safety laws are also using "harmful to minors" designations to remove LGBTQ books and healthcare resources from libraries. Some on the left mistakenly believe these laws crack down on big tech, but they disproportionately harm smaller, independent websites that lack the resources to comply with expensive age verification processes. Age verification can cost 50 cents to a dollar per user, which is devastating for smaller sites.
Data Privacy and Surveillance Concerns [18:58]
Complying with age verification laws involves numerous restrictions on data handling, including proving data deletion while also retaining it for potential lawsuits. The age verification industry has rapidly grown, with for-profit companies partnering with religious right groups to expand their reach. There is a lack of transparency and audits regarding how this data is used and protected. Sending biometric data over the internet poses significant surveillance risks, especially as governments seek to leverage browser history and online activity against individuals.
The Ultimate Goal: Banning VPNs and Seizing Domains [22:10]
The ultimate goal of these efforts is to ban VPNs and seize domains. Advocates admit that current laws are ineffective, paving the way for more extreme measures. Michigan has proposed a full VPN ban, while Wisconsin is considering a bill to ban VPN usage for accessing adult sites. The Screen Act requires age verification for anyone using a VPN. Authoritarianism advances incrementally, starting with seemingly reasonable measures to protect children online, then expanding to broader restrictions on internet access and anonymity.
Slippery Slope to Authoritarianism [24:31]
The situation in Australia, where social media was banned for those under 16, illustrates the slippery slope. There are calls to ban cell phones for minors, demonstrating the ever-expanding nature of these restrictions. The goal is authoritarianism and mass censorship, with liberals and leftists often falling for the false promise of protecting minors and cracking down on big tech. Banning VPNs, once unthinkable, is now on the table in multiple regions.
Exploiting Loopholes and Cementing Right-Wing Control [25:54]
The Biden administration is open about exploiting every legal loophole, and there is no reason to believe these laws will only apply to adult sites. Transgender ideology has been defined as harmful to minors by those behind these laws. A South Carolina law requires ISPs to block material harmful to minors, potentially including healthcare information and basic human rights resources. Right-wing power and control on the internet is being cemented, as these laws disproportionately affect mainstream social media while exempting far-right platforms.
The Dangers of Apathy and Ignorance [28:52]
Legislators often lack familiarity with technology and adult content, making it easier for them to go along with popular sentiment. They may prioritize their elections over the rights of marginalized populations, who are often not seen as significant voters. It is dangerous to assume lawmakers are acting in ignorance; many are aware of the harmful consequences but simply do not care.
