I occasionally read The American Thinker and came across you from your article there. I have to apologize for spamming this across different boards, but since this is really flying under the radar and I found the actual bill's text alarming enough, I feel I need to at least alert people like you to it.
Similar to how the RESTRICT Act is sold under false pretenses, another bipartisan bill introduced by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI)—with Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Katie Britt (R-AL) supporting--“Protecting Kids on Social Media Act” is an insidious assault on the 1A and 4A.
It would quite clearly, outlaw all means of anonymous mass communication. Per the bill's details, any medium--software or platform--that allows user to user exchange of text, video, or audio to large groups or dissemination of user generated content to either the public or broad groups, MUST de-anonymize and obtain real world identity for every user or account. The stated intention is to perform "age verification". Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with adult speech or sexual content at all.
And so to that end, the bill creates a pilot program managed by the US Secretary of Commerce that introduces a federal digital ID system that centralizes this verification-to-protect-the-kids operations. While that federal digital ID system is optional, they highly incentivize its use over current commercial identity verification by providing a "safe harbor" or liability shield against complaints.
This bill would literally affect the whole internet including Substack. Every user here would have to upload their real world government IDs before they could speak online. Every single independent creator, developer and website author that hosts a public comment system or discussion board would have to demand real world ID documents from every user, then either pay for commercial ID verification or opt into the federal digital ID program, or face criminal penalties. The bill explicitly states in the list of exemptions, such as email and direct messaging, that any medium such as message boards, or anything medium that allows messaging to large groups -- virtually all the chat and messaging services and software that have no upper bound on group messaging -- are not exempt and must comply.
The bill concludes in the last section that they have "extraterritorial jurisdiction" over anything a US individual can access, so the whole world would have to comply with this "Papers, please"-before-speaking-online law.
Utah and Arkansas recently passed very similar legislation with requiring IDs to use social media--again defined very broadly, though I haven't looked into the particular bill details yet as I'm more concerned about this national bill at the moment. I know one difference in Arkansas's law is they limit the scope to companies making $100 million in gross revenue.
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
I occasionally read The American Thinker and came across you from your article there. I have to apologize for spamming this across different boards, but since this is really flying under the radar and I found the actual bill's text alarming enough, I feel I need to at least alert people like you to it.
Similar to how the RESTRICT Act is sold under false pretenses, another bipartisan bill introduced by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI)—with Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Katie Britt (R-AL) supporting--“Protecting Kids on Social Media Act” is an insidious assault on the 1A and 4A.
marketing:
https://www.schatz.senate.gov/news/press-releases/schatz-cotton-murphy-britt-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-to-help-protect-kids-from-harmful-impacts-of-social-media
actual bill text which I encourage reading and working out all the implications, since it's relatively short and straightforward:
https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/protecting_kids_on_social_media_act_2023.pdf
It would quite clearly, outlaw all means of anonymous mass communication. Per the bill's details, any medium--software or platform--that allows user to user exchange of text, video, or audio to large groups or dissemination of user generated content to either the public or broad groups, MUST de-anonymize and obtain real world identity for every user or account. The stated intention is to perform "age verification". Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with adult speech or sexual content at all.
And so to that end, the bill creates a pilot program managed by the US Secretary of Commerce that introduces a federal digital ID system that centralizes this verification-to-protect-the-kids operations. While that federal digital ID system is optional, they highly incentivize its use over current commercial identity verification by providing a "safe harbor" or liability shield against complaints.
This bill would literally affect the whole internet including Substack. Every user here would have to upload their real world government IDs before they could speak online. Every single independent creator, developer and website author that hosts a public comment system or discussion board would have to demand real world ID documents from every user, then either pay for commercial ID verification or opt into the federal digital ID program, or face criminal penalties. The bill explicitly states in the list of exemptions, such as email and direct messaging, that any medium such as message boards, or anything medium that allows messaging to large groups -- virtually all the chat and messaging services and software that have no upper bound on group messaging -- are not exempt and must comply.
The bill concludes in the last section that they have "extraterritorial jurisdiction" over anything a US individual can access, so the whole world would have to comply with this "Papers, please"-before-speaking-online law.
Utah and Arkansas recently passed very similar legislation with requiring IDs to use social media--again defined very broadly, though I haven't looked into the particular bill details yet as I'm more concerned about this national bill at the moment. I know one difference in Arkansas's law is they limit the scope to companies making $100 million in gross revenue.
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
― Frederick Douglass