This scorecard evaluates pending federal child safety legislation against Public Knowledge’s framework for creating a safer internet for everyone. Rather than restricting children’s access to technology or specific content, we believe the most effective path forward lies in requiring technology companies to design services with children’s well-being as a primary consideration.
Our assessment draws from seven core principles outlined in our paper “The Kids Aren’t Alright Online: How To Build a Safer, Better Internet for Everyone,” summarized below:
- Preserves Internet Access: The internet has the potential to enrich children’s lives through learning, play, relationships, civic engagement, and self-exploration. Regulations should avoid banning categories of content or access to online products, as we believe children also have a right to freedom of expression online.
- Promotes Safe Product Design: Safe product design is essential for products that children will use. No amount of transparency or consent can mitigate harms from products designed to exploit users by default. Systemic change requires compelling corporations to design products with protective features activated by default.
- Risk-Based Approach: Regulations should be risk-based and focus on practices or features most likely to cause harm. This means clearly directing product developers to address the most likely and serious harms, rather than treating all online experiences as equally risky.
- No Content Bans: Regulations should avoid banning categories of content. Broad content bans are inconsistent with a risk-based approach and likely to infringe upon children’s constitutional rights. Content-neutral regulation focusing on features and design decisions is both more effective and more likely to survive First Amendment scrutiny.
- Autonomy of Youth: Empowered young people are best positioned to make decisions about their internet use. While parents have an important role, lawmakers should resist viewing parental consent as a solution to poor or harmful product design. Safe design and protective defaults provide necessary guardrails without eliminating youth agency.
- Meaningful Enforcement: Enforcement regimes should include clear standards, adequate agency resources, and crucially, the ability for individuals to petition courts for redress. Floor preemption that allows states to develop stronger protections is preferable to complete federal preemption that eliminates state innovation.
- Researcher Access: Continued research is necessary to ensure regulation is tailored and effective. Transparency requirements and privacy-protective researcher access should be part of any comprehensive approach to child safety.
Our assessments prioritize structural approaches that change platform incentives over individual consent mechanisms, and favor design-focused requirements over access and content restrictions.
Given the volume of bills assessed in this scorecard, the bills were categorized in three thematic buckets: 1) Data Privacy, 2) Age Verification, and 3) Design Features and Parental Control.
| Key: | |
 | Indicates the proposal incorporates this principle and will likely have a positive impact on it. |
 | Indicates the proposal does not address this principle, or the likely impact of the proposal on the principle is neutral or mixed. |
 | Indicates the proposal runs contrary to the principle, or will likely have a negative impact on the principle. |