Behind Big Tech’s Effort to Kill an Online Kid Safety Bill

Summary

WSJ Tech News Briefing: Behind Big Tech’s Effort to Kill an Online Kid Safety Bill
Released on November 18, 2024

---

Introduction

In the latest episode of the WSJ Tech News Briefing, host James Rundle delves into the intricate dynamics between Big Tech companies and legislative efforts aimed at enhancing online safety for children. The episode not only explores the hurdles faced by the Kids Online Safety Act but also introduces listeners to the Wall Street Journal's new podcast series, Bold Names.

---

Launching Bold Names: Conversations with Tech Leaders

James Rundle kicks off the show by announcing the debut of Bold Names, a new podcast series hosted by WSJ columnists Christopher Mims and Tim Higgins. This series aims to feature in-depth interviews with prominent leaders in the tech industry, providing insights into their strategies and perspectives on current technological challenges.

Christopher Mims explains, “Bold Names is a series about the bold name leaders who appear in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. And it's about having a direct conversation with the folks who are making news every day, every week.” (01:26)

Tim Higgins adds, “It's an opportunity to have a conversation with interesting people who are leading very complex companies who are dealing with some of the day's biggest issues, whether it's the adoption of artificial intelligence or the transition to electric vehicles...” (01:42)

The first episode features Peter Rawlinson, CEO of electric vehicle manufacturer Lucid. Tim Higgins highlights Rawlinson’s pivotal role in developing Tesla's Model S sedan and his vision for Lucid's future, emphasizing the challenges of sustaining growth in the fiercely competitive EV market. Christopher Mims notes, “It's also fascinating to hear from somebody who was so instrumental in making Tesla what it is today, who is now going head to head with Tesla...” (03:09) The episode further discusses Rawlinson's contrarian views on market trends and the future of robo-taxis, positioning Lucid as a high-end contender with plans to introduce more competitively priced models.

Upcoming guests for Bold Names include:

• Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce
• Aaron Levy, CEO of enterprise software company Box
• JB Straubel, CEO of Redwood Materials and board member of Tesla

These conversations promise to shed light on pivotal developments in AI, EVs, and sustainable technologies.

---

Main Segment: The Struggle of the Kids Online Safety Act

The focal point of the episode transitions to the Kids Online Safety Act, a significant legislative effort aimed at expanding online protections for children—the first major update in over 25 years. Having passed the Senate with near-unanimous support (91-3), the bill now faces an uncertain future in the House, primarily due to intense lobbying by Big Tech giants Meta and Alphabet's Google.

James Rundle provides an overview: “The Kids Online Safety act offers the first major expansion of online protections for children in over 25. The Bill sailed through the Senate this summer with near unanimous approval, but now it's snarled in the House and looks unlikely to pass before the next Congress.” (00:03)

Understanding the Kids Online Safety Act

The act introduces a duty of care for social media platforms, compelling them to address design aspects that could harm children's mental health. This includes regulating features like infinite scrolling, push notifications, and algorithmic content amplification that may lead to distress, addiction, bullying, and sexual exploitation.

Georgia Wells, WSJ reporter, elaborates, “The duty of care would look at the design aspects of the social media platforms... this duty of care would put this legal onus on the tech companies to take steps to address things like mental health disorders, addiction like behaviors, bullying, sexual exploitation, and more.” (07:17)

Support from Parent Survivors

A significant driving force behind the legislation is Maureen Molak, a mother who became an advocate after her son, David, tragically took his own life in 2016 due to social media addiction and persistent cyberbullying. She underscores the personal toll and the necessity for legal safeguards: “As a parent survivor, to feel like you're being toyed with is unconscionable.” (07:52)

Big Tech's Opposition and Lobbying Tactics

Despite its bipartisan roots, the bill encountered fierce resistance in the House, largely orchestrated by Meta and Alphabet. These companies embarked on a widespread lobbying campaign, leveraging cultural and social issues to fragment the bill's support base.

Georgia Wells discusses their strategy: “Meta and Alphabet have been really kind of leaning on culture war type issues to try to splinter this bipartisan support...” (08:54) They raised concerns from both the left—such as LGBTQ expression—and the right—like censorship of anti-abortion views—to create divisions.

Financially, Meta and Alphabet have invested heavily in lobbying efforts, spending nearly $90 million over the past three years. Although the exact expenditure on this bill isn't disclosed, the companies have explicitly referenced the Kids Online Safety Act in their lobbying efforts repeatedly.

Corporate Responses and Actions

In response to the legislative push, both Meta and Alphabet have proposed alternative measures and highlighted existing protections. A Meta spokesperson suggested that legislation should focus on parental controls in app stores, advocating for mandatory parental approval for app downloads by users under 16. Conversely, an Alphabet spokeswoman pointed to their initiatives, such as disabling autoplay for videos targeting young users, to demonstrate proactive measures in safeguarding minors.

Additionally, Meta has implemented restrictions for teen accounts, including making them private by default, addressing long-standing criticisms regarding the platform's handling of young users.

The Road Ahead for the Kids Online Safety Act

Looking forward, the bill's prospects appear bleak unless it gains traction as part of essential year-end legislative packages spearheaded by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. There is optimism among supporters that embedding the act within broader legislation could ensure its passage, but this remains uncertain with the current Congressional dynamics.

Georgia Wells concludes, “The folks we're talking to are saying, like, certainly they would foresee changes. That degree of significance is what's in debate right now. So we'll see.” (11:36)

---

Conclusion

The episode of WSJ Tech News Briefing offers a comprehensive exploration of the ongoing battle between legislative efforts to protect children online and the formidable lobbying power of Big Tech companies. Through insightful discussions and expert interviews, listeners gain a nuanced understanding of the challenges and stakes involved in shaping the future of online safety.

Produced by Judy Chang with supervising producer Catherine Millsop, the episode underscores the critical interplay between technology, policy, and society. As the Kids Online Safety Act navigates the tumultuous waters of Congressional deliberations, its outcome will significantly impact the digital landscape for future generations.

---

Tune in next time as WSJ Tech News Briefing continues to bring you the latest in technology news, policy debates, and exclusive industry insights.

Transcript

[Georgia Wells]

How can leaders leverage technology to strengthen.

[James Rundle]

Customer experience, build lasting relationships, and drive competitive advantage? Learn more on the third episode of Techfluential, a podcast from Deloitte, and custom content from WSJ. Welcome to Tech News Briefing. It's Monday, November 18th. I'm James Rundle for the Wall Street Journal. The Kids Online Safety act offers the first major expansion of online protections for children in over 25. The Bill sailed through the Senate this summer with near unanimous approval, but now it's snarled in the House and looks unlikely to pass before the next Congress. Later on in the show, WSJ reporter Georgia Wells joins us to discuss how this happened and the role big tech companies played in derailing it. But first, our new podcast series, Bold Names, debuted on Saturday right here in the Tech News Briefing feed. The first episode features an interview with Peter Rawlinson, CEO of electric vehicle maker Lucid. Rawlinson, a former Tesla engineer, talks about the challenges currently facing the EV industry and gives his thoughts on the future of competition from Asia Pacific and the likelihood of robo taxis. We're joined now by WSJ columnists Christopher Mims and Tim Higgins, who are co hosting this new series. So, Christopher and Tim, tell us about Bold Names.

[Christopher Mims]

Bold Names is a series about the bold name leaders who appear in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. And it's about having a direct conversation with the folks who are making news every day, every week.

[Tim Higgins]

It's an opportunity to have a conversation with interesting people who are leading very complex companies who are dealing with some of the day's biggest issues, whether it's the adoption of artificial intelligence or the transition to electric vehicles. And then we, of course, it's the Wall Street Journal. So we've got tough questions and we push back. This isn't some sort of public relations show. This is an opportunity to ask these people the questions that a lot of people have for them.

[James Rundle]

So, Tim, the first episode went live this weekend with Peter Rawlinson, the CEO of EV startup Lucid. What made you want to talk to him?

[Tim Higgins]

Peter's an interesting character, played a huge important role in the creation of Tesla's Model S sedan, which is considered one of the most innovative cars in recent history. He then went to what's now called Lucid and is working on kind of the next leap forward in technology. According to him, he sees Lucid becoming a major player, but just like the early days of Tesla, it's not a given. It's really hard to become sustainable. The car business is brutally competitive and he is facing challenges from the mundane to the existential. And we got to hear some insights from him how he sees the market and how it's changing.

[Christopher Mims]

It's also fascinating to hear from somebody who was so instrumental in making Tesla what it is today, who is now going head to head with Tesla at a time when Tesla is both more valuable than it has been in a very long time.

[James Rundle]

And he has a few contrarian views on the state of the market, on various ambitions from other players, such as Elon Musk's robotaxis. Can you talk about some of those?

[Tim Higgins]

He doesn't think it's happening in the near term. He is all in on electric vehicles right now. It's an interesting comparison here. Elon Musk got a lot of people excited for the idea of a cheap electric car in the near term, but in recent weeks has confirmed he's essentially abandoning that and really going all in on a car that will be used as a robot taxi. And whereas Peter Rawlinson, he sees a world where electric cars need to come down in price eventually, but right now he's at the high end. He's coming out with a new three row SUV called the Gravity, which is priced around $90,000. It will come down in price over time. The next big inflection point for them will be a Model Y competitor. It's maybe a vehicle that'll be below $50,000. But he doesn't see Lucid going into the cheap EV market because, as he says, it sucks.

[James Rundle]

Christopher, can you give us an idea of who's coming up?

[Christopher Mims]

We have coming up Marc Benioff, head of Salesforce, whom you may know as builder of the tallest tower in San Francisco. And we also have Aaron Levy, head of enterprise software company Box, and JB Straubel, he's head of Redwood Materials, a battery recycling company. He is also currently on the board of Tesla, which puts him in a very interesting position relative to Musk.

[James Rundle]

Those were our columnists, Christopher Mims and Tim Higgins. You can listen to the first episode of Bold Names right here in the Tech News Briefing feed with the next episode dropping on Saturday. Coming up, Congress looked set to expand online protections for children in the first major piece of legislation since 1998. But after passing the Senate easily, why did it wither on the vine in the House? We'll find out after the break.

[N/A]

Exchanges, the Goldman Sachs podcast featuring exchanges on rates, inflation and US Recession risk exchanges on the market impact of AI. For the sharpest analysis on forces driving the markets and the economy, count on exchanges between the leading minds at Goldman Sachs New episodes every week. Listen now.

[James Rundle]

The Kids Online Safety act was meant to be a bipartisan effort to update protections for children in the age of social media. It passed through the Senate with near unanimous approval in July, but became snarled in arguments and concerns when it hit the House. What happened to cause such a rapid turnaround? WSJ reporter Georgia Wells discusses how a multimillion dollar lobbying effort from Meta and Alphabet's Google may have been a significant factor in splintering support for the bill. And Georgia joins us now with more. So, Georgia, what has big tech companies so concerned about this bill?

[Georgia Wells]

So for years, essentially since the dawn of the Internet, social media companies haven't faced that much regulation that held them accountable for harms that at times happened to children where sometimes their parents thought, you know, the harm originated on social media. And there's a lot of parents now who believe that it's time. And so the social media companies view potential regulation as a slippery slope, like the beginning of more regulation for them.

[James Rundle]

So the bill would assign platforms what it calls a duty of care. What exactly would this mean in practice?

[Georgia Wells]

So the duty of care would look at the design aspects of the social media platforms, so things like infinite scrolling or push notifications or the algorithmic amplification of content that maybe could cause distress. And so like this duty of care would put this legal onus on the tech companies to take steps to address things like mental health disorders, addiction like behaviors, bullying, sexual exploitation, and more.

[James Rundle]

And what have the bill supporters said in particular that the parent survivors who are really the impetus for pushing this legislation in the first place.

[Georgia Wells]

So Maureen Molak is a mother who has been really lobbying for the Kids Online Safety Act. And her son David took his own life in 2016 following addiction to social media and really persistent online cyberbullying that she believes could have been stopped with the Kids Online Safety Act. And she's told me that as a parent survivor, to feel like you're being toyed with is unconscionable.

[James Rundle]

In your story, you reported that non tech companies are also objecting to the bill, including WSJ's owner, News Corp. Why is that?

[Georgia Wells]

So non tech companies that I spoke with had some concerns around like determining the ages of their users. A lot of these companies historically have not frankly paid much attention to whether it's an adult or a minor who's accessing their platforms. And so they had some concerns about responsibilities they might face.

[James Rundle]

And in terms of lobbying efforts, the bill sailed through the Senate and got snarled in the House. But it also Kicked off a pretty massive lobbying effort from Meta and Alphabet, among others. What has their strategy been?

[Georgia Wells]

So Meta and Alphabet have been really kind of leaning on culture war type issues to try to splinter this bipartisan support, because when the bill passed, it was 91 to 3. Typically when something passes the Senate 91 to 3, it's a signal that it's going to sail through the House. And so yes, like you said, this lobbying effort just really kicked off with these companies going to groups on the left to bring up concerns like LGBTQ expression. And on the right, they brought up concerns around like censorship of anti abortion type views.

[James Rundle]

And to put this in context, do you have an idea of how much Meta and Alphabet spent on this lobbying effort?

[Georgia Wells]

The disclosures that are available don't disclose the lobbying spend by issue. But we know that over the past three years that Meta and Alphabet's Google unit have spent nearly $90 million on lobbying. And those lobbying disclosure forms over and over again mentioned the Kids Online Safety Act.

[James Rundle]

What's the likelihood of this passing during this congressional session?

[Georgia Wells]

So the view is that this bill is unlikely to get a standalone vote this year that would effectively kill it for this session unless Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer presses to include this measure as one of the like must pass year end packages. So that is what some of the folks who are really hoping for the Kids Online Safety act are really crossing their fingers for.

[James Rundle]

And what have Meta and Alphabet said about this?

[Georgia Wells]

So a spokesman for Meta said better legislation, in their view, would focus on the role of parents in app stores rather than Meta. And so that spokesman said federal legislation should require app stores to get parents approval whenever their teens under 16 download apps, kind of as a default setting, was their point, while a spokeswoman for Alphabet pointed to protections that Alphabet already has introduced, such as not letting videos play automatically for young users. And she said that Alphabet continues to.

[James Rundle]

Work with lawmakers on the bill while the bill languishes. Have the social media companies done anything in the last few months, years to address the core concerns that prompted this legislation in the first place?

[Georgia Wells]

So Meta added restrictions for teen accounts in September. One of those restrictions was automatically making youth accounts private. And this was following just like years of complaints from parents and youth advocates that Meta hadn't been doing enough to protect its most vulnerable users.

[James Rundle]

And next year, of course, brings a shift in the makeup of Congress. Is the bill likely to be introduced with the new Congress as is if needed, or is it more likely a significantly different version will be introduced, if at all?

[Georgia Wells]

The folks we're talking to are saying, like, certainly they would foresee changes. That degree of significance is what's in debate right now. So we'll see.

[James Rundle]

That was our reporter, Georgia Wells. And that's it for Tech News Briefing. Today's show was produced by Judy Chang with supervising producer Catherine Millsop. I'm James Rundle for the Wall Street Journal. We'll be back this afternoon with TMBtechno. Thanks for listening.