Talk:Kids Online Safety Act
Kids Online Safety Act is currently a Politics and government good article nominee. Nominated by 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) at 13:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Note: I'm pretty sure this article has no stability issues, as there have been no edit wars on this article as of late. Short description: Proposed United States legislation |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kids Online Safety Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Kids Online Safety Act. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Kids Online Safety Act at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Editorialized opinions in article edit
“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. edit
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 edit
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)