Republican legislators have introduced legislation during last week which could give the federal government a closer understanding of certain technological platforms, while stimulating government control over artificial intelligence.
The bill on the budget reconciliation of the Chamber and Trade Committee led by Les Républicains was presented on Tuesday and would give the federal government the possibility of updating IT systems as well as using AI systems in the Commerce Department. The bill would also take a break on the ability of states to apply AI regulations for the next decade to allow the American US AI market to grow and be studied.
While some politicians have been skeptical and criticism of AI, the Trump administration has expressed its research to encourage the growth of the AI industry in the United States with little railing.
Friday, to eliminate the trip of President Donald Trump, the administration announced an agreement with the United Arab Emirates to build a massive data center in the country which will serve American technological companies.
While the Republicans worked to protect AI, legislators also presented bills that would tighten regulations on certain technological companies.
Two of the invoices could make the rules for technological platforms and their users more restrictive in order to make children safer online.
On May 8, Senator Mike Lee, Rutah, presented the law of the definition of interstate obscenity (Ioda), which would update “the legal definition of obscenity for the Internet era”, said Lee in a statement.
Ioda was introduced for the first time in 2022, and again in 2024, but failed to become law.
Ioda would modify the definition of obscenity, which applies a Three -part test To the content, to everything that “calls on interest cautious for nudity, sex or excretion” and “portrayed, described or represents or represents real or simulated sexual acts with the objective intention of arouse, tickle or satisfy the sexual desires of a person.”
It is currently illegal to transmit obscene content via telecommunications if it is intended for harassment or abuse. The bill would remove the requirement of this “intention”, which means that it could criminalize any content deemed obscene which is transmitted via telecommunications systems.
Despite the bill missing bipartisan support or additional registered co-sponsors, he drew online and media attention for a language that could make pornography something that can be pursued under obscenity laws. However, supporters of the law hope that this will prevent children from seeing obscene and obscene content.
Currently, social media platforms have “in good faith” immunity under Section 230 From the 1996 communications decency law, which means that they cannot be held legally responsible for most of the content published on their sites, apart from a few exceptions. Although a press release from Lee on Ioda did not specify who would be legally held responsible for the newly obscene content, he said that the bill was aimed at creating a uniform definition of obscenity, it would therefore be easier to identify and pursue obscene content.
“Obscenity is not protected by the first amendment, but misty and inapplicable legal definitions have enabled extreme pornography to saturate American society and achieve countless children,” Lee said in the press release. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the Internet era so that this content can be eliminated and its hawkers have continued.”
On Wednesday, the Bi-Partisan Kids Online Safety Act (Kosa), which would hold responsible websites if they host harmful content for children, has been reintroduced to the Senate.
Kosa was introduced for the first time in 2022 by meaning. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., And Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., But failed to get out of the room. During the term of the 2023-2024 congress, Kosa was again introduced with modifications to respond to concerns concerning the wave of billing. In July, Kosa was adopted in the Senate, but at the end of 2024, he had not progressed in the House.
The latest version of Kosa States The fact that the bill would require that social media platforms “remove the characteristics of addictive products” give parents more control and monitoring of their children’s social media, to create a duty for platforms to mitigate the content focused on subjects such as suicide and food disorders and require the transparency of social media platforms to share the stages they take to protect children.
Those who are in favor of the bill say that it would hold legally responsible platforms if they host harmful content that minors should not display. The opponents said that this could inadvertently affect sites that host LGBTQ content. They also fear that it can lead to more censorship online.
“The sponsors say – once again – that the latest version does not censure online content. This is not true. This bill always sets up a disguised censorship regime as a duty of diligence ”, and it will do what the previous versions have threatened: delete the legal and important discourse online, in particular for young people”.
However, updates made to the bill help make its scope lower and remove the general ability of lawyers to continue platforms. This also makes more precise the damage he expects to expect social media and other websites. This led certain opponents to the invoice for modifying their position.
The bill was reintroduced with the head of the majority of the Senate John Thune, RS.D., and the chief of the minority Chuck Schumer, DN.Y., by signing. Last year, the bill was adopted in the Senate, 91-3, but died in the House. The current bill was supported by Apple and Republican figures, notably Trump and Elon Musk.
In a statement, Apple’s main director of government affairs for Americas, Timothy Pownerly said that the company was happy to provide support for the bill, adding that everyone has a role to play online children safety. He also recognized the concerns about Kosa and congratulated senators for working to improve the bill.
“As defenders of long-standing privacy as a fundamental right, we believe that these improvements are important, and, hopefully, the first stages towards complete confidentiality legislation which guarantees online privacy law,” said Powderly.
Critics have rejected the two invoices, because some say they could lead to a speech that is too monitored online.
Matt Navarra, consultant and social media analyst who worked with companies like Google and American and British governments, said that invoices – in particular Kosa – could have important ramifications for social media platforms and the way people use them. Navarra said Kosa would force platforms to “rethink recommendation engines, notifications, data monitoring work for minors”.
“For the platforms focused on commitments like Tiktok or Instagram, it is a radical change-it is not only what is authorized, it is a question of seeing how much the addictive and immersive experiences are redesigned or dismantled,” he said. “Kosa is therefore less a matter of content of content and more than one algorithmic detoxification, especially for adolescents.”
Adults would probably also see a major change in what is accessible online if ioda becomes the law.
“Regarding things that people are concerned about the bill, in particular around censorship, Kosa in a way introduces a duty of diligence which sounds well in theory, but in practice, could push platforms in an over-model or a removal outright by deleting the content just to avoid the risk,” said Navarra. “And the bill for obscenity is even more wrapped.”
