Republican legislators have introduced legislation during the last week that could give the Federal Government a greater understanding of some technological platforms, while the government’s scrutiny on artificial intelligence increases.
The Budget Reconciliation Law of the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives led by Republicans appeared on Tuesday and would give the federal government the ability to update IT systems, as well as use AI systems in the Department of Commerce. The bill would also pause the ability of states to enforce AI regulations during the next decade to allow the US market to grow and study.
While some politicians have been skeptical and critics with AI, the Trump administration has expressed the voice of trying to encourage the growth of the AI industry in the United States with few railings.
On Friday, to limit the trip of the Middle East of President Donald Trump, the Administration announced an agreement with the United Arab Emirates to build a massive data center in the country that will serve American technology companies.
While Republicans have worked to protect AI, legislators have also introduced bills that would harden regulations on some technological companies.
Two of the invoices could make the rules for technological platforms and their users more restrictive with the intention of making children safer online.
On May 8, Senator Mike Lee, R-UTAH, introduced the Law on Definition of Interestatal Obscenity (IODA), which would update “the legal definition of obscenity for the Internet era,” Lee said in a statement.
Ioda was introduced for the first time in 2022, and again in 2024, but did not become law.
Ioda would change the definition of obscenity, which applies a triple test to the content, to anything that “appeals to the prurient interest in nudity, sex or excretion”, and “represents, describes or represents real or simulated sexual acts with the aim of awakening, titting or gratifying the sexual desires of a person.”
It is currently illegal to transmit obscene content through telecommunications if it is intended to be harassment or abuse. The bill would eliminate the requirement of that “intention”, which means that it could criminalize any content considered obscene that was transmitted through telecommunications systems.
Despite the bill that lacks bipartisan support or additional recorded copatrokers, has won online attention and in the media for the language that could make pornography something that can be processed under laws related to obscenity. However, the defenders of the law hope that children see lascivious and obscene content.
Currently, social media platforms are granted an immunity of “good faith” under section 230 of the 1996 Communications Law, which means that they cannot be legally responsible for the majority of the content published in their sites, apart from some exceptions. Although Lee’s press release on IODA did not specify who would be legally responsible for the newly obscene content, he said that the bill is intended to create a uniform definition of obscenity, so it would be easier to identify and process obscene content.
“Obscenity is not protected by the first amendment, but the nebulous and inapplicable legal definitions have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach innumerable children,” Lee said in the statement. “Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the Internet era, so this content can be eliminated and its processed street vendors.”
On Wednesday, the Online Security Law of Bipartisan Children (KOSA), which would hold the website if they house content that is detrimental to children, was reintroduced in the Senate.
Kosa was first introduced in 2022 by Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Ten., And Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., But could not leave the camera. During the Congress period 2023-2024, Kosa was introduced again with amendments to address concerns about the vague writing in the bill. In July, Kosa died in the Senate, but at the end of 2024, he had not advanced in the camera.
Kosa’s latest version states that the bill would require social media platforms “to eliminate the characteristics of addictive products,” give parents more control and supervision of their children’s social networks, create a duty for platforms to mitigate the content focused on issues such as suicide and disorderly food, and require transparency of social networks to share the steps they are taking to protect children.
Those who are in favor of the bill say that the platforms would legally hold if they house harmful content that minors should not see. The opponents said they could inadvertently affect the sites that house LGBTQ content. They are also worried that I can lead to more online censorship.
“The sponsors claim, again, that the latest version will not censor the online content. It is not true. This bill still establishes a regime of censorship disguised as a” duty of care “, and will do what the previous versions threatened: to suppress the legal and important online discourse, especially for young people,” said Joe Mullin, a senior policy analyst of the Electronic Foundation of the Electronic Foundation of the Foundation.
However, updates made to the bill helps to make their reach less wide and eliminate the general capacity of lawyers to prosecute platforms. It also makes more precise the damage that social networks and other websites are protected. This has led some opponents of the bill to change their position.
The bill was reintroduced with the leader of the majority of the Senate John Thune, RS.D., and the minority leader Chuck Schumer, DN.Y., signing. Last year, the bill was approved in the Senate, 91-3, but died in the Chamber. The current bill has been supported by Apple and Republican figures, including Trump and Elon Musk.
In a statement, Apple’s director of government affairs for the Americas, Timothy Powderly, said the company was happy to offer its support to the bill, adding that everyone has a role to play to keep children safe online. He also recognized concerns about Kosa and praised senators to work to improve the bill.
“As the defenders of privacy for a long time as a fundamental right, we believe that these improvements are important and, hopefully, the first steps towards comprehensive privacy legislation that guarantees everyone’s right to online privacy,” Powderly said.
Critics have delayed both bills, since some say they could lead to excessively monitored online discourse.
Matt Navarra, a social media consultant and analyst who has worked with companies such as Google and the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, said the bills, particularly Kosa, could have significant ramifications for social networks platforms and the way in which people use them. Navarra said Kosa would force platforms to “rethink the recommendation engines, notifications, data monitoring for minors.”
“For platforms driven by commitment such as Tiktok or Instagram, that is a radical change: it is not just what is allowed, it is about how addictive and immersive experiences are redesigned or dismantled,” he said. “Therefore, Kosa is less about content surveillance and more about algorithmic detoxification, especially for adolescents.”
It is likely that adults also see an important change in what is accessible online if Ioda becomes law.
“In terms of the things that people are concerned with the bill, particularly around censorship, Kosa introduces a duty of care that sounds good in theory, but in practice it could push the platforms to moderator or eliminate the content only to avoid the risk,” said Navarra. “And the Bill of Obscenity involves this even more.”
