Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallYes: Rand Paul was right to stop the Senate from passing the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) by unanimous consent without further debate. That does not prove KOSA is censorship. It means a consequential bill, whose supporters and critics disagree about how its liability rules could affect lawful speech, should not become law through a procedure that requires only one senator’s objection to halt it.
What did Rand Paul block?
On September 30, 2026, Sen. Richard Blumenthal asked the Senate to discharge the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee from further consideration of S. 1748, agree to a substitute amendment, and pass the bill by unanimous consent. The presiding officer asked whether there was objection. Paul objected, and the chair acknowledged the objection. The request therefore failed.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Unanimous consent is a fast-track procedure: if any senator objects, the chamber cannot take the requested action that way. Paul blocked that request—not every possible route for the bill to advance, and not a court ruling or other official finding that KOSA violates the First Amendment. Reason reported on October 2, 2026, that the Senate had left Washington until after the midterm elections and the bill was stalled for the time being. That was the status at the time of the report, not a guarantee about what would happen next.
What would KOSA regulate?
The introduced version of S. 1748, dated May 14, 2025, covers a broad range of services used or reasonably likely to be used by minors, including online platforms, online video games, messaging applications, and video-streaming services, subject to listed exceptions. It defines “design feature” to include product choices that encourage or increase a minor’s frequency, time, or activity on a service. Examples in the text include infinite scrolling, autoplay, notifications, personalized features, in-game purchases, and appearance-altering filters.
#1 Best Overall
Section 102 would require covered platforms to exercise reasonable care in creating and implementing design features to prevent and mitigate specified harms. The duty applies when a reasonable and prudent person would find a listed harm reasonably foreseeable and the design feature a contributing factor. The harms include eating and substance-use disorders; suicidal behaviors; certain clinically diagnosable depression and anxiety related to compulsive use; severe harassment or violence; sexual exploitation and abuse; specified harms involving narcotics, tobacco, cannabis, gambling, and alcohol; and certain financial harms.
That is a design-focused framework, but a duty of care can still create pressure to change products in ways that affect what users encounter. The introduced text says the duty does not require platforms to prevent minors from independently searching for or requesting content, or from accessing prevention and mitigation resources. It also bars enforcement based on the viewpoint of speech or information protected by the First Amendment.
One important limit on what can be concluded from the text: the September 30 floor request referred to a substitute amendment, while the cited bill text is the version introduced in 2025. They should not be treated as necessarily identical. The introduced text helps explain the proposal’s design and safeguards, but does not establish every detail of the substitute before the Senate that day.
Rank #2
Why Paul and the bill’s supporters disagree
| Question | Paul’s objection | Blumenthal and the sponsors’ response |
|---|---|---|
| What does the bill target? | Paul argued that imposing a duty of care would lead platforms to suppress protected speech, even if supporters say the bill is not designed to regulate content. | Blumenthal said the duty is expressly about the “creation and implementation” of design features when they foreseeably contribute to enumerated harms. |
| What is the speech risk? | Paul warned of a “Pandora’s box of unintended consequences” and said liability would stifle First Amendment-protected speech. | The bill’s text includes a bar on viewpoint-based enforcement; Blumenthal argued that this and the design-focused language distinguish the proposal from content regulation. |
| What is at stake for proponents? | Paul’s remarks emphasized the risk of overbroad effects on expression. | In a June 29, 2026 statement, Blackburn and Blumenthal called the House version without a duty of care “a pale imitation of Big Tech accountability” and said they would continue pursuing the stronger Senate version. |
The sponsors’ office said on June 29, 2026, that KOSA had 75 cosponsors and had previously passed the Senate 91–3. Those figures describe the sponsors’ account at that date; they do not establish that the Senate had approved the same text as the substitute in the September 30 request.
Could KOSA lead platforms to censor lawful information?
That is a plausible concern about how companies might respond to legal exposure, not an established outcome. The ACLU’s opposition letter warns that platforms could remove lawful information they believe might contribute to a listed harm. It points to addiction-recovery information as an example of resources that crude moderation could mistakenly catch. This is the ACLU’s prediction about implementation; it is not proof that KOSA would necessarily produce that result.
Paul’s argument also goes beyond what the introduced text alone demonstrates. A duty focused on product design, combined with a prohibition on viewpoint-based enforcement, is not the same thing as a direct command to remove disfavored opinions. But the text does not, by itself, settle how companies would interpret “reasonable care,” what design changes they would make to reduce risk, or whether moderation systems would overcorrect. Those questions matter because the prospect of liability can influence decisions even when a statute does not explicitly order removal.
Rank #3
That tension is why Paul’s objection had value even if one does not accept his prediction as certain. It preserved the opportunity for the Senate to examine whether the duty, the list of harms, the foreseeability test, and the protections for lawful information are sufficiently clear and effective. Blocking fast-track passage was a demand for more legislative scrutiny, not a finding that every version of KOSA would censor the internet.
Recommended Free Tools
What does research say about social media and youth well-being?
The available studies cited here do not settle whether KOSA is a good policy or whether its legal design would burden speech. They examine associations between social-media use and well-being, not the effects of this bill or the moderation choices platforms would make under it.
- A 2023 longitudinal observational study of UK adolescents found “little evidence to suggest that more time spent on social media was associated with later mental health problems.” Its authors called for more research into types of use and which young people may be most affected.
- A 2026 Australian cohort study in JAMA Pediatrics, covering 100,991 adolescents in grades 4–12, reported a U-shaped association: moderate self-reported weekday after-school social-media use corresponded to the best well-being outcomes overall, with patterns varying by age and sex. This is an observational association, not evidence that moderate use causes improved well-being.
These findings caution against treating time online as a complete measure of risk. They neither establish that social media is harmless nor show that a design-focused legal duty will improve outcomes. The policy question requires weighing potential protections for minors against the risk that broadly framed liability will affect lawful expression or access to helpful information.
Why the objection was justified, even with KOSA’s safeguards
The case for blocking the request rests on process and risk, not certainty about the worst-case prediction. KOSA’s supporters have a substantial argument: the introduced text focuses on design features, defines conditions involving foreseeability and contribution, identifies specific harms, and contains language protecting independent searches, harm-mitigation resources, and First Amendment viewpoints. Those provisions are relevant safeguards, not cosmetic details.
But the opposing concern is also substantial. A duty of care can shape product and moderation decisions before any court determines how far the law reaches. The ACLU identifies a concrete failure mode—lawful safety information caught by crude moderation—and the statutory safeguards do not themselves show how often that would happen or how effectively it could be challenged. The central dispute is therefore not simply whether the bill says “censor content”; it is whether its standards and enforcement incentives could indirectly suppress lawful material.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
For a measure with that kind of potential impact, passage by unanimous consent would have left little room for public debate or scrutiny at the moment of decision. Paul was right to withhold consent and force the question into the open. Whether a revised or more fully debated KOSA could protect minors without unacceptable costs to speech remains a separate judgment that depends on the precise text and its practical effects.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
