五年前，弗朗西丝·豪根坐在参议院一个小组委员会面前，发出了一则国会几乎不可能误解的警告。“国会需要采取行动，”这位前Facebook员工在2021年10月5日作证时说，“没有你们的帮助，他们不会解决这场危机。”五年后，获得两党广泛支持的《儿童在线安全法》仍未成为法律。国会还需要多少场听证会，才能让其关切变成保护儿童的具有约束力的义务？
Five years ago, Frances Haugen sat before a Senate subcommittee and delivered a warning Congress could hardly misunderstand. “Congressional action is needed,” the former Facebook employee testified on Oct. 5, 2021. “They won’t solve this crisis without your help.”Five years later, the Kids Online Safety Act, which has wide bipartisan support, still has not become law. How many more hearings does Congress need before its concern becomes a binding obligation to protect children?
我最近在《社会清算》的预映放映会上与豪根坐下来交谈，这是一部关于Meta和社交媒体平台如何操纵和影响我们的新电影。我问了她大多数父母都在想的问题：究竟是什么继续阻碍国会将两党对儿童在线安全的支持转化为法律？她的回答聚焦于利害攸关的金钱，以及大型科技公司为维持现状所拥有的财务激励。那场对话让我回到华盛顿一直未回答的问题。
I recently sat down with Haugen for a conversation at a pre-release screening of “The Social Reckoning,” a new film about how Meta and social media platforms have manipulated and influenced us. I asked her what most parents are wondering: What continues to prevent Congress from turning bipartisan support for children’s online safety into law? Her answer focused on the money at stake and the financial incentives Big Tech has to preserve the status quo. That conversation brought me back to the question Washington has left unanswered.
当立法者承认社交媒体对儿童的危险，却未能制定任何保护措施时，这种拖延服务于谁的利益？豪根针对Meta的举报人证词从来不只是她批评Facebook。她将内部文件公之于众，并告诉国会，该公司在盈利与安全之间的冲突中一再选择利润。这些是指控，有内部人士的披露作为支撑，理应要求调查、透明和问责。“他们（Meta）害怕反弹甚于害怕伤害，”豪根告诉我。
When lawmakers acknowledge the dangers of social media for children but fail to enact any protections, whose interests does the delay serve? Haugen’s whistleblower testimony against Meta was never simply that she criticized Facebook. She brought internal documents into public view and told Congress that the company repeatedly resolved conflicts between profitability and safety in favor of profit. These were allegations supported by an insider’s disclosures, which have demanded investigation, transparency and accountability. “They [Meta] fear the blowback more than they fear the harm,” Haugen told me.
这些言论应让所有人质疑，为什么我们选出的领导人没有采取有意义的行动。这些公司对盈利能力的重视高于保护儿童在线的照护义务。
These statements should cause everyone to question why our elected leaders haven’t taken meaningful action. These companies put a higher value on profitability than a duty of care to protect children online.
我们的政府非但没有采取适当行动，反而继续向大型科技公司示好，寄望于数据中心和人工智能发展，同时无视要求变革的呼声。科技公司已花费超过5000万美元游说，反对旨在为我们的孩子提供基本保护和关爱的法案，从而向我们传递了一个信息：我们孩子的价值低于保护科技公司的价值。国会不能声称自己从未收到过警告，这说不通。
Our government, rather than acting appropriately, continues to cozy up to Big Tech on the promise of data centers and AI development, all the while ignoring the outcry for change. Technology companies have lobbied with over $50 million against bills aimed at basic protection and care for our children, thus sending us the message that our kids’ worth falls below the value of protecting technology companies. Congress cannot plausibly claim it never received the warning.
国会也不能声称议员们一直无法找到共同立场。参议员玛莎·布莱克本（共和党-田纳西州）和理查德·布卢门撒尔（民主党-康涅狄格州）于2022年2月首次提出《儿童在线安全法案》。2024年7月30日，参议院以91票对3票通过了一项将该法案与儿童隐私立法合并的一揽子方案。该一揽子方案从未成为法律。此后发生的事很重要。
Nor can it claim that lawmakers have been unable to find common ground. Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) first introduced the Kids Online Safety Act in February 2022. On July 30, 2024, the Senate approved a package combining the act with children’s privacy legislation by a vote of 91-3. That package never became law. The history since then matters.
我们应当准确看待。众议院于6月29日以267票对117票的差距通过了另一项一揽子方案，即《儿童互联网与数字安全法案》。虽然它包含值得讨论的保障措施，但其处理对未成年人伤害的条款明确规定，不得将其解释为对受涵盖平台施加注意义务。这是对参议院做法的重大偏离。8月5日，参议院商务委员会再次推进《儿童在线安全法案》。
We should be precise about it. The House passed a different package, the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act, on June 29, by a margin of 267-117. While it contains safeguards worth discussing, its provision addressing harms to minors expressly says it must not be construed to impose a duty of care on covered platforms. That is a consequential departure from the Senate approach. On Aug. 5, the Senate Commerce Committee advanced the Kids Online Safety Act again.
9月30日，布卢门撒尔寻求以一致同意方式通过该法案。参议员兰德·保罗（共和党-肯塔基州）以对受宪法保护的言论的担忧为由提出反对，该尝试失败。言论自由是赋予所有美国人的权利，我坚决支持它。然而，我和其他儿童安全倡导者不同意保罗的看法。这不是言论自由问题，而是行为问题。这些公司不仅明知故犯地从事对我们的孩子在网上造成伤害的做法，还从中获利并放大这些做法，同时畏缩在《通信规范法》第230条的保护伞后面。
On Sept. 30, Blumenthal sought its passage by unanimous consent. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) objected, citing concerns about constitutionally protected speech, and the attempt failed. Freedom of speech is a right afforded to all Americans, and I strongly support it. However, I and other child safety advocates disagree with Paul. This isn’t an issue of free speech; it is an issue of conduct. These companies are not only knowingly engaging in practices that cause harm to our children online, but also are profiting from them and amplifying them, all while cowering behind the Communications Decency Act’s Section 230 shield.
国会已经采取了一些措施，但未能完成这项工作。作为全国反性剥削中心的主席，也作为一名养育青少年的父亲，我看到了这种失职给家庭带来的负担。像豪根这样的举报人，用来自世界上最强大公司之一紧闭大门后的内部文件，充分记录了这些危害。我们绝不能把责任只推给父母和家庭；我们需要行动，而且早就该行动了。
Congress has taken steps, but it has failed to finish the job. As president of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, and as a father raising teenagers, I see the burden this failure places on families. The harm has been well documented by whistleblowers like Haugen with internal documents from behind the closed doors of one of the most powerful companies in the world. We simply cannot put the responsibility on parents and families alone; we need action and it’s long overdue.
国会应当制定一项精心起草、可执行的注意义务，聚焦于平台设计，并以强有力的隐私默认设置、可及的保障措施和独立审查为支撑。公司应当证明自己在法律范围内正在采取哪些措施来预防和减轻可预见的危害。这篇报道质问国会是否用我们的孩子换取了大型科技公司。这是对问责的要求，而不是指控每一位反对者都被收买。
Congress should enact a carefully drawn, enforceable duty of care focused on platform design, supported by strong privacy defaults, accessible safeguards and independent scrutiny. Companies should have to demonstrate what they are doing to prevent and mitigate foreseeable harms within the law’s scope. This story asks whether Congress has traded our kids for Big Tech. It is a demand for accountability, not an allegation that every opponent has been bought.
议员们可以真诚地存在分歧。但他们仍必须解释其提出的路径将如何保护儿童——以及何时会成为法律。选民应当询问每一位美国众议员和参议员：你们将支持哪些可执行的保护措施？你们要求做出哪些改变？你们何时投票？豪根冒着个人风险，把国会采取行动所需的信息交给了国会。家庭多年来一直在敦促议员们加以利用。
Lawmakers can disagree sincerely. They must still explain how their proposed path will protect children — and when it will become law. Voters should ask every U.S. representative and senator: What enforceable protections will you support? What changes do you require? When will you vote? Haugen took a personal risk to bring Congress information it needed to act. Families have spent years pressing lawmakers to use it.
当华盛顿还在谈判时，我们的孩子正在长大。他们无法找回那些岁月。里奇·哈姆是全国反性剥削中心的主席，该中心是一家全国性非营利组织，揭露各种形式性剥削之间的联系，例如儿童性虐待、卖淫、性贩运以及色情制品对公共健康的危害。
Our children are growing up while Washington negotiates. They cannot get those years back. Richie Hamm is president of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, a national non-profit organization exposing the links between all forms of sexual exploitation such as child sexual abuse, prostitution, sex trafficking and the public health harms of pornography.