Lawmakers are stuck in a bind. How do you shield kids from social media's darker corners without crushing free speech in the process?

The House is wrestling with legislation aimed at protecting minors online, but the devil's in the details. Every proposed safeguard seems to bump up against First Amendment concerns. Too restrictive? You're censoring. Too loose? You're not doing enough.

This tension isn't new, but it's hitting different in the Web3 era. Decentralized social platforms promise user control and censorship resistance—great for free expression, trickier for content moderation. Traditional platforms already struggle with this balance; throw blockchain immutability into the mix and suddenly those guardrails get even harder to install.

What's the right move here? Heavy-handed regulation risks stifling innovation and speech. But leaving the digital playground unmonitored? That's got its own risks. Maybe the answer isn't one-size-fits-all legislation—maybe it's empowering users and parents with better tools instead of relying solely on top-down controls.

Either way, Congress has its work cut out. Protecting kids shouldn't mean sacrificing the principles the internet was built on.