Bill on online children’s rights awaits vote in House of Representatives

A Senate-backed bill aimed at protecting what children see on social media could face greater resistance in the House as opponents stoke fears of government censorship and the silencing of liberal and conservative views.

According to the Pew Research Center, 96 percent of American teens use social media daily, with nearly half saying they use it “almost constantly.” While experts have yet to confirm a direct link between social media use and poor mental health, mounting evidence suggests a connection to anxiety, depression and loneliness. Some parents of children who have committed suicide or died from an overdose or after participating in an online challenge point to social media as a culprit.

Some social media platforms already offer options to disable sensitive content, but the proposed law would require tech companies to make those options the default for minors’ accounts. It would also give parents more ways to monitor their children’s accounts.

In late July, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the Kids Online Safety Act, which would require tech companies to provide protections for children on social media. The bill, known as KOSA, passed by a vote of 91-3. That same day, the Senate also passed the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act, which would prohibit tech companies from collecting data on underage users.

KOSA would require companies to disable access to any content related to online bullying, illegal drug sales or sexual exploitation on children’s accounts. It would also ban features that encourage “addictive behavior” and predatory marketing practices.

Opponents, who come from both sides of the political spectrum, say the government should focus on removing addictive or unhealthy features such as autoplay, endless scrolling or intrusive notifications, not the content.

“KOSA misses the mark by putting the federal government in the position of determining what content is harmful to children and what is not,” wrote Evan Greer, executive director of Fight for the Future, an online advocacy group that operates the website stopkosa.com. “That should concern everyone. And it violates the First Amendment.”

Harm is subjective, Greer added, saying it’s akin to government censorship when the government defines what a child shouldn’t see and then orders tech companies to filter it out.

“There is no legal definition of what kind of content ‘makes a child depressed.’ It’s up to the (Federal Trade Commission) to decide,” Greer wrote in an email. “A Harris FTC might say that pro-life content makes children depressed. A Trump FTC might say that climate change content makes children depressed. Either way, the government dictates which speech platforms can show which users.”

But Josh Golin, director of the children’s rights organization Fairplay, defends the bill.

“This isn’t about the government deciding what content is safe and what isn’t,” Golin said. “This is about holding these platforms accountable for the conscious design choices they make.”

Golin notes that several social media platforms still allow young users to apply a filter that shows what their face might look like if they were to undergo plastic surgery. Plastic surgeons have recently reported an increase in the number of clients who want to look better in selfies.

“If this bill were to become law, (Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg) could be legally required not to use something like a plastic surgery filter, which fuels young people’s dissatisfaction with their appearance and makes them want plastic surgery at ridiculously young ages,” Golin said.

Groups on both sides of the abortion and LGBTQ debate have separately raised concerns about suppression of views. Pro-LGBTQ groups worry that content about sexuality is being filtered out for children who may identify as LGBTQ. Both pro-abortion and pro-life groups worry that young women are being denied posts that inform them of their options.

Golin says these are baseless arguments. “There is nothing in the law that requires platforms to remove content,” he said. “There is nothing in the law that prevents minors from saying anything to each other online or searching for any content, resources or community.”

Benjamin Bull, general counsel for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, said the First Amendment does not protect certain types of harmful speech, especially if it is proven to be harmful to children.

“If a pharmaceutical company were to advertise poisonous pills on television in a way that entices children to buy them and eat them, would (banning them) violate the First Amendment? No, because they create a dangerous situation that harms people,” Bull said.

Still, Bull admits that the bill’s definition of harmful content is “too broad and could be used by government officials with bad intentions for malicious purposes.” That’s why members of his center and others spent time last week refining the bill’s definition of harm prevention, which includes efforts to prevent mental illness.

Many social media companies already offer safety tools for underage users. Instagram warns users before they click on potentially harmful content and offers a setting to view less sensitive content. TikTok users between the ages of 13 and 15 are given private accounts by default, meaning young teens can’t send or receive direct messages on the platform.

Some parents frustrated by social media companies’ lack of transparency about their children’s online habits will get more clarity if this bill is signed into law. But some parents say they’re not convinced social media will ever be safe, even with the proposed legislation and the safeguards already in place.

Erin Loechner is a parent and recently wrote the book, The Opt-Out Family: How to Give Your Kids What Technology Can’tShe applauds efforts to protect social media for children, but says it will never be enough.

“KOSA is certainly a start, but it is far from the end. There is no safe and healthy way to use social media, even with the tremendous efforts of advocates fighting for tighter restrictions,” she wrote in an email.

According to Loechner, parents need to convince their children that offline activities are ultimately more fun and satisfying than anything they can find on a screen.

“Why do we teach our children how to safely go to the porn store, the fear clinic, the bullying, the self-esteem drain?” she wrote. “Instead, let’s teach them how to walk away.”