A NEW BIPARTISAN federal proposal introduced in the US Senate today would set a national age limit for using social media, effectively banning anyone 12 and under from using the apps many children currently spend hours a day on.
There are countless efforts floating around Capitol Hill aimed at safeguarding the nation’s children from the dangers of social media, but this new measure, known as the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act, takes aim at the algorithms Silicon Valley employs to keep kids on their sites. Specifically, it bars children under 13 from creating accounts on social media apps, while also greatly curtailing the algorithms tech companies could deploy on people between 13 and 17 years old. (Users under 13 would still be able to view online content, provided they aren’t logged into an account.) The bill would also require parental consent before anyone under 18 could create a profile.
To ensure pre-teens and children don’t create social media profiles, the bill would also create a government-run age-verification program, overseen by the Department of Commerce. The system would require children and their parents to upload identification to prove their age. While the legislation doesn’t mandate that companies use the government system, it would nevertheless represent a significant expansion of the government’s role in the online ecosystem.
As such, the bill could upend the internet as we know it by adding substantial government oversight over social media platforms. The bipartisan legislation’s being met with bipartisan skepticism.
“We kind of went through this when Tipper Gore was trying to ban music for some people,” Senator Tina Smith, a Minnesota Democrat, says upon first hearing of the concept.
The legislation’s sponsors are offended by the comparison. In fact, they say their proposal purposely avoids content altogether.
“Let’s be clear, this bill is completely content neutral,” says senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat. “All it says is that you cannot build a purposefully addictive program that leads especially vulnerable children down deep, deep dark rabbit holes.”
The broadly bipartisan effort also showcases the pressure ratcheting up on party leaders by rank and file lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who are demanding Congress act to protect children, after years of watching similar efforts dither.
Freshman Senator Katie Britt, an Alabama Republican, ran as “a momma on a mission” and says this is a personal issue to her and the others. “Bringing the issues that we talk about as parents in the home, with our friends, we watch unfold before us in our schools and our communities, that's what we're here to do, is to bring that voice, the voice of parents,” Britt says.
As to whether their measure could stifle the next generation of tech entrepreneurs, Britt says the opposite is the case. “That's what we're fighting for,” Britt says. “You want our kids to be healthy and prepared to achieve their American dream.”
Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton is the other Republican author. On the Democratic side, senator Murphy of Connecticut is joined by Brian Schatz of Hawaii as a lead sponsor. All four are young, in Senate terms at least, and all have young children.
Former CIA Chief of Disguise Answers Spy Questions From Twitter
While all the major Silicon Valley social media firms—from Instagram to TikTok—say they block children from using their apps, these senators say those efforts have failed.
“It’s not working,” Schatz says.“There’s no free speech right to be jammed with an algorithm that makes you upset, and these algorithms are making us increasingly polarized and disparaging and depressed and angry at each other. And it’s bad enough that it’s happening to all of us adults, the least we can do is protect our kids.”
While the measure’s sponsored by progressive Democrats and one of the most ardent conservatives in the Senate, lawmakers from across the ideological spectrum are equally skeptical of the proposal, showing the difficult road ahead for passing any new media measure, including those aimed at children. Many lawmakers are torn between protecting kids online and preserving the robust internet as we know it. Naturally, most senators are looking at their own families for guidance.
“My grandkids have flip phones. They don't have smartphones until they get older,” senator Mitt Romney, a Utah Republican, says. Romney—who’s open to the idea, if initially dubious—says there’s not even uniformity in his own family on these issues.
“I have five sons, so there are five different families and they do have different approaches,” Romney says. “And the youngest son is the one that's most strict, and the oldest son didn't really think of it as being such a big deal.”
For Smith, the Minnesota senator worried about her party coming across as Big Sister, there wasn’t even uniformity in her own household when her boys were fighting over the family’s first desktop computer ages ago. And her kids also proved to be (mini)hackers.
“We were trying to figure out how to monitor their interactions with the computer, and we quickly figured out that, at least for them, it was hard to put hard and fast rules, because kids find a way,” Smith says. “And different parents have different rules for what they think is the right thing for their kids.”
While Smith is open to the new measure, she’s wary. “I tend to be, I guess, a little bit suspicious of hard and fast rules, because I'm not sure that they work and because I sort of think that parents and kids should have the freedom to decide what’s right for their family,” Smith says.
While Smith is a progressive Democrat, on this new measure, she’s currently aligned with senator Rand Paul, a Libertarian-leaning Kentucky Republican. “Parents exercise some oversight of what their kids view on the internet, what they view on television, all these things are important. I'm not sure I want the federal government [involved],” Paul says.
The new measure also has competition. Just last week senators Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, reintroduced their EARN IT Act—the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act. That measure would strip away the current Section 230 protections for any sites that publish online child sexual exploitation content. Section 230 remains a highly controversial law because it protects online businesses from liability for much of what its users post on their platforms.
Schatz, the Hawaii Democrat who helped negotiate this new effort, is an original co-sponsor of that EARN IT Act. He says all these efforts coming from different angles show that Congress is finally serious about the impact the internet has on children. “The more the merrier. There's plenty of momentum. All of these efforts ought to be complimentary,” Schatz says.
There’s also the Kids' Online Safety Act, or KOSA, which is sponsored by senators Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, and Blumenthal. The bill is intended to update current statutes meant to protect children’s online activities. It picked up steam at the end of the last Congress—unanimously passing out of committee—before party leaders ultimately buried it. But this is a new Congress, and its sponsors continue to push it. Sponsors of this new measure say they’re not trying to replace it.
“We believe it’s compatible with this legislation,” Schatz says.
Earlier this year, heads turned when senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican and former state attorney general, introduced a measure setting 16 as the age limit for using social media. Hawley’s MATURE ACT—or, Making Age-Verification Technology Uniform, Robust, and Effective Act—would create a so-called private right of action, so tech companies could more easily be sued if they’re found offering social media accounts to children 15 and under.
“I thought that that’s an age at which kids are starting to have a little more independence,” Hawley says of why he chose that age.
As for the new measure? “Good. See, I started a trend. That’s good,” Hawley says. “I haven’t seen the details of it, but I think that the more we can get momentum here on actually doing something that protects kids, I’m all for it.”
