And Now Another Really Stupid Government IT Trick
The Protecting Kids on
Social Media Act
Suffice it say, no one over the age of 40 can imagine what it must be like
to be a young person today. Admit it, older Americans, all of the predicted ecological
nightmares of our time were far in our future, with plenty of time off
on the horizon to fix the problems.
Our children know that the polar ice caps are melting now. Yes, mine was the last
generation who had to endure the "duck and cover drills."
On the first
Friday of each month at 10am, the sirens wailed and prompted us kids to practice what we might do in the event
of a thermonuclear attack by either one of America's adversaries: The
Soviet Union or China. Today, school age
children are forced to endure on a daily basis the real and present
danger of someone entering their school grounds and their classroom and
being shot to death; or shot to death while shopping at Walmart; or shot
to death while worshipping at their hallowed church or temple or mosque. Given the context of what children are facing
today, the possibility that some psychological, emotional, or physical
harm might befall kids today due to the perceived social ills wrought
by social media websites seems terribly misplaced.
As
reported by
NPR, April 28, 2023, according to the bill, "Protecting Kids on Social
Media Act," would do the following:
✓ Would set the minimum age of
social media users to 13.
✓
For teens between the ages of 13 and 18, parental consent would be
required, and platforms would be banned from using algorithms to
recommend content to those young users.
✓Adults would have to create an
account for their teens, providing a valid form of ID to become users on
a platform.
Senator Tom Cotton, one of the bill's sponsors, was quoted as saying that the proposed legislation will put "parents back in control" of what kids experience online. Cotton professes little faith in actual parents of preteens, however.
I have to wonder if these Senators have any contact with a family with a preteen? Given all that faces younger people and their parents, most who do not already regulate their preteen's use of social media, will not begin to do so simply a law was passed that says the parent now has the right to do so. A busy modern parent isn't going to fight with the child over something already considered a norm in the family: mainly that the kids are glued to the phone when doing nothing else.
Cotton's complaint is less with any particular harm that anyone of these platforms might cause a child, but with the content a child might see on that platform. [Ibid.]
If an adolescent is too young for other real world experiences and responsibilities, from signing contracts, opening a banking account and watching rated R movies, then they are too young to witness some content on these platforms.
That same circumstance exists with many traditional websites;
any
streaming service; indeed, all of cable television. Where is the
movement to reign in
Netflix, HBO, and Showtime? There is none. These
media platforms have customers who can vote. Children can't vote.
Therefore, children make tempting targets for chest thumping politicians
to prance upon in what I have come to call a form of
testosterone replacement therapy. Although,
there is nothing "manly" about beating up a defenseless opponent.
Even Tucker Carlson apparently agreed with that statement.
The heart of the bill is the denial of youngsters under the age of 13 any unfettered access to social media platforms.
Like the efforts to ban TikTok, the efforts to overtly regulate who may
log on to a social media platform are long on the whys, but fall short
on the hows. Furthermore, the bill's main proposal is contradicted by the bill's own
language. Due to its draconic proposals that few
people, or indeed parents, given today's penchant for greater personal security,
will do what the bill proposes. The complete text of the
bill
can be had
here. [pdf will open.]
Central to the bill's intention is to create
some regime whereby the
age of the logee might be verified.
Yet in the same section, the bill states that
nothing requires "users to provide government-issued
identification for age verification." This rule that
excludes government issued IDs is repeated throughout the text of the
bill.
Instead, the bill envisions yet one more government intrusion into
our lives. One more hoop through which to jump, requiring additional time and effort.
Section 7 outlines the creation of this redundant and unnecessary new
initiative.
A "Pilot Program" will be established to duplicate all the other
alternative government ID programs than never really got out off
the ground to begin with.
The bill expects parents to willingly and voluntarily allow information about their children gathered from a myriad of different agencies to be the foundation of the Pilot Program and this new identification regime. Since the participation in the Pilot Program is voluntary on the part of parents, few citizens will feel the need to jump down this particular Rabbit Hole.
And why should they? Since the program is voluntary on the
part
of parents who will otherwise simply allow their children access to the platforms, how on
Earth can the social media platforms be held liable for who logs on to
their sites?
If this gets too unworkable, parents will log
on themselves to whatever site the kid wants wants access to,
and
then simply hand the phone to the kid so
everyone can go about their day.
The entire regime is simply unenforceable and a utter waste of government time, money, and manpower. It ignores the everyday reality of family life today. Little Chrissie is going to howl like a Banshee when she can't get in on whatever the dirt is that's going around about Daphne and Tiffany. Social media is this generation's reinvention of passing notes around in class — and that bane of family life in the 1960s: The teenager being on the phone forever, thus causing Dad to miss that important call.
Of course, these platforms offer many more features than interactive chat. There are studies published that warn of the dangers to young brains that can come from the use of social media by youngsters; and there are studies that say this is way overblown and ignore the social value these platforms give young people. Truth is, from a scientific viewpoint, these platforms have not been around long enough for multigenerational analyses of the long term outcomes of social media platform use and/or abuse.
To this end, there is a proven American way to hold entities to account for any harms their products cause to people and/or property. That most powerful weapon of accountability is the lawsuit for liability for harm proven to be caused. Whatever one may think of the outcome of the lawsuit for its liability, it is highly unlikely that Fox News will be leveling any new speculative charges of voter fraud brought about by phantom sources tampering with electronic voting machines. Fox News has 787 million reasons to avoid such behavior. This same social and legal responsibility should apply to all entitles in the business of communicating information to the public.
This Senate bill is not, however, a complete waste of time. Its provisions for how web platforms collect and retain the personal information of visitors who log on to their platforms is an excellent starting point to begin a government crackdown on any and all entities that do collect and distribute any such personal information. These provisions are modeled after what is already standard practice in the European Union, and therefore implementation not need be overly cumbersome.
Senators, you have at your disposal right now a powerful tool to hold any and all web entities to account for any harm their business practices cause. Simply repeal Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Decency Act. Compel web platforms to publish a set of Standards and Practices to which they will be legally bound to adhere. It is a high time this nation recognizes that Internet related firms are this century's Newspapers, Magazines, and Broadcasters. Newspapers, Magazines, and Broadcasters all have published standards. And there are hordes of lawyers monitoring every pixel or dot of ink ready to pounce when any of these entities appear to violate the standards. It is in the tradition of American Jurisprudence to hold the social media, and all other media companies, to account and make them pay for any infraction and harm that infraction caused.
Congress, write a law that repeals Section 230 and also incorporates the handling of information in the Senate bill discussed herein. Ya'll might just have something then that resembles life on the ground in these US of A, circa 2023.
And teach your parents well
Their children's hell will slowly go by
And feed them on your dreams
The one they pick's the one you'll know by
— Teach Your Children, Graham Nash Composer,
(Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Gerald Reiff