Measures designed to protect children from digital harms are ushering in a public health approach to internet regulation, writes Ramiro Álvarez Ugarte.
The "Segregate-and-Suppress" Approach to Regulating Child Safety Online
<div> In an effort to protect children online, regulators around the country and the world are enacting laws that compel Internet publishers to age-authenticat
U.S. Social Media Regulations for Minors
The digital lives of American children and teenagers have become a focal point of intense national debate and legislative action. ContentsThe Federal Foundation: The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)The State-Level Surge: A Patchwork of New RulesThe Next Generation of Federal Law: Congress Weighs InThe Constitutional Crossroads: Free Speech vs. State RegulationThe Great Debate: Voices […]
Debate: Social media in children and young people – time for a ban? Weighing up the implications and limitations of age-based social media restrictions
Recent legislation in Australia banning social media accounts for children under 16, alongside similar proposals worldwide, has ignited debate about whether age-based restrictions are an effective way to protect young people's mental health. While the intent of such bans is to reduce exposure to harmful content, their feasibility and effectiveness remain unclear. Enforcement requires robust age verification, often relying on sensitive data such as government-issued identification or facial scans, which raises privacy concerns and can be circumvented through the use of VPNs. Moreover, social media use is diverse. Although it can intensify harms such as bullying, it also provides vital opportunities for connection and support, particularly for marginalised adolescents. Removing access to accounts may limit risks within platforms, but does not prevent exposure to harmful content elsewhere, nor does it guarantee increased offline engagement. Importantly, blanket bans fail to address unsafe design features embedded within social media or to equip adolescents with the skills needed to navigate online environments. More targeted, evidence-based regulation that promotes safer platform design and accountability may provide a more effective pathway to protecting young people's well-being.
Online Safety Bills Are Fueling a New Wave of Internet Censorship
State and federal bills seek to limit minors’ access to social media, but civil liberties advocates warn that the resulting online censorship threatens constitutional rights without delivering real safety.
#cybersafety #ageverification #privacy #minors #ai | Parry Aftab
Internet Age-Verification Causing More Risks than It’s Worth This is not a new issue. Regulators and policymakers have raised it for the last 28 years as the way the keep kids safer online. They compare it to having to flash an ID to purchase regulated content or items (porn, cigarettes, alcohol, restricted medications, age-restricted movies, amusement rides, etc.) But verification online is very different and vastly riskier than flashing an ID in real life. For one, it’s collecting personally-identifiable information about our kids. For two, it puts that information in the too-often untrustworthy digital hands of tech companies. For three, while porn, alcohol and regulated drugs may be a clear-cut case for restricting access to adults, access to the Internet is very different. Yet, regulations begun in the UK and adopted globally have begun a weighted cybersafety approach that, in my humble opinion, prefers excluding young people from digital technology over teaching the cybersafety and digital life skills. That, in my 32 years of work in the fields of cybersafety and protection of minors online, was and remains a mistake. One of my best known quotes, repeated in Congressional and state legislative testimony and in the media is: “The greatest single risk our children face online is being denied access. We have solutions for everything else.” (my testimony before the FTC) Some proponents of age-verification have opted to denying them access unless they give up confirmable personally-identifiable info, such as selfies, feeding AI with PII, and govt or school credentials. I argue that this gives social networks, game providers and digital app operators a wealth of PII to be used for profiling, marketing and collecting far too much. With their privacy at stake, too often incompetent, malicious and greedy producers and mega-tech industry players, can’t and shouldn’t be trusted with the personal info of our most vulnerable - our kids. And AI will now be tasked with collecting everything it can find about our kids to be able to “age-verify.” (It’s ability to age-verify is less reliable with youth as their data-sets are more limited.) I served on a task force appointed by 49 state attorneys general, charged to research and weigh-in on this issue. We concluded that age-verification wasn’t feasible. While this task force was formed many years ago, with the exception of a fortified AI, not much as changed. Our children’s privacy remains, or should remain, paramount. We have robust filtering and blocking technologies. The adult industry has adopted an age-gated model. And parents can restrict access using device-specific tools. And, many well-intentioned age-verification laws were adopted too quickly for thoughtful discourse. Or by governments more prone to censorship/content restrictions. I fear in our quest to protect our kids we have thrown our babies out with the bath water. #cybersafety #ageverification #privacy #minors #AI
The Age-Gated Internet Is Sweeping the US. Activists Are Fighting Back
Half of the country now requires age verification to watch porn or access “harmful” content. Digital rights advocates are pushing back against legislation they say will make the internet less safe.
What happened to the fight for the Internet? -- Dustycloud Brainstorms
At the moment I am writing this, bad internet bills are being proposed across the US, Canada, Europe, and the UK. They're using the usual tactics: they claim they're fighting for kids or fighting security risks, but in general, that's what surveillance and censorship bills have always claimed.
Every Country Has Its Own Internet Now
A patchwork of privacy laws, teen social media bans, and "digital sovereignty" pushes means the Internet you see depends entirely on where you're standing.
Children’s Rights and Online Age Assurance Systems
Abstract Age assurance is a way to prevent children accessing content, products or services that are potentially harmful to them, ranging from gambling services or alcohol or tobacco or, increasingly, certain products and services online. Now that children’s lives are mediated by digital technologies, policymakers are deliberating over the legal, technical and practical challenges. These have been little examined from the perspective of children’s rights. By combining legal and social research methods, this article examines the legal requirements for age assurance in Europe, assesses compliance by companies and reveals the consequences for family life. In law and practice, we show that age assurance is often ineffective in protecting children from online risk of harm. Further, as currently implemented it risks children’s other rights – to non-discrimination, privacy, to be heard, and their civil rights and freedoms, and remedy. We identify promising directions for the use of age assurance in child online protection, focusing on European policy, regulators and civil society actors.
Home | Protecting Kids Online
Our mission is to protect children and defend parental rights by equipping families and citizens with the tools to keep kids safe online. We oppose government surveillance disguised as child safety legislation and seek to build an informed, independent parent-led coalition to #ProtectKidsOnline.
Why Protecting Kids from Social Media May Make Things Worse — Douglas Rushkoff
I’m supposed to give a talk next week about kids and social media and the need for more media literacy education, more regulation of platforms, and more substantive discussion about how to keep our kids from media-induced self-harm. The whole event is well-meaning, but is characterized by a sense of worry and protection. And for some reason, after years of making those sorts of arguments in my articles and documentaries, I have a strong impulse to pivot the other way.
The Kids Online Safety Act Will Make the Internet Worse for Everyone
Lawmakers who support KOSA today are choosing to trust the current administration, and future administrations, to define what youth—and to some degree, all of us—should be allowed to read online.
The Illusion of Protection: Why Canada’s Growing Push to Ban Social Media for Kids Won’t Work - Michael Geist
The momentum behind a social media ban for Canadian minors has been building for months. The federal Liberals voted at their April policy convention to back a minimum age of 16 for social media accounts and AI chatbots, the government’s expert panel on online safety is studying the issue, protesters have now rallied on Parliament Hill calling for it, and on Saturday night, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew told a Winnipeg fundraiser that his government will be the first in Canada to ban social media and AI chatbots for kids. Kinew did not specify which kids, when it would happen, or how it would be enforced, none of which appeared to matter to the audience. The political appeal of a ban is obvious, since concerns about social media’s effects on young users are widely shared. Yet the policy itself is a terrible idea that will not work. This post examines at least six reasons why an outright age-based ban, particularly one that extends to AI chatbots, is the wrong response to a serious issue.
The Slow Death of Online Safety
Everything You Wanted to Know About a Kids' Social Media Ban (But Were Rightly Afraid to Ask): A FAQ on Age Verification and Mandated ID for Everyone - Michael Geist
The government is expected to table the Digital Safety Act on Wednesday with reports that it will include a ban on social media for those under 16, framed as a “temporary” measure that platforms can exit once a new digital regulator certifies their safety standards. I have been writing about these issues, from the original Online Harms Act to mandated age verification and website blocking and now the kids’ ban, for several years. This FAQ gathers the analysis in one place, with links throughout to the longer pieces for anyone who wants to go deeper. The key takeaway is that a kids' social media ban is an ineffective and harmful policy that raises privacy concerns for tens of millions of Canadians through mandated age verification requirements. The policy fails to address the underlying concerns with social media and the prospect of a "temporary" ban makes little sense since the requirement might be reversible, but the data collection and regulatory infrastructure are permanent.
Is this a viable theory of change that points to an actual coherent vision for the future of a safe internet? There’s a lot of poor theories of change in current legislation on both sides of the aisle. Who is championing public utility moderation as an alternative to panopticon age gating?
Tynan Purdy ⁂
More and more I think moderation as a whole should be publicly funded. Lots of institutions providing lots of diverse moderation services would unlock product creators and communities to thrive safely.