Posted on 01/30/2024 9:56:45 AM PST by jimwatx
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Florida children under the age of 16 would be banned from popular social media platforms regardless of parent approval under a bill passed by the House on Wednesday, a measure that is the top priority for the chamber’s speaker.
The bill doesn’t list which platforms would be affected, but it targets any social media site that tracks user activity, allows children to upload material and interact with others and uses addictive features designed to cause excessive or compulsive use. The bill would not affect apps used for private messages between individuals.
“They’re taking advantage of kids growing up. That’s their business model. And why do they do it? To keep them hooked … with the dopamine hits that the platform gives our children with every autoplay, with every like, with every push notification,” said bill sponsor Republican Rep. Tyler Sirois.
The House voted 106-13 for the bill, with several Democrats joining Republicans in support. Proponents argued that social media exposes children to bullying and sexual predators and can lead to depression, suicide and an addictive obsession.
Democratic Rep. Michele Rayner said she posted her position on the bill on X on Tuesday, and she referred to her deceased mother. On the House floor Wednesday, she read some of the hateful comments she received from the platform’s users, including people who posted, “Your mother sucks” and “Your mom was stupid.”
“I’m 42-years old … and comments like these were a gut punch to me, but I was able to navigate,” she said. “Imagine what our babies have to deal with when they have their friends in school doing the same cyberbullying to them.”
Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Instagram and other social media platforms, urged the House to seek another solution, such as requiring parental approval to download apps. It also wants the issue addressed on a federal level rather than a patchwork of different state laws.
“Many teens today leverage the internet and apps to responsibly gather information and learn about new opportunities, including part-time jobs, higher education, civic or church gatherings, and military service,” Meta representative Caulder Harvill-Childs wrote to the House Judiciary Committee. “By banning teens under 16, Florida risks putting its young people at a disadvantage versus teens elsewhere.”
Other states have considered similar legislation, but most have not proposed a total ban. In Arkansas, a federal judge blocked enforcement of a law in August that required parental consent for minors to create new social media accounts.
But Republican House Speaker Paul Renner, who has made the issue his top priority, said the Florida bill should withstand constitutional scrutiny because it targets the addictive features of social media, and not the content.
“It’s a situation where kids can’t stay off the platforms, and as a result of that, they have been trapped in an environment that harms their mental health,” Renner told reporters after the vote.
The Florida bill would require social media companies to close any accounts it believes to be used by minors and to cancel accounts at the request of a minor or parents. Any information pertaining to the account must be deleted.
Opponents argued that the bill would violate the First Amendment and take away benefits some children get from social media. And they said parents should make the decisions on which sites their children can visit.
Democratic Rep. Anna Eskamani said social media was an outlet and comfort where she could find support after her mother died when she was 13.
“I think the intention of those who have filed (the bill) is absolutely golden. We have a concern about the impact of social media on our young people,” she said. “I just find the solution that you propose too broad and casts a wide a net with unintended consequences.”
Typically, I'm for the states. The Feds should stay out.
It's such a shame that those companies can't do anything about this unless Congress passes a law gets telling them what to do. They probably expect Congressional interns to come in and do the coding and roll-out, too.
Freaking slimeballs.
Expanding the power of the state is wrong
I think most kids know what a VPN is?
You’re right. But how do they assure that parents assent to the account? It would seem that there’s some way to properly get parental permission.
Excellent comment, yours. Republicans rightfully complain about government overreach. But here they are doing exactly that.
The Internet is full of potential dangers. So parents need to warn their kids, and set limits. But I’d rather have those limits set by parents, and not politicians.
And this is different than, say, alcohol. Alcohol is always a danger in the hands of minors. Nothing good can ever come of it. Not so with the Internet.
Well that fixes.......nothing.
VPN’s will be the next thing they outlaw and it won’t just be for kids. Nikki Haley (and her deep state donors) want to do away with anonymous posting on the internet and force people to have an internet ID.
How did we ever grow up to be productive responsible adults without tik tok?
EC
Wait, so no law restricting kids purchasing porn? Cigarettes? Alcohol?
Agreed. You think you live in a free country... then they take your myspace.
In general, of course, yes, and this law is not the answer.
But, the world has changed. Congress has done nothing because it is changing the way they want it to. China’s internet is locked down. Ours is wide open. Why? Because China owns our Congress.
These “companies” all exist in a new paradigm. You are not a “customer”. You are a product. Information about you - your privacy is for sale. Sale takes on a non-monetary meaning when a dictatorship like Red China is involved.
So, our government IS expanding. It is growing to be more like China’s government. We sit by and watch TikTok videos and think we’re getting something for “free”. We COULD demand that our government do its job and protect our rights.
This bill is a bandaid. The patient is bleeding out.
I agree. I think social media in the hands of kids is not a good thing, but it is parents who should decide this, not some law.
Some in the GOP are just baiting their constituents for future donations and not considering our Constitution and the true meaning of Liberty under a limited government.
If I were a Florida parent with young kids I’d start a class action suit against the law, in spite of wanting, for myself, to keep my kids off of social media venues.
Woke, social-engineering nanny-state activism dressed up as conservatism.
Agreed, in principle.
Still creates a question of contract law - can a child under 16 enter into a contract, even with the signature of a parent?
I don't know the answer to that.
Never give an order that can not be followed.
The law would be unenforcable
Porn, cigarettes, and alcohol are just vices and not in the same category as internet access to social media sites. Exposure to social media can be good or bad depending on content whereas exposure to vice has no redeeming value whatsoever. And in any event the government has no business sticking its nose in matters that are the duty and prerogative of parents.
Agreed. This should be called an anti parents rights bill.
Beyond that, while they ban the impossible, they should ban shark attacks, fishing trips where you get skunked, rainy days at Disney world, and temperatures over 87 degrees
Parents should be the ones who decide what their kids should be allowed to drink alcohol not the government.
Discuss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.