Saturday, November 18, 2023

Big Tech Is Exploiting Kids Online. Congress Has To Step In | Opinion

Big Tech Is Exploiting Kids Online. Congress Has To Step In | Opinion

Social media platforms know the great influence they have on children. Children spend most of their time in front of the screen. Although current laws restrict the use of the social network for children under the age of 13, 40% of children between the ages of 9 and 12 use Instagram every day. Researchers, including Big Tech's own, continue to confirm what American parents already know: social media use is a major cause of today's mental health crisis among children and teens, including increased rates of suicidal thoughts and self-harm. More than 80 percent of parents support tougher federal measures to protect children on social media. No wonder 41 states and Washington just sued Meta (formerly Facebook) for "plans to exploit young users."

The problem, of course, is that reducing this damage can also reduce Big Tech's bottom line. Political intervention is needed to address parents' concerns. That's why Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced the Children's Online Safety Act (KOSA). KOSA offers new tools for parents and children to reduce or prevent some of the harmful features of social media. It also creates a duty of care and requires acting in the best interests of minors who are lawfully using the platforms. To fulfill this obligation, platforms must take appropriate measures to eliminate the most serious harm caused by their products, including sexual exploitation. drug and alcohol advertising; Promote serious mental disorders defined by the best medical evidence, including eating disorders, suicidal behavior, anxiety and depression; and social media intentionally boosts self-confidence.

This bill is also widely supported. KOSA is sponsored by nearly half of the US Senate, has received unanimous support from the Senate Commerce Committee, and has the support of more than 200 organizations, from the American Psychological Association to the American Psychological Association, from technology experts to children. Given its popularity, KOSA is using Big Tech in its latest tactic to slow KOSA's push: KOSA is trying to convince conservatives that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will allow the FTC to censor conservative speech if children's safety is guaranteed.

The argument goes like this: KOSA's duty of care legally requires platforms to mitigate the negative mental health effects of social media design features on health professionals, parents and children. But what if FTC Chairwoman Lina Hahn decides that conservative social media positions or posts cause depression or suicidal thoughts? Of course there will be censorship.

This argument is admirable for its skill because it recasts real concerns about Silicon Valley's treatment of conservatives as an argument that conservatives should defend Silicon Valley. But actually, it didn't work.

The reason KOSA is able to maintain wide support is because the language used is very narrow. KOSA's commitments, reinforced by rigorous negotiations, carefully target the most serious and well-documented risks to social media health. Otherwise, it will be impossible to maintain the support of a broad coalition, which includes hard-line conservatives. Kara Frederick, director of the Heritage Foundation's Technology Policy Center and a leading critic of Big Tech censorship, dismisses these fears with the disdain they deserve. "If conservative publications like The Daily Wire or TheBlaze claim that they 'promote suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse and sexual exploitation,' or encourage underage drug and tobacco use, the public will have a hard time," he said. , gambling or drinking".

What makes Big Tech's argument even more surprising is that the FTC already interprets its authority to include "any action the agency deems coercive, exploitative, or collusive," according to one commenter. , although it is still early. ". Based on this understanding of Section 5's authority, the FTC has broad discretion to protect consumers from any "unfair or deceptive" practices it deems necessary. If you want to participate in social media content practices, you're free to try it. Conservatives worried about agency overreach , when Congress introduces bills dictating what the FTC should do in specific markets, they should applaud, not envy.

This is what KOSA does. These rules provide clear guidance to the FTC and clearly outline the damages for which social media companies are liable. Other alleged "harms" that politically motivated actors may wish to claim may go beyond these strict and focused parameters. KOSA does not give the FTC new authority to censor political speech; This allows the Commission to be clearer and narrower so that it can focus on the real risks to children.

Behind this fear lies a broader claim: KOSA represents a departure from the norms that govern American society. David McGarry, a policy analyst at the Taxpayers Defense Alliance, writes: "Too many people see the Internet as part of 'real life' and therefore have no qualms about 'depriving its users of basic economic or civil liberties.' But this argument is exactly the opposite. KOSA's strength is that they have a deep understanding of how social media translates into "real life" and therefore validate that social media meets real life standards. American social and legal norms do not allow , but require, keeping children out of dangerous environments like nightclubs, protecting environments like playgrounds that are designed to be safe for children, and keeping children away from dangerous products like alcohol. For hours every day, we hand over the nation's children to social media. Exceptions to these rules are rare.

Frivolous litigation and crooked bureaucrats are normal, real risks we take for the sake of children's safety. According to the Supreme Court, we asked the FCC to ban overtly adult content on television because the media is "too pervasive." This description is more applicable today in social media. Could the hypothetical FCC deem conservative speech indecent? Of course, the court chose a temporary restraining order until the next day. Has anyone at the FCC tried this? no. Instead of being dangerous, should the transmission of material not suitable for children be welcomed? Of course not.

Chris Griswold is the policy director of American Compass.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.