Utah’s Renewed Push for Social Media Regulation Sparks Privacy Concerns
Utah’s legislature is once again venturing into the realm of social media regulation, passing a bill that mandates age and identity verification for all app store users, regardless of age. This move, awaiting Governor Spencer Cox’s signature, echoes a similar piece of legislation he championed last year, which ultimately faced legal challenges and was blocked by a federal judge due to First Amendment concerns. The underlying objective appears to be curbing youth access to social media platforms, a cause Governor Cox has passionately advocated for. He previously sought to ban TikTok in Utah, alleging the app intentionally employed design elements to ensnare teenagers – a common tactic employed by virtually all social media platforms seeking to maximize user engagement across all age groups.
Governments worldwide are grappling with the impact of social media on young people, particularly during their formative years. Concerns center around the potential for online bullying and the overall impact on mental health and cognitive development. Australia recently implemented stringent measures, banning children under 16 from social media entirely, although the government acknowledges the potential difficulties in enforcing such a broad restriction. In the UK, the newly enacted Online Safety Act places a responsibility on online platforms to shield children from age-inappropriate content.
Proponents of these regulations draw parallels between restricting access to social media for minors and existing limitations on access to harmful substances like alcohol and tobacco. They argue that teenagers, with their still-developing brains, require similar protections from the potential negative impacts of social media, suggesting that access should be reserved for adults with greater cognitive maturity. U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has even suggested that social media platforms should include warning labels highlighting the potential risks to adolescent mental health. However, he also acknowledges the reported benefits of social media for some young people, such as fostering a sense of belonging and connection within online communities. The burgeoning #BookTok community on TikTok, where teens share their love of reading and engage in literary discussions, serves as a compelling example of the positive potential of social media.
The most significant criticism levied against mandatory identity verification laws centers on the threat to individual privacy. Critics argue that requiring all users, including adults, to verify their identity before accessing online platforms creates a chilling effect on free expression and exposes individuals to potential risks. GOP-led states such as Florida, Texas, and Kentucky have recently implemented similar ID checks for adult websites, leading some platforms, like Pornhub, to cease operations in those states rather than compromise user privacy.
The 2015 hack of Ashley Madison, a dating website for married individuals, serves as a stark reminder of the potential dangers of storing sensitive personal information online. The breach resulted in the exposure of users’ identities and personal details, leading to significant personal and professional consequences. There are numerous legitimate reasons why individuals might prefer to maintain anonymity online, whether it’s for expressing unpopular opinions, exploring sensitive topics, or simply safeguarding their personal information from potential misuse. Overly broad laws targeting "adult content" could be used to suppress websites and viewpoints that the government finds objectionable, raising concerns about censorship and the suppression of dissenting voices. Individuals may legitimately want to express themselves freely without the fear of being identified and potentially facing repercussions.
Robert Singleton, Senior Director of Government Relations at the Chamber of Progress, echoes these concerns, stating, "Utah already approved a similar bill focused on social media, and the courts rightly blocked it. The same thing is likely to happen here. This bill invades everyone’s privacy and forces even adults to share sensitive data just to use their own devices. Instead of making the internet safer, this bill invites new risks and unintended harm."
Even if such laws manage to withstand legal challenges, their practical effectiveness remains questionable. They may prove as futile as Prohibition, a historical attempt to ban alcohol that was heavily influenced by religious beliefs and ultimately drove the industry underground, creating a black market and exacerbating related problems. Similarly, restricting access to mainstream social media platforms could simply push teens towards less regulated corners of the internet, where age verification is non-existent, content moderation is lax, and the potential for encountering harmful content is significantly higher. Counterintuitively, age verification laws could inadvertently make the internet more dangerous for both teenagers and adults. The implementation of these laws could inadvertently drive vulnerable individuals towards less moderated, and therefore potentially more dangerous, online environments.
Ultimately, the decision regarding whether or not teenagers should use social media arguably rests best with parents. They are in the best position to assess their children’s maturity levels, understand their individual needs and vulnerabilities, and guide them in navigating the complexities of the online world. Blanket restrictions imposed by the government risk infringing on parental rights and potentially driving young people towards less safe and less supervised online spaces. Parents can also foster open communication with their children about responsible online behavior, risks, and the potential impact of social media on their well-being. This nuanced approach, emphasizing parental guidance and education, may prove far more effective than sweeping legislation in protecting young people from the potential harms of social media while preserving individual privacy and freedom of expression.
