I’m not trying to make light of this, because I’m impressed with your reporting and it’s incredibly powerful. But the email I received had what I thought was a hysterical typo: It said “Utah's governor has signed… a bill that mandates that all smartphones, tablets, computers sold in Utah come pre-installed with corn filtering software”. I’m imagining some Utah/Iowa rivalry and they don’t want that nasty Iowa corn in Utah. 😀
Or is this a workaround for the Scunthorpe problem, trying to keep various email censorship systems from using crude filters to block the newsletter?
At least you know one subscriber is definitely reading your articles! Keep up the great work. It’s really important.
Oh my gosh, thank you for flagging!! Yes, I had to use the word "corn" in my YouTube script because the video will get demonitized if not, and I completely forgot to change it for the newsletter post!! ahhh!! I am now laughing at the idea of filtering corn off people's phones. Thank you again for reading! <3
I laughed at the corn filter too! I knew what she meant obviously but it was so funny to see it in there. The hoops YouTube and Tik Tok make you jump thru 🤦♀️
It does seem like the references to Ruby Franke are misplaced. Like you point out, there's nothing in the new law that would have prevented the situation, nor was any new law needed to prosecute in that case. And not having a clear exception for journalists is problematic.
I think the end of this piece unfairly conflates many different types of legislation. Not every bill that is purported to protect children should be assumed dangerous and bad without further discussion. Some age verification bills might be problematic for allowing more access to law enforcement, but others (like where I am in Massachusetts) strengthen data privacy. There are a lot of different bills and a lot of room for nuance. The status quo for kids is not great!
Thank u for reading! I am wondering what you mean about verification bills though, because they sort of inherently do not strengthen privacy since they require collecting more data from EVERYONE not just children. I think it’s crucial to assume (especially at this time) that all these laws claiming to protect children online are not about that. I’m all for child welfare laws as a whole! But the ones targeted to the online world that are often drafted by right wing reactionaries should be approached with skepticism. Can you share what law in MA you’re referring to? Would love to dig into
The bill requires social media companies to set accounts for minors to a heightened level of privacy by default. That's what I was referring to as strengthening data privacy. As for the section on age verification, it says: "(c) Any data or information gathered by the social media platform for use in the age assurance system, or during any appeal of the age assurance system’s determination, shall be segregated by the social media platform and remain confidential. The data and information gathered for use in the age assurance system, or during any appeal of the system’s determination, shall not be used for any other purpose by the social media platform."
You could easily find the bill if you look for it, but I'm not inclined to share it because I'm not endorsing it wholesale. There are parts that I find problematic and other parts that raise questions. It's a work in progress in my opinion, and I think it's a great thing for citizens and journalists to be examining this in detail and poking holes in it so it can be rewritten to be better. Maybe it's theoretical and doesn't matter, but I just can't agree that these bills should *all* be assumed to be in bad faith. Certainly here in Massachusetts they aren't drafted by right wing reactionaries. It's the social media companies that I assume are acting in bad faith (the example that comes to mind is Meta selling businesses the opportunity to sell beauty ads to girls who had just deleted a selfie and likely were feeling bad about themselves).
Regardless of intent, these bills all seek to make major changes and they deserve close scrutiny and examination for unintended consequences in order to make them more effective and reduce any harm they might cause. I appreciate your hard work doing that and sort of teaching us all how to do that.
Oh interesting, yeah I do worry that it sounds like it would mandate collecting more data, which puts kids at heightened risk. But I hear you, I think a lot of these bad laws end up being drafted by well meaning liberals, and in some sense that makes them a different kind of dangerous in their own way. But yeah, def not as bad as the Heritage Foundation or something like that. Eric Goldman, who's a fantastic legal expert and quoted in my piece, just published this really great paper on the problems with age verification bills like the one you're referring to. I think he makes a good case against them and why they're so harmful. It's sort of academic but worth a read!
I'm also going to try to do a whole YouTube thing on age verification, so I appreciate you flagging the MA law, will add it to my list of laws to ask experts about. Thank you so much again for reading!! <3
I read through the paper and appreciate the opportunity to read through the counterarguments on implementing age verification, but the suggestion that there's no problem here and the status quo is just fine is not going to be taken seriously in this moment. There's no amount of dismissing everyone who has concerns as part of a moral panic (simply not true) that's going to stop the momentum.
Experts with concerns will be taken seriously if they propose workable alternative solutions that address their concerns -- not just "parents should teach better" which is akin to victim-blaming. There are plenty of other places where remote age verification is necessary and regulated entities handle it, like online alcohol delivery retailers (which the author refers to but only in a footnote to a point that criticizes self-reporting).
As an example of when the author is suggesting there's no problem here, this passage that says because "only" 20% of teen girls are affected, therefore no regulation on social media is necessary. That's just nuts.
(Excerpt: "It’s easy to see why this chart caught lawmakers’ attention. The headline is chilling: Instagram makes 20% of teens feel worse about themselves, with even higher numbers among teenage girls. The chart indicates that Instagram usage is distressing some minor subpopulations. At the same time, the chart indicates that over 40% of U.S. teens said that Instagram made them feel better about themselves—more than twice as many as the U.S. teens who report that Instagram makes them feel worse about themselves.183 Even with respect to U.S. girls, 37% say Instagram made them feel better about themselves compared to 21% who say it made them feel worse. As a result, regulatory restrictions on Instagram access would likely benefit some minors, but at the cost of increasing the psychological or mental distress of other minors.184 Any such regulatory intervention simply prioritizes some minor subpopulations over others, which is the opposite of “protecting all children.”")
I say all of this to say, if you or another journalist does ask a variety of experts what the risks are and how they can be mitigated, there are plenty of people like me who will take that seriously and try to incorporate those mitigation recommendations into the bills being considered. Whereas if someone just dismisses us and accuses us of being dumb or part of a moral panic, the natural response is to dismiss them right back.
I totally hear you, but what you’re doing when you compare online communication tools or media consumption to alcohol or drugs is harmful. There is no such thing as social media addiction or internet addiction just the way there’s no such thing as talking in the telephone addiction, or listening to music addiction, or comic book addiction. When new technologies come out these arguments are always made. I did a youtube video on this on my channel, but age verification is deeply harmful because it requires removing anonymity from the web, which is devastating for speech, and doesn’t do anything to keep kids “safer.” Also, they tried to push age verification on all forms of media (ppl wanted age limits on novels and newspapers!). It’s simply not something we should support bc people who consume media are not “victims.” I’d really caution you against buying into these frameworks when you’re talking about communication tools and online media. Let’s not forget as well that the arguments against social media and phones were the exact same as the arguments against walkmans, beepers, TV, radio, music, books, and landline phones. That’s why it’s so important not to separate these issues from the moral panic that shapes people’s perception of them. I’d definitely check out the video on my channel on this (I’ll try to find the link), I run through the whole history.
How would you feel if I accused you of only holding the opinion that you do because Silicon Valley and social media companies brainwashed you into becoming anti-regulation? I wouldn't do that, because I understand that you've developed expertise over many years and you've come to your own legitimate opinions even if I disagree with them. But that's what you're doing when you accuse everyone with a different opinion of "buying into" "moral panics." The movement to regulate social media and technology use in schools is composed of all kinds of people -- teachers, social workers, elected officials, parents, students themselves and many others who are working off of LIVED EXPERIENCE. And many of us are well-versed professionally in media, law, technology and/or regulations. Even if we weren't, just dismissing people as uneducated doesn't work. It makes them dig in harder.
Oh no, it should not be mocked and ignored! I hope you’ll read the full article, these laws can have really significant free speech implications. So it’s very very important that we don’t ignore them!
I’m not trying to make light of this, because I’m impressed with your reporting and it’s incredibly powerful. But the email I received had what I thought was a hysterical typo: It said “Utah's governor has signed… a bill that mandates that all smartphones, tablets, computers sold in Utah come pre-installed with corn filtering software”. I’m imagining some Utah/Iowa rivalry and they don’t want that nasty Iowa corn in Utah. 😀
Or is this a workaround for the Scunthorpe problem, trying to keep various email censorship systems from using crude filters to block the newsletter?
At least you know one subscriber is definitely reading your articles! Keep up the great work. It’s really important.
Oh my gosh, thank you for flagging!! Yes, I had to use the word "corn" in my YouTube script because the video will get demonitized if not, and I completely forgot to change it for the newsletter post!! ahhh!! I am now laughing at the idea of filtering corn off people's phones. Thank you again for reading! <3
I laughed at the corn filter too! I knew what she meant obviously but it was so funny to see it in there. The hoops YouTube and Tik Tok make you jump thru 🤦♀️
It does seem like the references to Ruby Franke are misplaced. Like you point out, there's nothing in the new law that would have prevented the situation, nor was any new law needed to prosecute in that case. And not having a clear exception for journalists is problematic.
I think the end of this piece unfairly conflates many different types of legislation. Not every bill that is purported to protect children should be assumed dangerous and bad without further discussion. Some age verification bills might be problematic for allowing more access to law enforcement, but others (like where I am in Massachusetts) strengthen data privacy. There are a lot of different bills and a lot of room for nuance. The status quo for kids is not great!
Thank u for reading! I am wondering what you mean about verification bills though, because they sort of inherently do not strengthen privacy since they require collecting more data from EVERYONE not just children. I think it’s crucial to assume (especially at this time) that all these laws claiming to protect children online are not about that. I’m all for child welfare laws as a whole! But the ones targeted to the online world that are often drafted by right wing reactionaries should be approached with skepticism. Can you share what law in MA you’re referring to? Would love to dig into
The bill requires social media companies to set accounts for minors to a heightened level of privacy by default. That's what I was referring to as strengthening data privacy. As for the section on age verification, it says: "(c) Any data or information gathered by the social media platform for use in the age assurance system, or during any appeal of the age assurance system’s determination, shall be segregated by the social media platform and remain confidential. The data and information gathered for use in the age assurance system, or during any appeal of the system’s determination, shall not be used for any other purpose by the social media platform."
You could easily find the bill if you look for it, but I'm not inclined to share it because I'm not endorsing it wholesale. There are parts that I find problematic and other parts that raise questions. It's a work in progress in my opinion, and I think it's a great thing for citizens and journalists to be examining this in detail and poking holes in it so it can be rewritten to be better. Maybe it's theoretical and doesn't matter, but I just can't agree that these bills should *all* be assumed to be in bad faith. Certainly here in Massachusetts they aren't drafted by right wing reactionaries. It's the social media companies that I assume are acting in bad faith (the example that comes to mind is Meta selling businesses the opportunity to sell beauty ads to girls who had just deleted a selfie and likely were feeling bad about themselves).
Regardless of intent, these bills all seek to make major changes and they deserve close scrutiny and examination for unintended consequences in order to make them more effective and reduce any harm they might cause. I appreciate your hard work doing that and sort of teaching us all how to do that.
Oh interesting, yeah I do worry that it sounds like it would mandate collecting more data, which puts kids at heightened risk. But I hear you, I think a lot of these bad laws end up being drafted by well meaning liberals, and in some sense that makes them a different kind of dangerous in their own way. But yeah, def not as bad as the Heritage Foundation or something like that. Eric Goldman, who's a fantastic legal expert and quoted in my piece, just published this really great paper on the problems with age verification bills like the one you're referring to. I think he makes a good case against them and why they're so harmful. It's sort of academic but worth a read!
I'm also going to try to do a whole YouTube thing on age verification, so I appreciate you flagging the MA law, will add it to my list of laws to ask experts about. Thank you so much again for reading!! <3
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5208739
I read through the paper and appreciate the opportunity to read through the counterarguments on implementing age verification, but the suggestion that there's no problem here and the status quo is just fine is not going to be taken seriously in this moment. There's no amount of dismissing everyone who has concerns as part of a moral panic (simply not true) that's going to stop the momentum.
Experts with concerns will be taken seriously if they propose workable alternative solutions that address their concerns -- not just "parents should teach better" which is akin to victim-blaming. There are plenty of other places where remote age verification is necessary and regulated entities handle it, like online alcohol delivery retailers (which the author refers to but only in a footnote to a point that criticizes self-reporting).
As an example of when the author is suggesting there's no problem here, this passage that says because "only" 20% of teen girls are affected, therefore no regulation on social media is necessary. That's just nuts.
(Excerpt: "It’s easy to see why this chart caught lawmakers’ attention. The headline is chilling: Instagram makes 20% of teens feel worse about themselves, with even higher numbers among teenage girls. The chart indicates that Instagram usage is distressing some minor subpopulations. At the same time, the chart indicates that over 40% of U.S. teens said that Instagram made them feel better about themselves—more than twice as many as the U.S. teens who report that Instagram makes them feel worse about themselves.183 Even with respect to U.S. girls, 37% say Instagram made them feel better about themselves compared to 21% who say it made them feel worse. As a result, regulatory restrictions on Instagram access would likely benefit some minors, but at the cost of increasing the psychological or mental distress of other minors.184 Any such regulatory intervention simply prioritizes some minor subpopulations over others, which is the opposite of “protecting all children.”")
I say all of this to say, if you or another journalist does ask a variety of experts what the risks are and how they can be mitigated, there are plenty of people like me who will take that seriously and try to incorporate those mitigation recommendations into the bills being considered. Whereas if someone just dismisses us and accuses us of being dumb or part of a moral panic, the natural response is to dismiss them right back.
I totally hear you, but what you’re doing when you compare online communication tools or media consumption to alcohol or drugs is harmful. There is no such thing as social media addiction or internet addiction just the way there’s no such thing as talking in the telephone addiction, or listening to music addiction, or comic book addiction. When new technologies come out these arguments are always made. I did a youtube video on this on my channel, but age verification is deeply harmful because it requires removing anonymity from the web, which is devastating for speech, and doesn’t do anything to keep kids “safer.” Also, they tried to push age verification on all forms of media (ppl wanted age limits on novels and newspapers!). It’s simply not something we should support bc people who consume media are not “victims.” I’d really caution you against buying into these frameworks when you’re talking about communication tools and online media. Let’s not forget as well that the arguments against social media and phones were the exact same as the arguments against walkmans, beepers, TV, radio, music, books, and landline phones. That’s why it’s so important not to separate these issues from the moral panic that shapes people’s perception of them. I’d definitely check out the video on my channel on this (I’ll try to find the link), I run through the whole history.
How would you feel if I accused you of only holding the opinion that you do because Silicon Valley and social media companies brainwashed you into becoming anti-regulation? I wouldn't do that, because I understand that you've developed expertise over many years and you've come to your own legitimate opinions even if I disagree with them. But that's what you're doing when you accuse everyone with a different opinion of "buying into" "moral panics." The movement to regulate social media and technology use in schools is composed of all kinds of people -- teachers, social workers, elected officials, parents, students themselves and many others who are working off of LIVED EXPERIENCE. And many of us are well-versed professionally in media, law, technology and/or regulations. Even if we weren't, just dismissing people as uneducated doesn't work. It makes them dig in harder.
This law is begging to mocked and ignored😁
Oh no, it should not be mocked and ignored! I hope you’ll read the full article, these laws can have really significant free speech implications. So it’s very very important that we don’t ignore them!