To the Delegates of the Virginia General Assembly,
As a consumer advocacy group representing consumers and Internet users who favor tech innovation, lifestyle freedom, and freedom of choice, we write to you with reservations about the bill you are soon to consider.
HB1624 requires that social media networks identify their users to classify those under 18 years of age and require parental consent if said platforms provide what the legislation broadly declares are “addictive feeds”. The bill also restricts social media firms from offering alternative products to minors.
The goal of protecting children online and steering them toward healthy uses of technology and social media is an important and noble goal that we also champion.
However, due to the language in this bill and the effects it would have on practically all users of social media, the measure would cause more harm than good. HB1624 would have a worrying impact on the ability of anyone – minor or adult – to freely use certain social platforms and participate online.
Our concerns on this bill are summarized in four points:
1. PRIVACY
For social media providers to determine who is a minor, they will also be forced to determine who is an adult. The bill stipulates that covered platforms must use “commercially reasonable methods to determine that the user is not a minor”. This introduces more technical complexity to social media access, but also legally requires a Know Your Customer regime that is antithetical to a free and open Internet.
Suppose users are required to provide verifiably personal details to sign up for certain websites. In that case, this will remove a user’s ability to access social media websites without providing sensitive information including their name, date of birth, identity documents, facial recognition, address, and much more.
The Internet has evolved to be the global marketplace for ideas and content, bringing people together and allowing for the freedom to explore, connect, and learn. Forcing
users to provide private data scraps anonymity and privacy on the Internet, which may be required, necessary, or desired by the consumer. This is what’s most consistent with our own First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. The Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association stands as a good example of young people’s right to receive information, whether it be from video games, chat rooms, or social media apps.
Online users should be able to use services or apps while providing or not providing whatever personal information they so choose, ensuring they can remain private and secure.
2. SECURITY
Because any platform using algorithmic feeds to deliver content would be required to collect personal and age-identifying information, it’s not difficult to see how attractive this data would be to potential hackers and bad actors. The more social media platforms a consumer uses, the worse this vulnerability would be for them.
The more that online services and state and federal regulations require users to submit online to access certain websites, the more risk there is of that information falling victim to coordinated hacks and unlawful disclosures. Any cursory search online can find hundreds of terabytes of hacked and leaked data that has been exposed, often due to lax security procedures or improper storage of data.
Though the legislation aims to outsource the process of age identification to a “commercially reasonable” method, there is no failsafe method for determining identity, storing that information, and ensuring it will not become accessible to the wider Internet. Requiring such a process by law does not render these systems hack-proof. Rather, it opens the floodgates and creates even more incentives for criminal activity online.
3. PARENTAL RIGHTS AND EDUCATION
Rather than government bureaucrats, it should be up to parents and guardians to guide their teenagers and educate them on how to use certain social media sites and applications. We applaud the notion of parental consent for minors accessing certain sites, but this should be a decision within households and independent of Virginia state statutes.
Forcing age identification for social media sites will impact every age group, therefore state resources could be better used to educate minors on the advantages and disadvantages of different social media activities and behaviors.
Parents should not have their roles or responsibilities curbed because of legislation that aims to do good for minors. We must ensure that Virginians have the freedom to choose how they educate and raise their children. Those parents and guardians are best suited to structure the technological needs and wants of their children. This bill undermines that.
4. A SETBACK FOR INNOVATION
Last, the process laid out in HB1624 restrains social media websites from creating any alternative experience on a social media app if a user is determined to be a minor.
What this means in practice is that any algorithm used in social media content delivery would be de facto restricted, and any social media platform would be prohibited from offering paid services, ad-free versions, or other alternatives to better suit select audiences. If this is carried through in Virginia, it would necessarily require social media networks to create different versions of apps or sites for Virginia residents – minor or adult – which creates an undue burden that many firms will actively avoid rather than attempt to comply with.
Rather than imposing age-gating on social media networks that will degrade and restrict the experience for users of all ages, we call on Virginia’s elected officials to consider alternative means to educate young people about social media and safety in the online world.
As consumer advocates, we at the Consumer Choice Center believe the answer to concerns about youth access to social media is not overly broad regulation that impacts users of all ages, but rather, developing guidance and educational resources that uphold the primary duty of care for parents and guardians.
Protecting kids online is a noble goal worthy of praise.
However, in its current form, HB1624 and its counterpart in SB854, are untenable and would ultimately make Virginia residents worse off.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen Kent (Manassas, VA)
Media Director