In the age of increasing online presence, especially amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, the safety of young people on the internet has become a prominent concern. With a surge in screen time among youth, online spaces serve as crucial lifelines for community, education, and accessing information that may not be readily available elsewhere.
However, the lack of federal privacy protections exposes individuals, including children, to potential misuse of sensitive data. The widespread use of this data for targeted advertisements has raised concerns among young people and adults alike.
In response, teens are voicing their need for tools to navigate the web safely. They seek more control over their online experiences, including ephemeral content, algorithmic feed management, and the ability to delete collected data. Many emphasise the importance of reporting, blocking, and user filtering tools to minimise unwanted encounters while staying connected.
Despite these calls, legislative discussions often seem disconnected from the concerns raised by teens. Some proposed bills aimed at protecting children online unintentionally risk limiting teens' access to constitutionally protected expression. Others, under the guise of child protection, may lead to censorship of essential discussions about race, gender, and other critical topics.
Recent legislative efforts at the federal and state levels raise concerns about potential misuse. Some proposals subject teens to constant parental supervision, age-gate them from essential information or even remove access to such information entirely. While the intention is often to enhance safety, these measures could infringe on young people's independence and hinder their development.
In an attempt to address harmful online outcomes, some bills, like the Kids Online Safety Act, could fuel censorship efforts. Fear of legal repercussions may prompt technology companies to restrict access to lawful content, impacting subjects such as LGBTQ+ history or reproductive care.
In some cases, laws directly invoke children's safety to justify blatant censorship. Florida's Stop WOKE Act, for instance, restricts sharing information related to race and gender under the pretext of protecting children's mental health. Despite being blocked by a federal judge, the law has had a chilling effect, with educational institutions refraining from providing resources on Black history and LGBTQ+ history.
Experts argue that restricting access to information doesn't benefit children. Youth need a diverse array of information for literacy, empathy, exposure to different ideas, and overall health. As lawmakers ban books and underfund extracurricular programs, empowering teenagers to access information freely becomes crucial for their development.
To bring it all together, while teens and their allies advocate for more control over their digital lives, some legislative proposals risk stripping away that control. Instead of relying on government judgment, the focus should be on empowering teens and parents to make informed decisions.
