FOLIO
Words by Ambar Ramirez and Carmen Macri
Earlier in the month, legislators introduced a bill aiming to prohibit minors under the age of 16 from using social media. This entails the deletion of existing accounts, including their personal information. The bill also calls for platforms to employ a “non-governmental,” independent third-party service to verify the age of users, though it does not specify which social media platforms will be banned, only anything that “utilizes addictive, harmful, or deceptive design features, or any other feature that is designed to cause an account holder to have an excessive or compulsive need to use or engage with the social media platform.”
On Wednesday, January 24th, the House voted 106-13 in favor of the bill, advancing it to the Republican-controlled Senate.
Florida is not the first to propose such a bill though. Last year, Utah became the first state to ban minors from using social media without the consent of a guardian. Even going as far as restricting minors from using such platforms from 10:30 pm to 6:30 am.
Supporters of the FL bill argue that minors who use social media frequently are exposed to bullying and sexual predators – leading to an increase in mental illnesses. According to Politico, cosponsor of the legislation, Fiona Mcfarland, argued that the addictiveness to social media is similar to being a drug addict; that the dopamine hits from scrolling on social media trigger the same receptors in our brains.
That said, while the bill brings up an important topic of how social media can be extremely toxic and even harmful, it almost misses the point. The issue is not the app itself, but the compulsive need to use it.
Bill opposers are arguing that the bill is an infringement on the First Amendment and with it being so broad of a law, takes away benefits minors can gain from social media. Bringing up questions like, what is the criteria for social media? Are there specific sites still welcome to minors? Certain online games act as social media for children, are those banned as well?
At the end of the day, shouldn’t parental rights be enforced on whether their children can use social media?
This bill being at the forefront of Republican House Speaker Paul Renner’s agenda, said that the Florida bill should endure the constitutional scrutiny because it targets the addictive features of social media, rather than the content.
Naturally, being that this is a bill about social media restrictions, we took the issue to social media and asked our readers what their thoughts were on the bill. Unsurprisingly, on Facebook, a relatively older platform, our readers were in favor of the ban. One subscriber commented,
“Good. Then maybe they won’t ban everything else in life that has significance to the older than sixteen crowd.”
But when we asked X (formerly known as Twitter) and Instagram Threads, the reaction was polar opposite. Some followers questioned how the government would even enforce the bill and asked “What happened to parental rights?” Feeling as if the parents should be the ones to limit their children’s social media presence, not the government.
Honorable mention to this incredible comment:
“Also banned: talking back to an adult, passing notes in class and watching R rated movies on TV while your parents are out.”
It will be interesting to see how this bill progresses and whether or not the many plot holes will be answered.
Follow FOLIO!