Maine independent U.S. Sen. Angus King is introducing a bill that would limit the use of social media by children.
The legislation would ban children under 13 from having a social media account. Companies would also be prohibited from aiming any targeted content, using algorithms, to children under the age of 17.
In a release, King said the bill would establish "reasonable guardrails" and take "meaningful steps" to protect young people from the damaging impacts of social media.
The measure comes amid growing concerns that the platforms are a major driver of what has been described as a youth mental health crisis.
The U.S. Surgeon General released an advisory last year calling for policymakers to pursue new policies to limit youth access to social media.
While the new legislation has bipartisan support, opponents have already filed lawsuits against some state-level measures, arguing that they violate the First Amendment.
King told All Things Considered host Robbie Feinberg that it's an urgent matter for the government to take on this issue, as he says the data overwhelmingly show that social media use is detrimental to the mental health of young people.
This interview has been edited for clarity
King: All of us have experienced it, it's a serious issue. And what we're really doing here with this isn't censorship, we're not trying to control the internet or content. We're just saying, if you're under 13, you don't need an Instagram account or a Facebook account. That's really what this is all about. It's bipartisan. And I think it just common sense.
Feinberg: So most social media sites already do ban accounts for children under the age of 13. What is it about your bill that you think would be more effective at addressing some of these concerns you've mentioned beyond what the platform's are already doing?
Well, the thing is, many of the platforms are doing it, although I don't know if it's many, several are, but this codifies it, and it levels the playing field. And the danger is that, okay, some platform says, 'okay, we're gonna have this rule,' another one doesn't, there's this competitive pressure to drop the rule again. So we're making it a nationwide red line that applies to everybody. And I think that's important, and it codifies it so that a platform that's made this decision now, can't change their mind in a year and say, 'we're going to go back and allow these kids to start signing up again.'
Another piece of this bill, it would also ban companies from targeting certain content, that algorithmic content at kids under 17. There are so many other issues that you mentioned, folks, like the Surgeon General have talked about the visual filters on photos like buttons, cyber bullying as well. How much do you think this bill would address some of these mental health problems? And how much more do you think would need to be done?
Well, I think this is a really important start, and we can't do everything. I mean, this is a very broad area. And, let me give a little historical context. We've had 1,000 years to figure out how to deal with the printed word to establish guardrails and norms and standard, what is pornography, how do you deal with defamation, editors, fact checkers, all of that. So we've got this base, but then the internet comes along, we've had 30 years, and we're just starting to figure out where the guardrail should be. This bill does not purport to be a comprehensive solution to all the issues with social media. But it does tackle what we think are some of the most serious, and that's why I think this is an important step. And the fact that, you know, when you have Angus King and Ted Cruz on the same bill, you got something going, and I'm very pleased that it's very bipartisan. And the recognition of the problem is I don't know if it's universal in the Congress, but it's certainly, I think, something that we're going to have a good chance of moving forward.
Yeah. And we have heard some companies, some First Amendment groups as well, they have already filed lawsuits over similar state level measures to what you're proposing. Are you concerned at all about getting this through the courts? If this did ultimately pass?
Of course, I mean, that's always a question. And this isn't, you know, I guess the question is, we're not affecting people's first amendment rights to express themselves. We're just saying that people of a certain age, I mean, is it a violation of your constitutional right to not be able to buy liquor until you're 21? Or not to be able to drive until you're 15 or 16? I mean, this is protecting kids. And so I mean, you can never guarantee there won't be such lawsuits. But I think it'll stand up. We've got some pretty smart people working on the drafting of this legislation, and I'm confident that it will pass constitutional muster.
