Legislation Filed to Protect Private Information of Children Online

Legislation,

On Monday Arkansas lawmakers filed two measures aimed at protecting children’s personal information online.

H.B. 1082 by Rep. Andrew Collins (D — Little Rock) and Rep. Joy Springer (D — Little Rock) generally prevents websites and similar platforms from collecting, using, or sharing personal data of users aged 16 or younger without parental or individual consent. It also addresses targeted advertising based on children’s personal data.

H.B. 1083 by Rep. Andrew Collins (D — Little Rock) and Rep. Joy Springer (D — Little Rock) requires platforms to adopt safety measures concerning data collection, harmful content, and advertising. The bill would require platforms to automatically default to the most protective privacy settings for minors, and it would require them to give parents tools to manage privacy settings, monitor usage, and restrict purchases for their children online.

Policymakers, pundits, and parents have all expressed concern for children’s safety online recently.

Social media platforms aren’t just websites. These are multibillion dollar businesses owned and operated by adults.

The adults who run these social media platforms should not be able to register children as users and promote content to them without — at the very least — parental consent. 

As we have said before, there’s mounting evidence that social media puts users’ personal information at risk and is actually designed to push objectionable content to users. With that in mind, it is essential to protect children online.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

READ MORE

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over TikTok Lawsuit

Social Media,

On Friday the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the lawsuit over whether the U.S. can ban social media platform TikTok if its owner fails to sever ties with China.

With upwards of a billion users worldwide — including somewhere between 135 and 170 million in the U.S. — TikTok is among the most popular social media outlets on earth.

TikTok isn’t just a video-sharing app. It’s a major corporation. Its Chinese-based parent company, ByteDance, has been valued at $300 billion.

However, TikTok has found itself embroiled in controversy for struggling to protect private user data from entities in China — including the Chinese Communist Party. The platform has been accused of serving users a steady “diet of darkness” online. TikTok also has been sued for allegedly violating U.S. laws intended to protect children.

In April, President Biden signed a bipartisan piece of legislation requiring TikTok to cut ties with China by January 19. If it fails to do so, the law would ban TikTok in the United States.

Instead of severing ties with China, TikTok sued the federal government. That lawsuit has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who heard arguments in the case on Friday.

The Wall Street Journal writes,

TikTok’s lawyer, Noel Francisco, told the court that the law threatens to silence a popular and important platform, a violation of its First Amendment rights. . . .

In early questioning from the court, most justices voiced doubts about TikTok’s arguments, viewing the law not as a restriction on free speech but instead as targeting the platform’s ownership by Beijing-based ByteDance. . . .

Chief Justice John Roberts said the court couldn’t ignore congressional concerns that Beijing could use TikTok to spread propaganda and stockpile sensitive user data on Americans. . . .

Justice Elena Kagan said the law “is only targeted at this foreign corporation, which doesn’t have First Amendment rights.” . . . .

The Supreme Court agreed to hear TikTok’s appeal on an expedited schedule, meaning the justices could rule in time to spare the app—or seal its doom—before the Jan. 19 deadline. 

In December, Family Council joined three dozen other leaders and organizations in an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in this case.

The amicus brief argues that the Chinese Communist Party does not respect free speech in China or in America, and that the First Amendment should not give foreign adversaries like the CCP an open door to influence tens of millions of Americans.

As we keep saying, social media is more than just websites or phone apps. These are multibillion dollar businesses with tremendous influence.

As Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin has pointed out, TikTok’s owners are subject to Chinese laws that mandate secret cooperation with intelligence activities of the People’s Republic of China.

If the Chinese Communist Party can control TikTok, the CCP may be able to manipulate users or harvest sensitive data on one of the world’s largest social media platforms. That ought to concern all of us.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

READ MORE

ADF to Facebook: Practice What You Preach, Allow Free Speech

Social Media, , , , ,

ADF sends letter to Meta after pro-life accounts are suspended for ‘exploitation’

The following is a press release from our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom:

Thursday, Jan 9, 2025

MENLO PARK, Calif. – On behalf of pro-life news site LifeNews.com, LifeNews CEO and editor Steven Ertelt, and potential adoptive mom Abby Covington, Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter Wednesday to Meta after it wrongly suspended Ertelt, LifeNews.com, and Covington’s Facebook and Instagram accounts. ADF attorneys explain that Meta’s content-moderation mechanisms are either deeply flawed or its standards against “human exploitation” and “child sexual exploitation” were weaponized to suspend the accounts for promoting pro-life beliefs.

As the letter explains, LifeNews, which reaches more than 750,000 individuals weekly through its website, e-mails, radio programs, and social media accounts, has an Instagram account with over 20,000 followers. Ertelt—who has nearly 5,000 friends on his personal account—used his Facebook to repost content from LifeNews. Covington, who used Facebook as a primary source for her small business to reach customers, created a Facebook and Instagram page chronicling her family’s journey toward adoption. Both Ertelt and Covington tried to log in to their Facebook accounts shortly after sharing pro-life posts and were locked out with no warning. After they tried to appeal multiple times, Meta permanently banned their Facebook and Instagram accounts. Because Ertelt operated LifeNews’s Instagram account, Meta permanently banned that account as well.

“Although Meta recently restated its commitment to upholding free speech on its platforms, it has a long way to go to prove that it will actually make good on its promises,” said ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler, director of the ADF Center for Free Speech. “Steven Ertelt, Abby Covington, and LifeNews all used their social media in family-friendly and life-affirming ways. But the social media giant silenced them for reasons that are patently absurd. Until Facebook restores these accounts, its statements on free speech ring hollow.”

“Facebook’s censorship of my account and our Instagram account is absurd,” said Ertelt. “Calling a medical video demonstrating the humanity of unborn children ‘child sexual exploitation’ is grossly inaccurate and offensive to the millions of pro-life people who use Facebook and Instagram. Instead of going after a pro-life video and disabling our accounts, it should crack down on actual child sexual exploitation.”

In May, Ertelt shared a LifeNews.com post that included a video of a cesarean section with a caption that read, “An unborn baby can’t be just a clump of cells when he or she is grabbing the doctor’s hand.” The post garnered significant traction, but when Ertelt tried to log in to his account later that day, he learned his account was suspended for “child sexual exploitation.” LifeNews also used Ertelt’s account to create its Instagram page, and as a result, that page is unavailable until Facebook restores Ertelt’s account.
Similarly, Covington created a page called “Austin & Abby Adopt—Covington Family Adoption Journey,” which was dedicated to her and her husband’s religious commitment and conviction that all human life is precious and worth protecting. In November, Covington used her page to introduce her family and reach out to pregnant mothers making an adoption plan. Shortly after her post, online trolls harassed her for her religious beliefs and commitment to pro-life ideals. She deleted the post, but Facebook later deleted her entire account, citing a violation of its “human exploitation” standards. Without her Facebook account, Covington is unable to access her adoption page as well as her small business page.

ADF’s letter explains that these account suspensions create a significant violation of Meta’s own free speech standards, as well as a loss of finances for Ertelt, LifeNews, and Covington. The letter outlines how Meta unlawfully induces users to its platforms with promises of fairness but applies its Terms of Service in faulty and inconsistent ways—ways which Meta officials have openly acknowledged.

“Mr. Ertelt, LifeNews, and Mrs. Covington reasonably expected that their accounts would be safe from suspension so long as they abided by Meta’s Terms of Service and Community Standards,” the letter states. “But unknown to them, Meta’s promise was unreliable, and they have each suffered financially as a result.”

You can read ADF’s letter to Meta here.

READ MORE