Intrusive law not the answer on social media

The Illinois legislature is considering the Children's Social Media Safety Act. This requires devices to confirm the age of the user, and then for many websites and programs to use that age to control their content. Compared to similar laws implemented in other places, this is less intrusive than having to take a photo of an ID. However, it takes a page from these intrusive laws in that it applies to most devices people use, and many websites and apps we use.

Lawmakers could create an opt-in system where manufacturers advertising to parents could offer the recommended parental control features and websites and apps wanting to be available on those devices opt-in to the same parental control features, but lawmakers chose to cast a wider net. This sets the stage for eroding or eliminating online privacy.

After the framework is in place, the law could be updated to follow the intrusive laws it is modeled after. Privacy and anonymity online may not seem like a concern for most people, but the Trump administration is currently seeking to learn the identity of a social media user for criticism of ICE in order to bring criminal charges. Laws like this would make it easier to learn their identity. In turn such charges would chill other online speech. And given this law (and others like it) are being promoted by Democrats, it's hard to be sure these laws won't be used to chill the speech of their critics as well.

Shielding minors from harmful or manipulative content is a worthy goal. However, this can be achieved by making it easier for parents to manage their children's online experience, not by eroding online privacy for all. This law and others like it can readily cause more harm than good. Is this harm unintentional, or intentional?

Tim Murphy

Lisle