Youth Social Media Bills to Meet Tech, LGBTQ Opposition in 2024

Opponents of teen social media restrictions enacted in various state legislatures this year said they’re watching for copycat proposals in 2024, even as such measures have encountered legal setbacks.

Speakers at a virtual panel Thursday organized by Chamber of Progress—a tech industry coalition against the handful of new state laws in Utah, Arkansas, and elsewhere—categorized legislative efforts to regulate the online activity of youth under 18 as digital censorship. Those laws pose requirements for social media sites that include obtaining parental consent for minors to operate accounts.

State legislators across the political spectrum argue youth need additional protections online to address privacy and mental health concerns, among other issues. Their approaches differ, such as a California law focused on website design requirements to address addictive features and other potential harms rather than mandating parental permission.

Lawmakers in New York, New Jersey, and Georgia have already indicated they will pursue bills in 2024 that regulate teens online. Implementation of Utah’s social media requirements is moving forward with a draft rule set to be finalized ahead of a March 1 effective date.

The laws have drawn concerns over their reach and impact from tech groups as well as digital rights groups and other organizations. NetChoice, a tech industry group, has sued to block youth social media laws in Arkansas and California.

Laws restricting teens online can have greater consequences for vulnerable groups, such as LGBTQ youth who may not live in supportive homes, panel speakers said. Those looking to mitigate harm need to prepare for existing laws that will go into effect in 2024 as well as the “copycat effect” of policies mimicked throughout the country, said Shae Gardner, policy director for LGBT Tech, an organization focused on the tech needs of LGBTQ people.

“It was online spaces that let me see people and hear stories that I resonated with and ultimately it was online spaces that first taught me that there was nothing wrong with me,” Gardner said. “So when nearly half of LGBTQ+ teens have considered suicide and the support in homes and communities just too often isn’t there, this is the reason we push so hard against digital censorship.”

Some state laws have met recent legal roadblocks. Federal judges paused implementation of social media requirements in both California and Arkansas, in cases where First Amendment concerns were raised.

Speakers said they’re skeptical that the litigation obstacles will dissuade lawmakers elsewhere from proposing similar policies.

“It will keep happening unless and until we have enough of a groundswell and a muscle memory for free expression to say enough,” said Lee Rowland, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship.