Utah should pay close attention to the United Kingdom’s newest attempt to limit social media’s ability to reach children.
The state may not necessarily want to copy what the U.K. does, but it could learn more about what works in the battle to save children from the effects of near constant screen time.
Utah has been a leader in efforts to protect children from harmful and addictive effects targeted directly toward them, but it also has encountered some legal roadblocks.
Pay attention to the U.S. Constitution
Utah, of course, has to satisfy the U.S. Constitution. That’s a good thing. First Amendment rights to free speech and expression are vital. Still, it could be instructive to learn whether a British ban on social media for those under 16 actually works, or whether children simply find ways around the barriers.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said this week he hopes to have details of new regulations ready for Parliament by Christmas. This comes after an extensive outreach by the British government to measure public attitudes on the subject.
More than 116,000 people responded to a call for input, including people of all ages, experts and representatives of industry. The results were that 90% of parents supported the under-16 ban, with 85% saying the risks of social media were greater than the perceived benefits, according to The New York Times.
Australia already has a similar social media ban
Australia already instituted a similar ban. In that country, if those under 16 are found to be accessing social media sites, the companies face fines that could reach tens of millions of dollars, depending on the severity of the infraction.
That ban does not include dating sites, gaming sites or AI — omissions that have drawn criticism.
Science is providing ample reasons for enacting bans based on age. Former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy released a report a few years ago citing “growing evidence that social media is causing harm to young people’s mental health,” according to Yale Medicine. This was just one of several such studies.
While some experts note positive effects from social interactions online, a rise in mental health issues among teenagers seems to have coincided with the advent of smartphones and social media apps.
Social media is a cancer on society
We agree with Gov. Spencer Cox’s description of social media as “a cancer on our society right now,” a phrase he used to describe the violent images of murders, including that of Charlie Kirk, that have been available for all to see.
Utah’s groundbreaking efforts to force social media companies to act responsibly toward children have run into problems in court, where social media companies have challenged recently enacted laws on free speech grounds.
State attorneys have argued that “social media companies have laced their products with highly addictive elements that act like nicotine in tobacco or the design features of casinos, meant to keep gamblers at the slots and tables as long as possible,” according to a brief cited on courthousenews.com.
“These addictive elements have nothing to do with the underlying content and everything to do with trapping youth in an endless loop, where their eyeballs are constantly drawn to social media, so the social media companies can profit from the data.”
Still, courts have blocked Utah’s efforts. U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby said the state was restricting access to protected speech by both adults and minors.
A new state law passed this year would tax so-called targeted advertising — ads catered to specific audiences based on personal data companies have collected. The tax would fund child literacy programs. Already, critics have attacked it as too broad and too blunt; a measure that could harm advertising and economic growth in general.
At a time when social media, chat rooms and AI permeate society at all levels and are, in many cases, equally tantalizing to adults and children, governments will need careful use of legislative scalpels to protect children without harming rights generally.
Given the stakes, however, it is an effort that is vital to pursue.
The United Kingdom and Australia may impose restrictions that U.S. states could not, but they also may find novel approaches worth copying. In the fight to protect the rising generation, it’s well worth paying attention to every worthy idea.
