We all see it. A lot of children are glued to their screens, sucked into the endless scroll of social media. It’s a big problem. But, should lawmakers respond by shoving big tech even deeper into our private lives?
H.4591 aims to stop children from being hooked on social media.
But good intentions don’t erase the big problems in this bill, like:
Usurping parental responsibility: shifts parental authority over limiting a child’s social media use to a government framework where platforms must identify child users, verify parental consent, set restrictions, and control accounts. (Ref: Sections 39-5-920, 39-5-930, and 39-5-940 )
This is not the role of government. It’s parents’ responsibility, and many already set limits or keep kids off social media. If they don’t, that’s on them. If this bill passes, all parents will bear the burden of this law. Worse, some may think the law relieves them of this responsibility.
Do social media companies already track this kind of behavior?
Yes. Social media already tracks you for ads and feeds. Legislators passed H. 3431 to expand state control over minors’ data, profiling, and design features. So why propose even more tracking with H. 4591?
Does the bill invade privacy?
Yes. Data collected under this bill includes birth dates, parental consent and documentation, age- and parent-verification info, demographic updates, online activity and history, search history, communications, photos, biometrics, geolocation, and ad profiling. See Sections 39-5-930(A)(1)-(2), 39-5-940(C), 39-5-950(B)-(C), 39-5-920(A)-(D), and 39-5-910(10)-(15).
One nuance: the bill does not expressly say “collect all of these from scratch.” In several places, it assumes platforms already have some of this data or already use it in the ordinary course. But it absolutely builds a legal system around using, verifying, retaining, and acting on these categories of information.
And once companies have even more of your info, what new risks are you signing up for?
What exactly is the age-estimation technology this bill depends on?
In a recent hearing, it was said that age estimation would be ongoing and behavior-based, using clicks, time on content, analytics, and AI to update age estimates.
Section 39-5-920 says platforms must use “reasonable means and reasonable efforts,” based on available technology and existing data, to estimate age. It also requires updates after use or when updating any demographic characteristic with analytics or AI.
Creepy, right? Are we really okay with an AI bot watching children online just to guess their age?
What happens when the estimate is wrong? What happens when an adult gets flagged as a child?
Could a system like this later be used to limit speech or expression?
At the hearing, some pointed out that this sets a precedent, allowing the government to decide what speech or online activity is “problematic” and regulate it. That should worry everyone in South Carolina. Actually, it should worry everyone in America.
How realistic is Section 39-5-980?
Here comes the private cause of action section, where Section 39-5-980 allows a child or parent to sue a covered social media platform and seek damages, emotional distress claims, attorney’s fees, and statutory damages for reckless or knowing violations.
Let’s be real. Do you honestly think Fred and Ethel are going to win these lawsuits?
They’d face billion-dollar companies with armies of lawyers and experts, plus every excuse available. The law also gives companies a defense if they can show attempted compliance. According to the bill, companies are not held liable if they can demonstrate they made reasonable efforts, using available technology and data, to comply with the law. A mega social media platform won’t struggle proving that.
Is this bill necessary?
A real problem doesn’t mean every government fix is good. South Carolina shouldn’t fight online harms with more surveillance, lawsuits, or government control.
If this bill passes, expect trouble. This law lets social media watch you, limit your speech, and invade your privacy. Isn't this the privacy infringement conservatives oppose?
Heed the following warnings, taken from the subcommittee hearing, as red flags.
Risks of treating speech, or metrics of speech, as “addictive” so that the government can regulate it.
A “like” is still a form of communication,
The “volume” or metric of communication may still be speech-related,
The bill seems to redefine certain speech as addictive behavior, and once that happens, the government has a new path to regulate expression by calling it something else.
Really, what we’re doing here is we’re taking speech, and we’re redefining that as an addictive behavior … and that concerns me.
What counts as “addictive” could change depending on who is in power or which Attorney General is in office.
This is a sleeper bill, and we need to push back on it.
ConservaTruth Recommendation: Oppose H. 4591.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal or professional advice. ConservaTruth assumes no liability for any actions taken based on this content. Readers are encouraged to review the bill text themselves. Read more.
Subscribe to ConservaTruth's Email Newsletter for curated insights on South Carolina's legislative activities and conservative viewpoints, delivered straight to your inbox! With vetted and easy-to-understand information, our newsletter empowers you to become an informed and engaged citizen, actively participating in safeguarding our cherished Constitutional values. Don’t miss out on crucial updates—join our community of informed conservatives today!
Comments