I read an article this morning that said social media companies are suing California over a new law that restricts use for kids under 16. The gist of the argument is that CA has passed a law that says social media companies have to block certain features like recommended content and autoplay for those under 16. In response, the social media companies are saying this violates their right to free speech, and goes against the Communications Decency act, which protects online platforms from being sued over content posted by third parties. I respectfully disagree with their position for the following reasons.
-The online platforms are not being sued. They are being regulated.
-The online platforms are not being asked to change or restrict the content of third-party speech. They are being asked to modify how that content is being shared with minors.
-The US has already determined that children do not enjoy civil rights in the same way as adults.
-The US has already set forth restrictions on certain activities among children, such as prohibiting smoking, alcohol consumption, and operating a motor vehicle.
-Tobacco companies were prohibited from using cartoon mascots, because it was shown to entice children into smoking.
In my opinion, these social media companies know full well that the best way to hook 'em for life is to get 'em started while they're young. Social media companies are concerned because they see this undermining their business model, and like most companies, they don't care about the downside of their product, just the money.
Contrary to what I've said above, I'm not making a value judgment here. In fact, I believe that parents should take a more active role in policing their kids' behavior, instead of crying "there oughtta be a law." My main point here is that I disagree with the merits of the argument, based on existing precedent.