A coalition of 50 groups that advocate for human rights, LGBTQ+ people, civil liberties, racial justice and more gathered outside of the State House Wednesday to protest a social media ban passed by the House that they argue would invade people’s privacy and cut off kids from online support groups.
The advocates also released a letter signed by the organizations urging Gov. Maura Healey and the House to work with experts and stakeholders to make changes to the legislation.
Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, which hosted the press conference, said they agree with the legislation’s intent to protect minors, but disagree with some of the means.
“We are hoping to work with the governor’s team, the House and the Senate to not just oppose legislation that human rights groups have concerns about, but to work with them toward our shared goals of addressing the harm of these companies and doing it in a thoughtful, progressive way that actually is practical and makes sense,” Greer said.
In April, the Massachusetts House voted to ban children under the age of 14 from having social media accounts and require parental consent for 15- and 16-year-olds to use social media.
Healey followed up the bill with her own, which would automatically apply a default set of restrictions for minors’ social media accounts, including a two-hour-a-day limit and disabling features that encourage users to stay online, like auto-playing videos.
Both Healey’s and the House bill would require social media platforms to implement an age verification system.
In the letter, all 50 organizations emphasize that an age verification system would invade youth privacy and make them “less safe” while being required to “upload their government ID or submit to a facial recognition scan” to post online.
Tanya Neslusan, executive director of MassEquality, said age verification affects everyone, regardless of age.
“When we are in a position where a bill would enable a parent or guardian to seek out age verification data or request what was provided, aside from giving that data to an entity which could sell it to the government, we also put ourselves in a position where we put that child at risk,” said Neslusan.
Neslisan said sometimes, LGBTQ+ youth do not have affirming and accepting families, and this bill’s language opens those children up to being outed by their internet activity.
Last year, the Boston City Council introduced a resolution condemning age verification and censorship litigation, citing harm to the city’s LGBTQ+ youth, according to the letter.
“This data privacy issue, it’s not just a matter for LGBTQ+ youth. It is also a matter for people seeking abortion, for undocumented immigrants who are being targeted by the Trump administration,” said Rep. Mike Connolly, who joined advocates on Wednesday. “It is very important that we move forward on data privacy.”
Connolly, who represents Cambridge and Somerville, said he is struck by how many of his constituents are concerned about this bill.
“I heard probably once an hour from my constituents as I was out knocking doors saying, ‘Hey, I’m very concerned about data privacy. No, I don’t want to upload my driver’s license. I don’t want to upload my birth certificate to the internet,’” he said.
Greer said Fight for the Future has drafted a working proposal of an alternative bill that would require tech companies to put “good protections” on for everyone, eliminating the need to determine who is a minor and who isn’t.
“The difference between our bill and the House bill is that the House Bill would force companies to find out whether a user is a minor and exactly how old they are. It would also require them to find out who that kid’s parent is,” said Greer. “That is both impractical and would force parents to upload either a birth certificate or some other form of sensitive ID. Basically, our proposal is strong protections for all users.”
