Social Media & The LGBTQ+ Community

[Editorial]

There is a problem brewing on social media. Controlling what minors can view online is becoming another battleground. Conservatives want to block children from visiting LGBTQ+ websites, much like they have pushed to ban books with LGBTQ+ topics.

You all have probably seen the news, governments around the world are cracking down on what minors can view. But that raises questions! 

All this "Age Verification" bills could be bypassed be a ten year old! Fair Play wrote;

Our legal analysis of the Kids Online Safety Act

by Haley Hinkle, Fairplay Policy Counsel

Fairplay has been a vocal champion of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) because of the many ways the bill will create a safer, less manipulative internet for kids and teens. Critics have highlighted two primary concerns with the bill: That it enables widespread censorship, and that it will lead to age verification and identification checks across the internet. Today, we wanted to share our analysis of these issues and explain why we believe both outcomes are highly unlikely.

Censorship

Critics of KOSA have argued that the bill’s Duty of Care will lead to widespread content censorship online, including censorship of content from and about the LGBTQ+ community. These critics contend that in order to comply with KOSA and avoid lawsuits from state attorneys general, companies will remove entire categories of content from their platforms. One critic has gone so far as to claim, “If KOSA passes, all the benefits of accurate health information, social networking, community, and access to help in a questioning or crisis situation will be eliminated for all LGBTQ youth.”1

Contrary to such hyperbolic claims, the text of the bill does not create a basis for content censorship, as we have previously outlined.2 The Duty of Care in Section 3 requires covered platforms to examine the impact of the design and operation of any product, service, or feature on specific, enumerated harms. Covered platforms are required to take reasonable measures to prevent and mitigate those harms. The listed harms are clearly defined and connected to the demonstrated harms children and teens face online every day. Section 3 also includes a limiting principle that says nothing in the Duty of Care shall be construed to prevent “any minor from deliberately and independently searching for, or specifically requesting, content.” The bill text is clear: a platform’s obligations under the Duty of Care are not about any individual piece of content’s existence or removal.

Critics have not provided a basis for their assertion that platforms will comply with KOSA’s Duty of Care requirements by engaging in widespread censorship. There are countless examples of design choices and product offerings that would be subject to scrutiny under KOSA. Products such as Snapchat and Meta’s AI chatbots, which target young users in order to maximize engagement,3 and the expansion of Meta’s Horizon Worlds VR to teenagers, and now, preteens4 would have to be assessed for their potential impact on kids and teens before they are launched and harm young users. Further, Big Tech would be required to assess the impact of design features such as endless scroll and autoplay as well as content recommendation algorithms and to mitigate the impact of those features on the enumerated harms.5 [For the footnotes see the article]

That is what I wonder about, what will happen to us the trans community? When I was growing up all I could find an trans stuff. When I leaned the word "Transsexual" I looked it in the libraries' card files. The only thing that I could find was "pervert" and "mental disorder" Will we going back to that?

The ACLU writes,

As jazz music, which began in Black communities, spread across the nation in the 1920s, more than 60 cities adopted rules limiting or outright banning it in dancehalls. Clergy and civic reformers claimed its rhythms promoted sexual freedom and interracial dancing among the youth.

Jazz was just the beginning. In the 1950s, the government set up investigations into crime, horror, and excess violence in comic books, calling on the industry to introduce rating systems and encouraging a ban on extreme violence. A few years later, Santa Cruz police shut down a dance for “highly suggestive, stimulating and tantalizing motions.” The kids were dancing to rock ‘n’ roll, which the city ultimately banned along with “frenzied forms.”

[...]

Legislatures around the country are responding to growing concerns about the potential harms of social media for children and teenagers. They’ve introduced bills with a hodgepodge of strategies to target these potential harms, including requiring people to verify their age before using social media, getting verified parental consent for minors, and mandating social media platforms to block material that the government deems harmful for kids. But whether it’s banning jazz or content on social media, broad attempts to regulate speech fail to protect children and violate the First Amendment in the process.

But still they do it! Why? Because they know that the other side will say that they are anti-children, So instead they will pass feel good legislation... see we are doing something!

My take on all of this is, the person who is paying for the phones gets to rule what their children can access! Not the government! Simple when you get internet or a phone you check off when you can access. The rallying cry for the Republican's is "Parental Rights" but they also have "Parental Duties!" So why does the Republicans want impose this on everyone and not the parents?

All you need when you get internet or a phone...

• ✓ I want this phone to block websites with adult material
• ✓ I want this phone to block social media
• ✓ I want this phone to allow parent monitoring

That is what they need! Not some fancy laws, not laws where right-wing bigots can can block anything LGBTQ+

[/Editorial]