New laws could fine social media companies $1 million for harm to a single child
The world's largest social media companies have been threatened with significant fines after a new California law has been put in place, as one child harmed by any of these platforms could cost them as much as $1 million.
Alongside these potential fines – which will be implemented if a social media company is found negligent of harming children in any way – the laws implemented by California Gov. Gavin Newsom also ban tech businesses from offering 'addictive feeds' to individuals under the age of 16, allow families to opt out of school-issued laptops, and force the operators behind AI chatbots to perform risk assessments before new models are launched.
As reported by The Washington Post, Newsom compared the lack of safeguarding measure within the technology world to unsafe cribs, chairs, and car seats, highlighting that "we've allowed technology to be handed to our children and never asked or expected it to be safe."
Newsom added that "it's a good day for our children, it's a good day for the state of California" after passing these laws, and they arrive after several major lawsuits have already put pressure on the leading social media companies in terms of child safety.
How have social media companies responded to the laws?
Meta is one of the few major social media companies to directly respond to Newsom's new laws, suggesting that they will have negative consequences for people who use platforms like Facebook or Instagram, as it restrictions regarding 'addictive feeds' hinder the ability to access enjoyable content.
Advert
"We believe that delivering a tailored experience is an important part of what makes Facebook and Instagram valuable for teens as they connect with family and friends and explore their interests — safely," explained Jim Cullinan, a spokesperson for Meta, in a new statement.
"Personalization is also how we deliver age-appropriate content for teens that is relevant to them — all with the proper guardrails in place," he continued.
While there is certainly merit in Cullinan's argument when it comes to serving age-appropriate content, some might argue that children are still exposed to potentially harmful content – such as controversial 'manosphere' creators like Andrew Tate or Sneako – on their feeds, and that the experience as a whole is harmful due to the innate addictiveness of the algorithmic design, regardless of what is actually being consumed.
What are other countries doing to prevent harm on social media?
Where California's new laws specifically target and punish social media companies for specific instances of harm that can be linked to associated platforms, nations like Australia and the United Kingdom have instead opted for blanked bans on social media for children under a certain age.
While the UK hasn't yet implemented its laws – with plans to make them a reality for under-16s in Spring 2027, alongside a 'curfew' for people between the ages of 16 and 18 – Australia has gone all the way with arguably mixed results.
One of the biggest criticisms of these policies is how they are linked to surveillance-like requirements for everyone, regardless of whether they are subject to the laws or not, as you now have to prove that you're over a certain age by submitting identification to these websites.
Alongside this, many are also worried that removing social media cuts off support and the ability to connect for teenagers, especially those who are potentially more vulnerable and could therefore be left more isolated once the bans have been implemented.