Maryland Democrats propose UK-style social media rules for teenagers
Christopher Hutton
Video Embed
Maryland lawmakers proposed legislation requiring social media platforms to confirm teenagers’ ages before allowing them onto the platform, making it the latest state to try to force Big Tech companies to change their privacy practices dramatically.
The Maryland Age-Appropriate Design Code Act was introduced on Monday by Del. Jared Solomon and state Sen. Benjamin Kramer, both Democrats, in an attempt to update the state’s privacy laws based on California’s recently passed social media legislation, which in turn was inspired by a new law in the United Kingdom. The rules would limit companies’ ability to gather data on children and force them to activate their highest privacy features for younger users.
DISINFORMATION INC: GOP SLAMS GOVERNMENT FOR FUNDING GROUP BLACKLISTING CONSERVATIVE NEWS
“Businesses that develop and provide online services that children are likely to access should consider the best interests of children when designing, developing and providing those online products,” the bill text reads. “If a conflict arises between commercial interests and the best interests of children, companies that develop online products likely to be accessed by children shall give priority to the privacy, safety, and well-being of children over those commercial interests.”
Maryland’s bill is the sixth piece of legislation introduced at the state level modeled on the U.K.’s privacy laws in hopes of limiting Big Tech’s access to younger users. California passed similar legisation, while state lawmakers in New Mexico, Oregon, New York, and New Jersey have submitted versions for consideration. The California law arose after a whistleblower detailed the ways that Facebook used its algorithm to target teenagers.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Tech advocacy groups have slammed similar bills, claiming that forcing the platforms to gather personal information for verification purposes creates a security risk. They also allege that they violate the First Amendment and infringe on the websites’ editorial rights.