Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has signed a bill into law that bans social media accounts for children under 14 and requires parental permission for 14- and 15-year-olds. The new legislation is one of the most restrictive measures enacted by any state in the US, effectively barring residents under the age of 14 from holding accounts on services like TikTok and Instagram.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has signed a bill into law that bans social media accounts for children under 14 and requires parental permission for 14- and 15-year-olds. The new legislation is one of the most restrictive measures enacted by any state in the US, effectively barring residents under the age of 14 from holding accounts on services like TikTok and Instagram.
The statute both prohibits certain social networks from giving accounts to children under 14 and requires the services to terminate accounts that a platform knew or believed belonged to underage users. It also requires the platforms to obtain a parent's permission before giving accounts to 14- and 15-year-olds.
The new Florida measure is almost certain to face constitutional challenges over young people's rights to freely seek information and companies’ rights to distribute information.
Accuracy
Several states have considered similar legislation. In Arkansas, a federal judge in August blocked enforcement of a law that required parental consent for minors to create new social media accounts.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Florida has become the first state to effectively bar residents under the age of 14 from holding accounts on services like TikTok and Instagram. However, this statement is false as other states have already enacted similar laws such as California's law which requires certain social networks and video game apps to turn on the highest privacy settings by default for minors and turn off by default certain features, like auto-playing videos, for those users.
The author claims that Florida has become the first state to effectively bar residents under the age of 14 from holding accounts on services like TikTok and Instagram. However, this statement is false as other states have already enacted similar laws such as California's law which requires certain social networks and video game apps to turn on the highest privacy settings by default for minors and turn off by default certain features, like auto-playing videos, for those users.
The author claims that Florida has one of the more restrictive measures that a state has enacted so far in an escalating nationwide push to insulate young people from potential mental health and safety risks on social media platforms. However, this statement is false as other states have already enacted similar laws such as California's law which requires certain social networks and video game apps to turn on the highest privacy settings by default for minors and turn off by default certain features, like auto-playing videos, for those users.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the bill and hailed it as a measure to protect young people from potential mental health and safety risks on social media platforms. However, this statement does not provide any evidence or data to support this claim. Secondly, the article contains inflammatory rhetoric by stating that being buried in devices all day long is not the best way to grow up. This statement is subjective and lacks objective evidence. Thirdly, there are several examples of dichotomous depictions throughout the article such as
The new Florida law also requires apps like TikTok and Snapchat to obtain a parent's consent before giving accounts to 14- and 15-year-olds.
<br>It also requires the platforms to obtain a parent’s permission before giving accounts to 14- and 15-year olds. <br>
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the new Florida law that restricts social media accounts for children under 14. The author uses language such as 'first state to effectively bar residents' and 'one of the more restrictive measures'. They also quote Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has a political agenda in passing this bill.
The article describes the new Florida law as one of the most restrictive measures that a state has enacted to insulate young people from safety risks on social media platforms.
Ron DeSantis signed a law into law that bans social media accounts for children under 14 and requires parental permission for 14- and 15-year-olds. The bill takes effect on January 1st.
Supporters hope the bill will withstand legal challenges because it bans social media formats based on addictive features such as notification alerts and autoplay videos rather than content.
Opponents argue it is unconstitutional and government should not interfere with decisions parents make with their children.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that the bill signed by Ron DeSantis will take effect on January 1st when it has not yet been passed into law. Secondly, the author quotes Paul Renner stating that social media companies will sue after this bill is signed but there is no evidence to suggest this and it's unclear if they have any legal grounds for such a lawsuit. Thirdly, the article claims that several states have considered similar legislation when in fact only one state has passed a law with similar restrictions on minors using social media.
Paul Renner stated that social media companies will sue after this bill is signed
The bill signed by Ron DeSantis will take effect on January 1st
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority when he quotes Renner saying that children under the age of 14 do not have the ability to know they are being sucked into addictive technologies and see harm. This is a false statement as research has shown that young children can understand complex concepts such as addiction and its effects on mental health. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when he quotes Renner saying that social media companies will sue the state after this law is signed, implying that they are doing something wrong. This is a false statement as social media platforms have been criticized for their addictive features and negative effects on mental health, but it does not mean they should be banned entirely. The author also uses an informal fallacy when he quotes Renner saying that the law will beat social media companies and that they will never stop trying to challenge it. This is a false statement as there are many legal challenges to laws restricting free speech rights, and these challenges often succeed in court.
The author uses an appeal to authority when he quotes Renner saying that children under the age of 14 do not have the ability to know they are being sucked into addictive technologies and see harm. This is a false statement as research has shown that young children can understand complex concepts such as addiction and its effects on mental health.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when he quotes Renner saying that social media companies will sue the state after this law is signed, implying that they are doing something wrong. This is a false statement as social media platforms have been criticized for their addictive features and negative effects on mental health, but it does not mean they should be banned entirely.
The author uses an informal fallacy when he quotes Renner saying that the law will beat social media companies and that they will never stop trying to challenge it. This is a false statement as there are many legal challenges to laws restricting free speech rights, and these challenges often succeed in court.
Bias
(80%)
The article contains a statement from the Florida governor that implies he believes minors are not capable of making their own decisions regarding social media use. This is an example of paternalistic bias.
> The bill DeSantis vetoed would have banned minors under 16 from popular social media platforms regardless of parental consent.
A federal judge extended a block on enforcement Monday of an Ohio law that would require children under 16 to get parental consent to use social media apps as a legal challenge proceeds.
The Social Media Parental Notification Act was part of an $86.1 billion state budget bill that Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law in July.
NetChoice is a trade group representing TikTok, Snapchat, Meta and other major tech companies.
Accuracy
Florida has enacted a strict social media bill that is likely to upend the lives of many young people.
Ron DeSantis signed a law into law that bans social media accounts for children under 14 and requires parental permission for 14- and 15-year-olds. The bill takes effect on January 1st.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that a federal judge extended a block on enforcement of an Ohio law limiting kids' use of social media during litigation when in fact the judge granted a preliminary injunction preventing the law from taking effect while a lawsuit filed earlier this month by NetChoice winds its way through court.
The author states that the Social Media Parental Notification Act was part of an $86.1 billion state budget bill signed into law in July, when in fact it was not included in the final version of the bill.
The article claims that 'a federal judge extended a block on enforcement Monday of an Ohio law' but it is actually stating that 'U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley granted a preliminary injunction'
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the plaintiff NetChoice in their legal challenge against an Ohio law that would require children under 16 to get parental consent to use social media apps. The author uses language such as 'overly broad', 'vague' and 'an unconstitutional impediment to free speech' when describing the law, which implies a negative view of it without providing any evidence or context. Additionally, the article quotes NetChoice extensively while only briefly mentioning the opposing views of Governor Mike DeWine and Lt. Gov Jon Husted.
The author uses language such as 'overly broad', 'vague' and 'an unconstitutional impediment to free speech' when describing the law, which implies a negative view of it without providing any evidence or context.
Arkansas's new law was set to take effect Friday, but has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge
The requirement violated the constitutional rights of users and arbitrarily singled out types of speech that would be restricted
Brooks ruled that age-gating social media platforms for adults and minors does not appear to be an effective approach when it is the content on particular platforms that is driving state's true concerns
Accuracy
Several states have considered similar legislation. In Arkansas, a federal judge in August blocked enforcement of a law that required parental consent for minors to create new social media accounts.
Supporters hope the bill will withstand legal challenges because it bans social media formats based on addictive features such as notification alerts and autoplay videos rather than content.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the law would have required parental consent for minors to create new social media accounts. However, this statement is misleading because the law only applied to social media platforms that generate more than $100 million in annual revenue and did not apply to certain platforms such as LinkedIn, Google and YouTube. Secondly, the article quotes Sarah Huckabee Sanders stating that one of her concerns was the effect of social media on teen mental health. However, this statement is also misleading because there is no evidence linking social media use to increased depression, loneliness or anxiety in teens. Finally, the article states that NetChoice had requested a preliminary injunction against the law and that U.S District Judge Timothy L Brooks granted it. This statement implies that NetChoice was successful in its challenge to the constitutionality of the Arkansas law when in fact, there is no mention of any evidence presented by NetChoice to support this claim.
The article quotes Sarah Huckabee Sanders stating that one of her concerns was the effect of social media on teen mental health. However, this statement is also misleading because there is no evidence linking social media use to increased depression, loneliness or anxiety in teens.
The article states that the law would have required parental consent for minors to create new social media accounts. However, this statement is misleading because the law only applied to social media platforms that generate more than $100 million in annual revenue and did not apply to certain platforms such as LinkedIn, Google and YouTube.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of various politicians and industry leaders without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. Additionally, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either parents have complete control over their children's social media accounts or they do not have any control at all. This oversimplifies a complex issue and ignores other potential solutions that may be more effective in protecting young people online.
The author cites the opinions of various politicians and industry leaders without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims.
