R Street Institute Opposes Georgia’s SB 351 – Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act of 2024

Office of Governor Brian P. Kemp

206 Washington Street

Suite 203, State Capitol

Atlanta, GA 30334

April 8, 2024

Subject: Sen. Jason Anavitarte’s SB 351: “Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act of 2024”

Gov. Kemp,

My name is Marc Hyden. I am a Georgia resident and the director of state government affairs for the R Street Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public-policy research organization. Our mission is to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government in many areas, including the technology and innovation sector. This is why Senate Bill 351 is of special interest to us.

To begin with, I want to applaud Sen. Jason Anavitarte for his concerns over the impact of social media on youths and for taking action. While there are a host of benefits to social media, the science has shown that impressionable juveniles can face detrimental effects from the use of online platforms.^[1] These include exposure to inappropriate content, cyber-bullying, anxiety and even depression.

Requiring schools to guard against cyber-bullying and restricting access to social media on school devices, property and networks—as this bill does—is well within the government’s role. In fact, given that students attend school to learn and not play on social media, it is a completely reasonable response. Sen. Anavitarte obviously also understands that children may continue to use social media outside of school hours, and this bill would require that schools adopt curriculum to help them navigate the challenges of and cope with social media. I appreciate that.

Unfortunately, other portions of the bill raise serious concerns—most notably lines 634-673. According to the bill language, “No provider of a social media platform shall permit a minor to be an account holder unless such provider obtains the express consent of such minor’s parent or guardian” (lines 641-643 and 657-660). In order to enforce this, social media platforms would have to verify the identity and age of every single prospective user in order to use the platforms.

This seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster. As my colleague, Josh Withrow, previously wrote about a similar measure, “The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the majority of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, on similar grounds as would likely be the case for [this bill]. In that case, the majority held that making websites liable for verifying the age of all its users would place ‘an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech.’” ^[2] This is especially true given that optional content-filtering software already exists that parents can install on their children’s devices if they so wish, and indeed, there is no shortage of content filtering software readily available to parents.^[3] 

“Moreover,” Withrow remarked, “the ability of minors to access non-obscene content without parental consent has been upheld as a First Amendment right in itself, and that right carries through to internet services. Justice Antonin Scalia, in striking down a California law that required parental permission for minors to buy violent video games, noted that ‘whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, the basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment’s command, do not vary when a new and different medium for communication appears.’ Scalia continued: ‘[i]t does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent…’”^[4]

In addition to the constitutional questions, there are serious cyber-security concerns. If passed, social media giants would have to collect individuals’ personal information and proof of identification—not just for minors, but for every user to ensure that only non-minors have unfettered access to the internet. This might prove too tempting a target for hackers, and while this measure would require that online platforms delete such data, I would wager that hackers could find a way to exploit it.

According to Forbes, 84 percent people aged 18-29 and 81 percent of those aged 30 and 49 use at least one social media platform, which means that the overwhelming majority of these demographics would face increased cybersecurity risks.^[5] As it stands, roughly 1/3 of Americans have experienced some form of identity theft, but SB 351 would imperil many more Georgians.^[6]

Moreover, under this legislation, social media giants would need to verify the guardians of youths wishing to use social media—meaning they would be involved in very personal issues, like foster care, adoptions, divorces, etc. And this would also place guardians’ information at risk, even if they aren’t a social media user, as they prove that minors in question are their dependents.

Lawmakers have also disclosed concerns that certain social media companies may be sharing Americans’ personal information with foreign adversaries. If true, a measure like SB 351 would ensure that even more data could be shared with foreign governments who wish to do harm.^[7] 

In the end, Americans are incredibly uncomfortable with these measures, and understandably. “In a recent poll, the CGO asked Americans if they are ‘comfortable sharing a government identification document like a driver’s license with social media companies in order to verify age.’ The survey found that 2 out of 3 of Americans are not comfortable sharing their identification document with social media companies. 1 in 10 Americans were unsure.”^[8]

While I appreciate Sen. Anavitarte’s sincere concerns and efforts to help youths, lines 634-673 of this bill present some serious problems, including its possible unconstitutionality, impracticality, risk for fostering identity theft and unpopular nature. For those reasons, I respectfully request that Gov. Brian Kemp veto this legislation until the legislature crafts a bill that protects youths, constitutional rights and personal information.

Thank you,

Marc Hyden

Director, State Government Affairs

R Street Institute

[1] “Youth and social media: Benefits and risks of life online,” Medical News Today, Last Accessed April 3, 2024. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/youth-and-social-media.

[2] Josh Withrow, “In Opposition to SB 396, ‘The Social Media Safety Act,’” The R Street Institute, March 27, 2023. https://www.rstreet.org/outreach/in-opposition-to-sb-396-the-social-media-safety-act/.

[3] Sead Fadilpašić, “Best free web filter of 2024,” Tech Radar, February 23, 2024. https://www.techradar.com/best/best-free-web-filter.

[4] Josh Withrow, “In Opposition to SB 396, ‘The Social Media Safety Act,’” The R Street Institute, March 27, 2023. https://www.rstreet.org/outreach/in-opposition-to-sb-396-the-social-media-safety-act/.

[5] Belle Wong, J.D., “Top Social Media Statistics And Trends Of 2024,” Forbes, May 18, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/social-media-statistics/.

[6] “2024 Identity Theft Facts and Statistics,” Identity Theft, Last Accessed April 3, 2024. https://identitytheft.org/statistics/.

[7] George Wells, “TikTok Struggles to Protect U.S. Data From Its China Parent,” Wall Street Journal, January 30, 2024. https://www.wsj.com/tech/tiktok-pledged-to-protect-u-s-data-1-5-billion-later-its-still-struggling-cbccf203.

[8] Taylor Barkley, “Poll: Americans Don’t Want To Share Their Photo ID To Tweet,” The Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University, February 1, 2023. https://www.thecgo.org/benchmark/poll-americans-dont-want-to-share-their-photo-id-to-tweet/