Gov. Spencer Cox talks to journalists at the Capitol in Salt Lake City on the last night of the legislative session, Friday, March 1, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
Meta recently announced several new, default protections for Instagram accounts belonging to minors, but Utah Gov. Spencer Cox called the steps inadequate.
Cox helped spearhead the state’s attempt to enact into law similar, default restrictions on accounts belonging to minors and on Tuesday he gave credit to Meta.
“However, while these are positive steps, we believe they do not go far enough to ensure the safety and well-being of Utah kids online. We encourage Meta, and all social media platforms, to continue to innovate and implement even stronger protections for minors,” the governor said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Called “ Instagram Teen Accounts ,” the new policies make teen accounts private by default, so only their followers can interact with them. The same goes for messaging, tagging and mentioning.
Minor accounts will also be subjected to the strictest content restrictions — videos that show people fighting or promote cosmetic procedures, for example, will be blocked from their “explore” pages.
Meta’s anti-bullying feature, “Hidden Words,” will hide “offensive words and phrases” from comments and messages directed towards teens.
And a time limit reminder will send teens a message, instructing them to leave the app if they’ve used it for more than 60 minutes that day, with “sleep mode” muting notifications between 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
In response to Cox’s comments, a Meta spokesperson told Utah News Dispatch the company disagrees with his framing of the new policies, which they said will fundamentally change how teens and their parents interact with Instagram. Meta said the policies were crafted with input from parents — one of their biggest concerns was who their children interact with, which the new protections address.
The company has also called for legislation that will require parental consent for when teens under 16 years old download an app.
“Utah has always been at the forefront of protecting our children in the digital age, and we appreciate Meta for taking a step in the right direction with the announcement of teen accounts. Many of these new features mirror our recently passed laws, demonstrating a growing awareness of the responsibility that social media companies have towards their younger users,” Cox said.
Judge blocks Utah’s social media laws, writing they likely violate the First Amendment
Passed during the 2024 legislative session, SB194 sought to impose many of the same features that Meta announced on Tuesday — including limiting direct messages, visibility and sharing features to the user’s “friends.”
The law took things a step further, disabling features that lead to “excessive use,” like autoplay, push notifications and “perpetual scrolling.”
It would have also allowed parents or guardians to engage with their children’s accounts, granting them the ability to override the default settings imposed by the state. And, companies would be blocked from collecting and selling data tied to minor accounts.
Utah’s law hinged on a requirement that social media companies verify the ages of all users so they could identify accounts belonging to minors. That’s where Meta’s new policies fall short, state officials said on Tuesday.
“For these safety features to be truly effective, quality age assurance is an essential component. Through our ongoing investigations and litigation, we will continue to pressure social media companies to incorporate reliable age assurance processes and remove addictive features when engaging with minors,” said Margaret Busse, executive director of the Utah Department of Commerce.
In a lawsuit , the trade association NetChoice, which represents companies like Google, Meta and X, claimed Utah’s law violated the First and 14th amendments. Those same allegations were made in a similar lawsuit from several Utah-based activists and social media users, who also said the laws violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars states from interfering with trade across state lines.
Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Shelby sided in part with the groups , ruling that the laws likely violated the First Amendment. The restrictions were slated to take effect on Oct. 1, but Shelby granted a request for a preliminary injunction, pausing the law while the lawsuit plays out.
DONATE: SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST
Local News
Comments / 0