Comparing Approaches to Social Media Regulation: Restricting Access, Restricting Content, Warning Users, and Educating Users

As concerns over the impact of social media on minors grow, states are exploring different regulatory approaches to protect young users. These approaches fall into four main categories: restricting access, restricting content, warning users, and educating users. Each strategy seeks to mitigate the concerns associated with social media but varies in effectiveness, enforcement, and potential drawbacks.

1. Restricting Access: Age Verification Laws

Objective: Prevent minors from accessing social media websites or harmful content by enforcing age verification requirements and parental consent.

Legislation such as Arizona S.B. 1341 takes this approach by mandating stricter age verification for users.

Arizona S.B. 1341 focuses on commercial websites distributing harmful content, requiring them to verify users’ ages before granting access. While it prohibits the retention of identifying information, it allows the use of third-party services and transactional data, raising concerns about data security and privacy risks.

Potential Sponsor Arguments:

1. Prevents minors from accessing potentially harmful content before they engage with it.
2. Creates a legal obligation for websites to implement stronger verification processes.

Concerns:

1. Raises privacy issues, especially with third-party verification services.
2. May infringe on minors’ First Amendment rights by restricting their access to information and websites for free expression, potentially imposing unconstitutional barriers to their ability to communicate.
3. Can be difficult to enforce if minors circumvent restrictions (e.g., by using false credentials, VPNs, or parents’ accounts).

2. Restricting Content: Content Moderation Laws

Objective: Reduce exposure to harmful content by requiring websites to monitor, restrict, or remove material deemed inappropriate for minors.

Laws such as Mississippi S.B. 2436 take this approach, focusing specifically on content related to nicotine and tobacco use.

Mississippi S.B. 2436 mandates that social media websites implement policies to restrict minors’ access to content promoting nicotine or tobacco use. Websites must provide reporting mechanisms and evaluate content for removal based on risks such as false health claims, links to sales without age verification, and the potential for imitation by minors.

Potential Sponsor Arguments:

1. Targets harmful content directly rather than restricting access to entire websites.
2. Offers flexibility by allowing educational, documentary, scientific, and artistic content exemptions.

Concerns:

1. Many websites already enforce similar policies, making the law redundant for many.
2. May be more burdensome for new entrants than for established providers.
3. Content moderation directives can be used to remove content that is essential for health and safety.

3. Educating Users: Warning Label Laws

Objective: Inform users, particularly minors and their guardians, about the potential risks of social media use without directly restricting access or content.

Laws such as Oklahoma S.B. 693 adopt this strategy by requiring social media websites to display warnings about mental health risks.

Oklahoma S.B. 693 takes a stricter approach by requiring websites to display a warning message for 60 seconds before allowing users to access content. This daily, non-dismissible warning specifically highlights risks for children, teenagers, and young adults.

Potential Sponsor Arguments:

1. Preserves digital access while encouraging responsible usage.
2. Avoids privacy concerns associated with age verification and data retention.

Concerns:

1. Users may ignore warnings over time, reducing their effectiveness.
2. Undermines the benefits of social media, those benefits including social connection, information sharing, and civic engagement. 

4. Promoting Digital Citizenship: Media Literacy Education

Objective: Equip minors with critical thinking skills to navigate social media safely and responsibly rather than restricting access or content.

Legislation such as Missouri H.B. 116, the Media Literacy and Critical Thinking Act, aims to foster digital literacy among students.

Missouri H.B. 116 establishes a pilot program in selected school districts for the 2026-27 and 2027-28 school years. The program defines media literacy as the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and engage with different forms of media, including social media.

The program includes news content literacy, digital fluency, and cyber ethics, ensuring that students develop skills to recognize misinformation, avoid online risks, and engage responsibly.

Potential Sponsor Arguments:

1. Provides students with long-term skills to critically assess online content.
2. Avoids privacy concerns and access restrictions by focusing on education rather than enforcement.
3. Addresses concerns such as cybersafety, cybersecurity, and cyberbullying, which are not tackled by other regulatory approaches.
4. Meets the adolescent where they are by providing the mandatory education at their school. 
5. Allows for age appropriate customization of the curriculum. 

Concerns:

1. Requires time to implement and measure effectiveness.
2. Relies on schools and educators to properly execute the program.

Balancing Protection, Privacy, and Digital Preparedness

Each of these approaches addresses different aspects of social media regulation. Age verification laws aim to prevent minors from accessing harmful content but raise privacy and constitutional concerns. Content restriction laws regulate what minors can see, though they may be redundant for websites that already enforce similar policies. Warning label laws focus on educating users about social media risks, but their effectiveness relies on minors making responsible choices.

While each method has its merits, the most effective long-term solution is media-literacy education. This approach fosters digital fluency, news literacy, and cyber ethics among students. The pilot program aims to equip minors with the critical thinking skills needed to assess online content, recognize misinformation, and navigate digital risks responsibly. Unlike restrictive measures, education empowers young users without raising privacy concerns or limiting access, ensuring they develop lifelong skills to engage with social media safely even after they have become adults.

Granting internet access is similar to handing over car keys—while minors may not face physical danger, their online actions can have significant consequences. While measures like content moderation online may act as a speed limit, young drivers who are un-knowledgeable may exceed the speed limit and still create danger. Just as new drivers must complete drivers education and obtain a license, minors should be prepared for the complexities of the digital world. Structured media literacy programs in schools provide a strong foundation for responsible online behavior while offering age-appropriate guidance tailored to students’ developmental needs.