I am a father of six children and a long-term democratic. When I was heard about Massachusetts Senate Bill 30, the so-called “addictive feeds” which I interested in protecting our children online. A closer look reveals that the bill is the wrong way and can do more harm than good.
There are many good intentions of social media law in Massachusetts, in other states, and federal level. We should clearly what does this bill do. S.30 suggests the restriction of addictive feeds, “or personal content recommendations, for whomever not or cannot be detrimental to the social media. It can only be found in the Social media to cope with the blanks that can afford the blanks that can afford the blanks that can afford to reach the blanks.
Bill sponsors aim to protect children, but they do not consider the same recommendation systems that help teenagers find the support and community they cannot use. My own kids connect with what they are most interested in, and these same tools can help filter the harmful content I don’t like. For adolescents marked, including LGBTQ + teenagers, online connection to supporting communities literally saves.
The action is necessary in this issue, but we must consider our proposed solutions. A more extensive bill like this has outcomes for weak communities and small businesses. We can and should expand digital literacy and safety programs in our schools and invest more than mental health services. We can and should support the federal law that places parental equipment and secure age verification in the area without affecting privacy or access for adults.
Almost the same legislation in other states facing repeated constitutional challenges in the taxpayer’s long-term cases. Civil rights groups point out time and again that placing government bodies in charge of content limits, however positive intentions, risk keeping at first again. Do we want to spend the last state resources that defend a law that will eventually fall?
We need to fight for policies that strengthen families and expand opportunities for everyone in Massachusetts. S.30 is doing the opposite. It can hurt small businesses, make obstacles for immigrants, and eliminate tools that can help weak teenagers, while state resources of unavoidable challenges in the state.
Our children are worthy of true protection, not to make the law well with the headlines but creates real damage for communities greater. Let us tell our lawmakers to move past S.30 and focus on ways that help families grow in the digital age.
Joseph Kelly serves the Executive Committee of Massachusetts Democratic State Committee and Secretary of 2020 Massachusetts of Election College members. She lives in Hingham.
