Tag: Facebook

Regulating the Scroll: How Lawmakers Are Redefining Social Media for Minors

In today’s digital world, the question is no longer if minors use social media but how they use it. 

Social media platforms don’t just host young users, they shape their experiences through algorithmic feeds and “addictive” design features that keep kids scrolling long after bedtime. As the mental health toll becomes increasingly clear, lawmakers are stepping in to limit how much control these platforms have over young minds.

What is an “addictive” feed and why target it? 

Algorithms don’t just show content, they promote it. By tracking what users click, watch, or like, these feeds are designed to keep attention flowing. For minors, that means endless scrolling and constant engagement which typically is at the expense of sleep, focus, and self-esteem.

Under New York’s Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act, lawmakers found that:

 “social media companies have created feeds designed to keep minors scrolling for dangerously long periods of time.”

The Act defines an “addictive feed” as one that recommends or prioritizes content based on data linked to the user or their device.

The harms aren’t hypothetical. Studies link heavy social media use among teens with higher rates of depression, anxiety, and sleep disruption. Platforms often push notifications late at night or during school hours. Times when young users are most vulnerable. 

Features like autoplay, for you page, endless “you may also like” suggestions, and quick likes or comments can trap kids in an endless scroll. What begins as fun and harmless entertainment soon becomes a routine they struggle to escape.                              

 

Key Developments in Legislation 

It’s no surprise that minors exposure to social media algorithms sits at the center of today’s policy debates. Over the past two years, state and federal lawmakers have introduced laws seeking to rein in the “addictive” design features of online platforms. While many of these measures face ongoing rule making or constitutional challenges, together they signal a national shift toward stronger regulations of social media’s impact on youth. 

Let’s take a closer look at some of the major legal developments shaping this issue.

New York’s SAFE for Kids Act

New York’s Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act represents one of the nation’s most ambitious efforts to regulate algorithmic feeds. The law prohibits platforms from providing “addictive feeds” to users under 18 unless the platform obtains verifiable parental consent or reasonably determines that the user is not a minor. It also bans push notifications and advertisements tied to those feeds between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. unless parents explicitly consent. The rule making process remains ongoing, and enforcement will likely begin once these standards are finalized.

The Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA)

At the federal level, the Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA) seeks to create national baselines for youth protections online. Reintroduced to Congress, the bill would:

  • Ban social media accounts for children under 13.
  • Prohibit algorithmic recommendation systems for users under 17.
  • Restrict social media access in schools during instructional hours.

Supporters argue the bill is necessary to counteract the addictive nature of social media design. Critics, including digital rights advocates, question whether such sweeping restrictions could survive First Amendment scrutiny or prove enforceable at scale. 

KOSMA remains pending in Congress but continues to shape the national conversation about youth and online safety.

California’s SB 976 

California’s Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act (SB 976) reflects a growing trend of regulating design features rather than content. The law requires platforms to:

  • Obtain parental consent before delivering addictive feeds to minors.
  • Mute notifications for minors between midnight and 6 a.m. and during school hours unless parents opt in.

The statute is currently under legal challenge for potential First Amendment violations, however, the Ninth Circuit allowed enforcement of key provisions to proceed suggesting that narrowly tailored design regulations aimed at protecting minors may survive early constitutional scrutiny.

Other State Efforts

Other states are following suit. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), at least 13 states have passed or proposed laws requiring age verification, parental consent, or restrictions on algorithmic recommendations for minors. Mississippi’s HB 1126, for example, requires both age verification and parental consent, and the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the law to remain in effect while litigation continues. 

Final Thoughts

We are at a pivotal moment. The era when children’s digital consumption went largely unregulated is coming to an end. The question now isn’t if  regulation is on the horizon, it’s how it will take shape, and whether it can strike the right balance between safety, free expression, and innovation.

As lawmakers, parents, and platforms navigate this evolving landscape, one challenge remains constant: ensuring that efforts to protect minors from harmful algorithmic design do not come at the expense of their ability to connect, learn, and express themselves online.

What do you think is the right balance between protecting minors from harmful algorithmic exposure and preserving their access to social media as a space for connection and expression?

New York is Protecting Your Privacy

TAKING A STANCE ON DATA PRIVACY LAW

The digital age has brought with it unprecedented complexity surrounding personal data and the need for comprehensive data legislation. Recognizing this gap in legislative protection, New York has introduced the New York Privacy Act (NYPA), and the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) For Kids Act, two comprehensive initiatives designed to better document and safeguard personal data from the consumer side of data collection transactions. New York is taking a stand to protect consumers and children from the harms of data harvesting.

Currently under consideration in the Standing Committee on Consumer Affairs And Protection, chaired by Assemblywoman Nily Rozic, the New York Privacy Act was introduced as “An Act to amend the general business law, in relation to the management and oversight of personal data.” The NYPA was sponsored by State Senator Kevin Thomas and closely resembles the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which was finalized in 2019. In passing the NYPA, New York would become just the 12th state to adopt a comprehensive data privacy law protecting state residents.

DOING IT FOR THE DOLLAR

Companies buy and sell millions of user’s sensitive personal data in the pursuit of boosting profits. By purchasing personal user data from social media sites, web browsers, and other applications, advertisement companies can predict and drive trends that will increase product sales among different target groups.

Social media companies are notorious for selling user data to data collection companies, things such as your: name, phone number, payment information, email address, stored videos and photos, photo and file metadata, IP address, networks and connections, messages, videos watched, advertisement interactions, and sensor data, as well as time, frequency, and duration of activity on the site. The NYPA targets businesses like these by regulating legal persons that conduct business in the state of New York, or who produce products and services aimed at residents of New York. The entity that stands to be regulated must:

  • (a) have annual gross revenue of twenty-five million dollars or more;
  • (b) control or process personal data of fifty thousand consumers or more;
  • or (c) derive over fifty percent of gross revenue from the sale of personal data.

The NYPA does more for residents of New York because it places the consumer first, as the Act is not restricted to regulating businesses operating within New York but encompasses every resident of New York State who may be subject to targeted data collection, an immense step forward in giving consumers control over their digital footprint.

MORE RIGHTS, LESS FRIGHT

The NYPA works by granting all New Yorkers additional rights regarding how their data is maintained by controllers to which the Act applies. The comprehensive rights granted to New York consumers include the right to notice, opt out, consent, portability, correct, and delete personal information. The right to notice requires each controller provide a conspicuous and readily available notice statement describing the consumer’s rights, indicating the categories of personal data the controller will be collecting, where its collected from, and what it may be used for. The right to opt out includes allowing for consumers to opt out of processing their personal data for the purposes of targeted advertising, the sale of their personal data, and for profiling purposes. This gives the consumer an advantage when browsing sites and using apps, as they will be duly informed of exactly what information they are giving up when online.

While all the rights included in the NYPA are groundbreaking for the New York consumer, the right to consent to sensitive data collection and the right to delete data cannot be understated. The right to consent requires controllers to conspicuously ask for express consent to collect sensitive personal data. It also contains a zero-discrimination clause to protect consumers who do not give controllers express consent to use their personal data. The right to delete requires controllers to delete any or all of a consumer’s personal data upon request, demanding controllers delete said data within 45 days of receiving the request. These two clauses alone can do more for New Yorker’s digital privacy rights than ever before, allowing for complete control over who may access and keep sensitive personal data.

BUILDING A SAFER FUTURE

Following the early success of the NYPA, New York announced their comprehensive plan to better protect children from the harms of social media algorithms, which are some of the main drivers of personal data collection. Governor Kathy Hochul, State Senator Andrew Gounardes, and Assemblywoman Nily Rozic recently proposed the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) For Kids Act, directly targeting social media sites and their algorithms. It has long been suspected that social media usage contributes to worsening mental health conditions in the United States, especially among youths. The SAFE For Kids Act seeks to require parental consent for children to have access to social media feeds that use algorithms to boost usage.

On top of selling user data, social media sites like Facebook, YouTube, and X/Twitter also use carefully constructed algorithms to push content that the user has expressed interest in, usually based on the profiles they click on or the posts they ‘like’. Social media sites feed user data to algorithms they’ve designed to promote content that will keep the user engaged for longer, which exposes the user to more advertisements and produces more revenue.

Children, however, are particularly susceptible to these algorithms, and depending on the posts they view, can be exposed to harmful images or content that can have serious consequences for their mental health. Social media algorithms can show children things they are not meant to see, regardless of their naiveté and blind trust, traits that are not exactly cohesive with internet use. Distressing posts or controversial images could be plastered across children’s feeds if the algorithm determines it would drive better engagement by putting them there. Under the SAFE For Kids Act, without parental consent, children on social media sites would see their feed in chronological order, and only see posts from users they ‘follow’ on the platform. This change would completely alter the way platforms treat accounts associated with children, ensuring they are not exposed to content they don’t seek out themselves. This legislation would build upon the foundations established by the NYPA, opening the door to even further regulations that could increase protections for the average consumer and more importantly, for the average child online.

New Yorkers: If you have ever spent time on the internet, your personal data is out there, but now you have the power to protect it.

THE SCHEME BEHIND AN ILLEGAL STREAM

FOLLOW THE STREAM TOWARDS A FELONY

The Protecting Lawful Streaming Act makes it a felony to engage in large-scale streaming of copyright material. The introduction of this law took place on December 10th, 2020. The law pertains to the increased concern surrounding live audio and video streaming in recent years. Specifically, such streaming has transformed society and become one of the most influential ways society chooses to enjoy various forms of content. Yet, the growth of legitimate streaming services has continuously been accompanied and disturbed by unlawful streaming of copyright materials. Initially, the illegal streaming of copyright material was only a misdemeanor until the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act became a part of America’s newest addition to the law.

Under the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act, a person must act:

  1. Willfully.
  2. For purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
  3. Offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service.

ALL FOR ONE, ONE FOR ALL

The law’s enactment incentivizes those who indulge in hosting illegal streams subjects them to severe criminal penalties. Accordingly, anyone who hosts an illegal stream that not only infringes upon copyright material but also obtains an economic benefit will now face felony charges. Many fail to recognize that while the individual responsible for hosting the illegal stream faces criminal charges, any individual who merely partakes in viewing this infringement does not technically violate any criminal law. Therefore, illegal streams that host hundreds and even thousands of viewers allow for no criminal action to be taken or even threatened to all these spectators. Instead, the focus is entirely on the host of this illegal stream.

PLATFORMS ENGINEERING IS PERFECTLY IMPERFECT

The question then becomes, what does social media do with illegal streaming? For starters, social media platforms serve as one of, if not the most, influential ways illegal streams reach society. Social media platform designs focus on spreading information. They not only spread information but essentially take information and provide the capability to have it worldwide within seconds. As such, these platform’s engineering do precisely what illegal streaming hosts want. That is to expose these streams to millions of individuals who may indulge and use copyright material for their benefit. Social media’s capabilities of utilizing hashtags, likes, shares, and other methods of expansion through social media allow hosts to capitalize on these platform’s designs to take advantage for their own personal and financial gain.

NOT MY MESS, NOT MY PROBLEM

Social media platforms are not liable for copyright material exposure on their platforms. According to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the only requirement is that these platforms must take prompt action when contacted by the rights holders. However, the statistics have shown thus far that social media platforms fail to take the initiative and are generally unwilling to address this ongoing concern. The argument on behalf of social media platforms is that the duty is not on their behalf but on the rights holders to report an infringement. With this belief, social media platforms could take a more significant initiative to address this concern of illegal streaming. While social media platforms have at least some implementations to help prevent infringement of owner’s work, the system is flawed, with many unresolved areas of concern. Current measures in place by themselves fail to provide reassurance that they can protect the content of the actual owner from being exploited for the financial benefit of illegal streaming hosts around the world. 

MORE MONEY, MORE PROBLEMS

The question then becomes, how many illegal streaming services impact people? Major entertainment networks such as the NFL, NBA, and UFC are just a few examples of illegal streaming threatening their businesses’ most critical revenue stream. That being the television viewership. Not only this but even movie and non-sport television programs are reported to have lost billions of dollars to the hands of illegal streaming. Thus, by enacting the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act, the goal is to deter harmful criminal activity and simultaneously protect the rights of creators and copyright owners.

Furthermore, the individual people would least expect to be harmed by illegal streaming is also in jeopardy. That being themselves! Illegal streams cause various risks of malicious software that can infect one’s device. This exposure puts individuals’ personal information at risk. It is subject to several casualties, such as identity fraud, financial loss, and permanent damage to devices that watch these illegal streaming services. 

WHAT’S MINE IS YOURS

Society must recognize and address how individuals can counteract illegal streaming legally yet unfairly. For instance, an individual who legally purchases a pay-per-view event and then live streams this on their social media for others to also spectate. Someone can lawfully buy the stream and not be subject to being host to an illegal stream. Yet, the same issue arises. The owners of this content are stuck with no resolution and lose out on potential revenue. Rather than these individuals all purchasing the content for themselves, one is used as a sacrifice while the others reap the same benefit without costing a dime. The same scenario can arise where individuals gather in one home to watch a pay-per-view or a movie on demand. This conduct is not illegal, but it negates the potential revenue these industries may obtain. Such a solution was, is, and consistently will be recognized as legal activity.

AN ISSUE, BUT NOT AN ISSUE WORTH SOLVING

Even streaming platforms like Netflix fail to take any measures regarding not necessarily illegally streaming its content but sharing passwords for one account. Although such conduct can be subject to civil liability in a breach of its contractual terms or even criminal liability if fraud is determined, these platforms fail to take proper measures against this behavior. Ultimately, moving forward on these actions would be too costly and can result in losing viewership through this sort of conduct.

Through these findings, it’s clear that illegal streaming has and continues to take advantage of the actual copyright owners of this material. The Protecting Lawful Streaming Act was society’s most recent attempt to minimize this ongoing issue through an effort to increase the criminal penalty and deter such conduct. Yet, based on the inability to identify and diminish these illegal streams on social media, many continue to get away with this behavior daily. The legal loopholes discussed above prove that entertainment industries may never see the revenue stream they anticipate. Only time will tell how society responds to this predicament and whether some law will address it in the foreseeable future. If the law were to hold higher standards for social media platforms to take accountability for this conduct, would it make a difference? Even so, would the minimization of social media’s influence on the spread of illegal streams even have a lasting impact? 

Destroying Defamation

The explosion of Fake News spread among social media sites is destroying a plaintiff’s ability to succeed in a defamation action. The recent proliferation of rushed journalism, online conspiracy theories, and the belief that most stories are, in fact, “Fake News” have created a desert of veracity. Widespread public skepticism about even the most mainstream social media reporting means plaintiffs need help convincing jurors that third parties believed any reported statement to be true. Such proof is necessary for a plaintiff to prove the elements of defamation.

Fake News Today

Fake News is any journalistic story that knowingly and intentionallyincludes untrue factual statements. Today, many speak of Fake News as a noun. There is no shortage of examples of Fake News and its impact.

      • Pizzagate: During the 2016 Presidential Election, Edgar Madison Welch, 28, read a story on (then) Facebook that Hilary Clinton was running a child trafficking ring out of the basement of a pizzeria. Welch, a self-described vigilante, shot open a locked door of the pizzeria with his AR-15.
      • A study by three MIT scholars found that false news stories spread faster on Twitter than true stories, with the former being 70% more likely to be retweeted than the latter.
      • During the defamation trial of Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, a considerable number of “Fake News” reports circulated across social media platforms, particularly TikTok, Twitter, and YouTube, attacking Ms. Heard at a disproportionality more significant rate than Mr. Depp.

 

What is Defamation?

To establish defamation, a plaintiff must show the defendant published a false assertion of fact that damages the plaintiff’s reputation. Hyperbolic language or other indications that a statement was not meant to be taken seriously are not actionable. Today’s understanding that everything on the Internet is susceptible to manipulation destroys defamation.

Because the factuality of a statement is a question of law, a plaintiff must first convince a judge that the offending statement is fact and not opinion. Courts often find that Internet and social media statements are hyperbole or opinion. If a plaintiff succeeds in persuading the judge, then the issue of whether the statement defamed the plaintiff heads to the jury. A jury faced with defamation must determine whether the statement of fact harmed the defendant’s reputation or livelihood to the extent that it caused the plaintiff to incur damages. The prevalence of Fake News creates another layer of difficulty for the Internet plaintiff, who must convince the jury that the statement was true.

Defamation’s Slow and Steady Erosion

Since the 1960s, the judiciary has limited plaintiffs’ ability to succeed in defamation claims. The decisions in Sullivan v. New York Times and Gertz increased the difficulty for public figures, and those with limited public figure status, to succeed by requiring them to prove actual malice against a defendant, a standard higher than the mere negligence standard allowed for individuals who are not of community interest.

The rise of Internet use, mainly social media, presents plaintiffs with yet another hurdle. Plaintiffs can only succeed if the challenged statement is fact, not opinion. However, judges find that statements made on the Internet are opinions and not points. The combined effect of Supreme Court limitations on proof and the increased belief that social media posts are mostly opinions has limited the plaintiff’s ability to succeed in a defamation claim.

Destroying Defamation

If the Supreme Court and social media have eroded defamation, Fake News has destroyed it. Today, convincing a jury that a false statement purporting to be fact has defamed a plaintiff is difficult given the dual issues of society’s objective mistrust of the media and the understanding that information on the Internet is generally opinion, not fact. Fake News sows confusion and makes it almost impossible for jurors to believe any statement has the credibility necessary to cause harm.

To be clear, in some instances, fake News is so intolerable that a jury will find for the plaintiffs. A Connecticut jury found conspiracy theorist Alex Jones liable for defamation based on his assertion that the government had faked the Sandy Hook shootings.

But often, plaintiffs are unsuccessful where the challenged language is conflated with untruths. Fox News successfully defended itself against a lawsuit claiming that it had aired false and deceptive content about the coronavirus, even though its reporting was, in fact, untrue.

Similarly, a federal judge dismissed a defamation case against Fox News for Tucker Carlson’s report that the plaintiff had extorted then-President Donald Trump. In reaching its conclusion, the judge observed that Carlson’s comments were rhetorical hyperbole and that the reasonable viewer “‘arrive[s] with the appropriate amount of skepticism.”‘ Reports of media success in defending against defamation claims further fuel media mistrust.

The current polarization caused by identity politics is furthering the tendency for Americans to mistrust the media. Sarah Palin announced that the goal of her recent defamation case against The New York Times was to reveal that the “lamestream media” publishes “fake news.”

If jurors believe that no reasonable person could credit a challenged statement as accurate, they cannot find that the statement the plaintiff asserts is defamatory caused harm. An essential element of defamation is that the defendant’s remarks damaged the plaintiff’s reputation. The large number of people who believe News is fake, the media’s rush to publish, and external attacks on credible journalism have created a problematization of truth among members of society. The potential for defamatory harm is minimal when every news story is questionable. Ultimately, the presence of Fake News is a blight on the tort of defamation and, like the credibility of present-day news organizations, will erode it to the point of irrelevance.

Is there any hope for a world without Fake News?

 

Social Media Has Gone Wild

Increasing technological advances and consumer demands have taken shopping to a new level. You can now buy clothes, food, and household items from the comfort of your couch, and in a few clicks: add to cart, pay, ship, and confirm. Not only are you limited to products sold in nearby stores, but shipping makes it possible to obtain items internationally. Even social media platforms have shopping features for users, such as Instagram Shopping, Facebook Marketplace, and WhatsApp. Despite its convenience, online shopping has also created an illegal marketplace for wildlife species and products.

Most trafficked animal-the Pangolin

Wildlife trafficking is the illegal trading or sale of wildlife species and their products. Elephant ivory, rhinoceros horns, turtle shells, pangolin scales, tiger furs, and shark fins are a few examples of highly sought after wildlife animal products. As social media platforms expand, so does wildlife trafficking.

Wildlife Trafficking Exists on Social Media?

Social media platforms make it easier for people to connect with others internationally. These platforms are great for staying in contact with distant aunts and uncles, but it also creates another method for criminals and traffickers to communicate. It provides a way to remain anonymous without having to meet in-person, which makes it harder for law enforcement to identify a user’s true identity. Even so, can social media platforms be held responsible for making it easier for criminals to commit wildlife trafficking crimes?

Thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the answer is most likely: no.

Section 230 provides broad immunity to websites for content a third-party user posts on the website. Even when a user posts illegal content on a website, the website cannot be held liable for such content. However, there are certain exceptions where websites have no immunity. It includes human and sex trafficking. Although these carve-outs are fairly new, it is clear that there is an interest in protecting people vulnerable to abuse.

So why don’t we apply the same logic to animals? Animals are also a vulnerable population. Many species are unmatched to guns, weapons, traps, and human encroachment on their natural habitats. Similar to children, animals may not have the ability to understand what trafficking is or even the physical strength to fight back. Social media platforms, like Facebook, attempt to combat the online wildlife trade, but its efforts continue to fall short.

How is Social Media Fighting Back?

 

In 2018, the World Wildlife Fund and 21 tech companies created the Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online. The goal was to reduce illegal trade by 80% by 2020. While it is difficult to measure whether this goal is achievable, some social media platforms have created new policies to help meet this goal.

“We’re delighted to join the coalition to end wildlife trafficking online today. TikTok is a space for creative expression and content promoting wildlife trafficking is strictly prohibited. We look forward to partnering with the coalition and its members as we work together to share intelligence and best-practices to help protect endangered species.”

–Luc Adenot, Global Policy Lead, Illegal Activities & Regulated Goods, TikTok

In 2019, Facebook banned the sale of animals altogether on its platform. But this did not stop users. A 2020 report showed a variety of illegal wildlife was for sale on Facebook. This clearly shows the new policies were ineffective. Furthermore, the report stated:

“29% of pages containing illegal wildlife for sale were found through the ‘Related Pages’ feature.”

This suggests that Facebook’s algorithm purposefully connects users to pages and similar content based on a user’s interest. Algorithms incentivize users to rely and depend on wildlife trafficking content. They will continue to use social media platforms because it does half of the work for them:

      • Facilitating communication
      • Connecting users to potential buyers
      • Connecting users to other sellers
      • Discovering online chat groups
      • Discovering online community pages

This fails to reduce wildlife trafficking outreach. Instead, it accelerates visibility of this type of content to other users. Does Facebook’s algorithms go beyond Section 230 immunity?

Under these circumstances, Facebook maintains immunity. In Gonzalez v. Google LLC, the court explains how websites are not liable for user content when the website employs content-neutral algorithms. This means that a website did nothing more than program an algorithm to present similar content to a user’s interest. The website did not offer direct encouragement to publish illegal content, nor did it treat the content differently from other user content.

What about when a website profits from illegal posts? Facebook receives a 5% selling fee for each shipment sold by a user. Since illegal wildlife products are rare, these transactions are highly profitable. A pound of ivory can be worth up to $3,300. If a user sells five pounds of ivory from endangered elephants on Facebook, the platform would profit $825 from one transaction. The Facebook Marketplace algorithm is similar to the algorithm based on user interest and engagement. Here, Facebook’s algorithm can push illegal wildlife products to a user who has searched for similar products. Yet, if illegal products are constantly pushed and successful sales are made, Facebook then benefits and makes a profit off these transactions. Does this mean that Section 230 will continue to protect Facebook when it profits from illegal activity?

Evading Detection

Even with Facebook’s prohibited sales policy, users get creative to avoid detection. A simple search of “animals for sale” led me to a public Facebook group. Within 30 seconds of scrolling, I found a user selling live coral, and another user selling an aquarium system with live coral, and live fish. The former reads: Leather $50. However, the picture shows a live coral in a fish tank. Leather identifies the type of coral it is, without saying it’s coral. Even if this was fake coral, a simple Google search shows a piece of fake coral is worth less than $50. If Facebook is failing to prevent users from selling live coral and live fish, it is most likely failing to prevent online wildlife trafficking on its platform.

Another method commonly used to evade detection is when users post a vague description or a photo of an item and include the words “pm me” or “dm me.” These are abbreviations for “private message me” or “direct message me.” It is a quick way to direct interested users to personally reach out to the individual and discuss details in a private chat. It is a way to communicate outside of the leering public eye. Sometimes a user will offer alternative contact methods, such as a personal phone number or an email address. This transitions the interaction off of or to a new social media platform.

Due to high profitability, there are lower stakes when transactions are conducted anonymously online. Social media platforms are great for concealing a user’s identity. Users can use fake names to maintain anonymity behind their computer and phone screen. There are no real consequences for using a fake name when the user is unknown. Nor is there any type of identity verification to truly discover the user’s true identity. Even if a user is banned, the person can create a new account under a different alias. Some users are criminals tied to organized crime syndicates or terrorist groups. Many users operate outside of the United States and are overseas, which makes it difficult to locate them. Thus, social media platforms incentivize criminals to hide among various aliases with little to lose.

Why Are Wildlife Products Popular?

Wildlife products have a high demand for human benefit and use. Common reasons why humans value wildlife products include:

Do We Go After the Traffickers or the Social Media Platform?

Taking down every single wildlife trafficker, and users that facilitate these transactions would be the perfect solution to end wildlife trafficking. Realistically, it’s too difficult to identify these users due to online anonymity and geographical limitations. On the other hand, social media platforms continue to tolerate these illegal activities.

Here, it is clear that Facebook is not doing enough to stop wildlife trafficking. With each sale made on Facebook, Facebook receives a percentage. Section 230 should not protect Facebook when it reaps the benefits of illegal transactions. This takes it a step too far and should open Facebook to the market of: Section 230 liability.

Should Facebook maintain Section 230 immunity when it receives proceeds from illegal wildlife trafficking transactions? Where do we draw the line?

Is it HIGH TIME we allow Cannabis Content on Social Media?

 

Is it HIGHT TIME we allow Cannabis Content on Social Media?

The Cannabis Industry is Growing like a Weed

Social media provides a relationship between consumers and their favorite brands. Just about every company has a social media presence to advertise its products and grow its brand. Large companies command the advertising market, but smaller companies and one-person startups have their place too. The opportunity to expand your brand using social media is limitless to just about everyone. Except for the cannabis industry. With the developing struggle between social media companies and the politics of cannabis, comes an onslaught of problems facing the modern cannabis market. With recreational marijuana use legal in 21 states and Washington, D.C., and medical marijuana legal in 38 states, it may be time for this community to join the social media metaverse.

We know now that algorithms determine how many followers on a platform see a business’ content, whether or not the content is permitted, and whether the post or the user should be deleted. The legal cannabis industry has found itself in a similar struggle to legislators with social media giants ( like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram) for increased transparency about their internal processes for filtering information, banning users, and moderating its platform. Mainstream cannabis businesses have been prevented from making their presence known on social media in the past, but legitimate businesses are being placed in a box with illicit drug users and prevented from advertising on public social media sites. The Legal cannabis industry is expected to be worth over $60 billion by 2024, and support for federal legalization is at an all-time high (68%). Now more than ever, brands are fighting for higher visibility amongst cannabis consumers.

Recent Legislation Could Open the Door for Cannabis

The question remains, whether the legal cannabis businesses have a place in the ever-changing landscape of the social media metaverse. Marijuana is currently a Schedule 1 narcotic on the Controlled Substances Act (1970). This categorization of Marijuana as Schedule 1 means that it has no currently accepted medical use and has a high potential for abuse. While that definition was acceptable when cannabis was placed on the DEAs list back in 1971, there has been evidence presented in opposition to that decision. Historians note, overt racism, combined with New Deal reforms and bureaucratic self-interest is often blamed for the first round of federal cannabis prohibition under the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which restricted possession to those who paid a steep tax for a limited set of medical and industrial applications.    The legitimacy of cannabis businesses within the past few decades based on individual state legalization (both medical and recreational) is at the center of debate for the opportunity to market as any other business has. Legislation like the MORE act (Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement) which was passed by The House of Representatives gives companies some hope that they can one day be seen as legitimate businesses. If passed into law, Marijuana will be lowered or removed from the schedule list which would blow the hinges off the cannabis industry, legitimate businesses in states that have legalized its use are patiently waiting in the wings for this moment.

States like New York have made great strides in passing legislation to legalize marijuana the “right” way and legitimize business, while simultaneously separating themselves from the illegal and dangerous drug trade that has parasitically attached itself to this movement. The  Marijuana Regulation and Tax Act (MRTA)  establishes a new framework for the production and sale of cannabis, creates a new adult-use cannabis program, and expands the existing medical cannabis and cannabinoid (CBD) hemp programs. MRTA also established the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM), which is the governing body for cannabis reform and regulation, particularly for emerging businesses that wish to establish a presence in New York. The OCM also oversees the licensure, cultivation, production, distribution, sal,e and taxation of medical, adult-use, and cannabinoid hemp within New York State. This sort of regulatory body and structure are becoming commonplace in a world that was deemed to be like the “wild-west” with regulatory abandonment, and lawlessness.

 

But, What of the Children?

In light of all the regulation that is slowly surrounding the Cannabis businesses, will the rapidly growing social media landscape have to concede to the demands of the industry and recognize their presence? Even with regulations cannabis exposure is still an issue to many about the more impressionable members of the user pool. Children and young adults are spending more time than ever online and on social media.  On average, daily screen use went up among tweens (ages 8 to 12) to five hours and 33 minutes from four hours and 44 minutes, and to eight hours and 39 minutes from seven hours and 22 minutes for teens (ages 13 to 18). This group of social media consumers is of particular concern to both the legislators and the social media companies themselves. MRTA offers protection from companies advertising with the intent of looking like common brands marketed to children. Companies are restricted to using their name and their logo, with explicit language that the item inside of the wrapper has cannabis or Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in it. MRTA restrictions along with strict community guidelines from several social media platforms and government regulations around the promotion of marijuana products, many brands are having a hard time building their communities’ presence on social media. The cannabis companies have resorted to creating their own that promote the content they are being prevented from blasting on other sites. Big-name rapper and cannabis enthusiast, Berner who created the popular edible brand “Cookies”, has been approached to partner with the creators to bolster their brand and raise awareness.  Unfortunately, the sites became what mainstream social media sites feared in creating their guideline, an unsavory haven for illicit drug use and other illegal behavior. One of the pioneer apps in this field Social Club was removed from the app store after multiple reports of illegal behavior. The apps have since been more internally regulated but have not taken off like the creators intended. Legitimate cannabis businesses are still being blocked from advertising on mainstream apps.

These Companies Won’t go Down Without a Fight

While cannabis companies aren’t supposed to be allowed on social media sites, there are special rules in place if a legal cannabis business were to have a presence on a social media site. Social media is the fastest and most efficient way to advertise to a desired audience. With appropriate regulatory oversight and within the confines of the changing law, social media sites may start to feel pressure to allow more advertising from cannabis brands.

A Petition has been generated to bring META, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram among other sites, to discuss the growing frustrations and strict restrictions on their social media platforms. The petition on Change.org has managed to amass 13,000 signatures. Arden Richard, the founder of WeedTube, has been outspoken about the issues saying  “This systematic change won’t come without a fight. Instagram has already begun deleting posts and accounts just for sharing the petition,”. He also stated, “The cannabis industry and community need to come together now for these changes and solutions to happen,”. If not, he fears, “we will be delivering this industry into the hands of mainstream corporations when federal legalization happens.”

Social media companies recognize the magnitude of the legal cannabis community because they have been banning its content nonstop since its inception. However, the changing landscape of the cannabis industry has made their decision to ban their content more difficult. Until federal regulation changes, businesses operating in states that have legalized cannabis will be force banned by the largest advertising platforms in the world.

 

Update Required: An Analysis of the Conflict Between Copyright Holders and Social Media Users

Opening

For anyone who is chronically online as yours truly, in one way or another we have seen our favorite social media influencers, artists, commentators, and content creators complain about their problems with the current US Intellectual Property (IP) system. Be it that their posts are deleted without explanation or portions of their video files are muted, the combination of factors leading to copyright issues on social media is endless. This, in turn, has a markedly negative impact on free and fair expression on the internet, especially within the context of our contemporary online culture. For better or worse, interaction in society today is intertwined with the services of social media sites. Conflict arises when the interests of copyright holders clash with this reality. They are empowered by byzantine and unrealistic laws that hamper our ability to exist as freely as we do in real life. While they do have legitimate and fundamental rights that need to be protected, such rights must be balanced out with desperately needed reform. People’s interaction with society and culture must not be hampered, for that is one of the many foundations of a healthy and thriving society. To understand this, I venture to analyze the current legal infrastructure we find ourselves in.

Current Relevant Law

The current controlling laws for copyright issues on social media are the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is most relevant to our analysis; it gives copyright holders relatively unrestrained power to demand removal of their property from the internet and to punish those using illegal methods to get ahold of their property. This broad law, of course, impacted social media sites. Title II of the law added 17 U.S. Code § 512 to the Copyright Act of 1976, creating several safe harbor provisions for online service providers (OSP), such as social media sites, when hosting content posted by third parties. The most relevant of these safe harbors to this issue is 17 U.S. Code § 512(c), which states that an OSP cannot be liable for monetary damages if it meets several requirements and provides a copyright holder a quick and easy way to claim their property. The mechanism, known as a “notice and takedown” procedure, varies by social media service and is outlined in their terms and conditions of service (YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook/Meta). Regardless, they all have a complaint form or application that follows the rules of the DMCA and usually will rapidly strike objectionable social media posts by users. 17 U.S. Code § 512(g) does provide the user some leeway with an appeal process and § 512(f) imposes liability to those who send unjustifiable takedowns. Nevertheless, a perfect balance of rights is not achieved.

The doctrine of fair use, codified as 17 U.S. Code § 107 via the Copyright Act of 1976, also plays a massive role here. It established a legal pathway for the use of copyrighted material for “purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research” without having to acquire right to said IP from the owner. This legal safety valve has been a blessing for social media users, especially with recent victories like Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, which protected reaction content from DMCA takedowns. Cases like Lenz v. Universal Music Corp further established that fair use must be considered by copyright holders when preparing for takedowns. Nevertheless, failure to consider said rights by true copyright holders still happens, as sites are quick to react to DMCA complaints. Furthermore, the flawed reporting systems of social media sites lead to abuse by unscrupulous actors faking true ownership. On top of that, such legal actions can be psychologically and financially intimidating, especially when facing off with a major IP holder, adding to the unbalanced power dynamic between the holder and the poster.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which focuses primarily on cellular and landline carriers, is also particularly relevant to social media companies in this conflict. At the time of its passing, the internet was still in its infancy. Thus, it does not incorporate an understanding of the current cultural paradigm we find ourselves in. Specifically, the contentious Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (Title V of the 1996 Act) works against social media companies in this instance, incorporating a broad and draconian rule on copyright infringement. 47 U.S. Code § 230(e)(2) states in no uncertain terms that “nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.” This has been interpreted and restated in Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC to mean that such companies are liable for user copyright infringement. This gap in the protective armor of Section 230 is a great concern to such companies, therefore they react strongly to such issues.

What is To Be Done?

Arguably, fixing the issues around copyright on social media is far beyond the capacity of current legal mechanisms. With ostensibly billions of posts each day on various sites, regulation by copyright holders and sites is far beyond reason. It will take serious reform in the socio-cultural, technological, and legal arenas before a true balance of liberty and justice can be established. Perhaps we can start with an understanding by copyright holders not to overreact when their property is posted online. Popularity is key to success in business, so shouldn’t you value the free marketing that comes with your copyrighted property getting shared honestly within the cultural sphere of social media?  Social media sites can also expand their DMCA case management teams or create tools for users to accredit and even share revenue with, if they are an influencer or content creator, the copyright holder. Finally, congressional action is desperately needed as we have entered a new era that requires new laws. That being said, achieving a balance between the free exchange of ideas and creations and the rights of copyright holders must be the cornerstone of the government’s approach to socio-cultural expression on social media. That is the only way we can progress as an ever more online society.

 

Image: Freepik.com

https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/flat-design-intellectual-property-concept-with-woman-laptop_10491685.htm#query=intellectual%20property&position=2&from_view=keyword”>Image by pikisuperstar

Social Media Addiction

Social Media was created as an educational and informational resource for American Citizens. Nonetheless, it has become a tool for AI bots and tech companies to predict our next moves by manipulating our minds on social media apps. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act helped create the modern internet we use today. However, it was initially a 1996 law that regulated online pornography. Specifically, Section 230 provides legal immunity from liability for internet services and users for content posted online. Tech companies do not just want to advertise to social media users but instead want to predict a user’s next move. The process of these manipulative tactics used by social media apps has wreaked havoc on the human psyche and destroyed the social aspects of life by keeping people glued to a screen so big tech companies can profit off of it. 

Social media has changed a generation for the worse, causing depression and sometimes suicide, as tech designers manipulate social media users for profit. Social media companies for decades have been shielded from legal consequences for what happens on their platforms. However, due to recent studies and court cases, this may be able to change and allow for big tech social media companies to be held accountable. A former Facebook employee, France Haugen, a whistleblower to the Senate, stated not to trust Facebook as they knowingly pushed products that harm children and young adults to further profits, which Section 230 cannot sufficiently protect. Haugen further states that researchers at Instagram (a Facebook-owned Social Media App) knew their app was worsening teenagers’ body images and mental health, even as the company publicly downplayed these effects.

There is a California Bill, Social Media Platform Duty to Children Act, that aims to make tech firms liable for Social media Addiction in children; this would allow parents and guardians to use platforms that they believe addicted children in their care through advertising, push notifications and design features that promote compulsive use, particularly the continual consumption of harmful content on issues such as eating disorders and suicide. This bill would hold companies accountable regardless of whether they deliberately designed their products to be addictive.

Social Media addiction is a psychological, behavioral dependence on social media platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, TikTok, bereal, etc. Mental Disorders are defined as conditions that affect ones thinking, feeling, mood, and behaviors. Since the era of social media, especially from 2010 on, doctors and physicians have had a hard time diagnosing patients with social media addiction and mental disorders since they seem to go hand in hand. Social Media addiction has been seen to improve mood and boost health promotions with ads. However, at the same time, it can increase the negative aspects of activities that the youth (ages 13-21) take part in. Generation Z (“Zoomers”) are people born in the late 1990s to 2010s with an increased risk of social media addiction, which has been linked to depression. 

A study measured the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (“DEES”) and Experiences in Close Relationships (“ECR”) to characterize the addictive potential that social media communication applications have based on their measure of the brain. The first measure in the study was a six-item short scale consisting of DEES that was a 36-item, six-factor self-report measure of difficulties, assessing

  1. awareness of emotional responses,
  2. lack of clarity of emotional reactions,
  3. non-acceptance of emotional responses,
  4. limited access to emotion regulation strategies perceived as applicable,
  5. difficulties controlling impulses when experiencing negative emotions, and
  6. problems engaging in goal-directed behaviors when experiencing negative emotions. 

The second measure is ECR-SV which includes a twelve-item test evaluating adult attachment. The scale comprised two six-item subscales: anxiety and avoidance. Each item was rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, which is another measure of depression, anxiety, and mania were DSM-5. The results depict that scoring at least five of the nine items on the depression scale during the same two-week period classified depression. Scoring at least three of the six symptoms on the anxiety scale was to sort anxiety. Scoring at least three of the seven traits in the mania scale has classified mania. 

The objectives of these studies were to clarify that there is a high prevalence of social media addiction among college students and confirms statistically that there is a positive relationship between social media addiction and mental disorders by reviewing previous studies. 

The study illustrates that there are four leading causes of social media abuse: 1)The increase in depression symptoms have occurred in conjunction with the rise of smartphones since 2007, 2) Young people, especially Generation Z, spend less time connecting with friends, and they spend more time connecting with digital content. Generation Z is known for quickly losing focus at work or study because they spend much time watching other people’s lives in an age of information explosion. 3) An increase in depression is low self-esteem when they feel negative on Social Media compared to those who are more beautiful, more famous, and wealthier. Consequently, social media users might become less emotionally satisfied, making them feel socially isolated and depressed. 4) Studying pressure and increasing homework load may cause mental problems for students, therefore promoting the matching of social media addiction and psychiatric disorders. 

The popularity of the internet, smartphones, and social networking sites are unequivocally a part of modern life. Nevertheless, it has contributed to the rise of depressive and suicidal symptoms in young people. Shareholders of social media apps should be more aware of the effect their advertising has on its users. Congress should regulate social media as a public policy matter to prevent harm, such as depression or suicide among young people. The best the American people can do is shine a light on the companies that exploit and abuse their users, to the public and to congress, to hold them accountable as Haugen did. There is hope for the future as the number of bills surrounding the topic of social media in conjunction with mental health effects has increased since 2020. 

Shadow Banning Does(n’t) Exist

Shadow Banning Doesn’t Exist

#mushroom

Recent posts from #mushroom are currently hidden because the community has reported some content that may not meet Instagram’s community guidelines.

 

Dear Instagram, get your mind outta the gutter! Mushrooms are probably one of the most searched hashtags in my Instagram history. It all started when I found my first batch of wild chicken-of-the-woods mushrooms. I wanted to learn more about mushroom foraging, so I consulted Instagram. I knew there were tons of foragers sharing photos, videos, and tips about finding different species. But imagine not being able to find content related to your hobby?

What if you loved eggplant varieties? But nothing came up in the search bar? Perhaps you’re an heirloom eggplant farmer trying to sell your product on social media? Yet you’ve only gotten two likes—even though you added #eggplantman to your post. Shadow banned? I think yes.

The deep void of shadow banning is a social media user’s worst nightmare. Especially for influencers whose career depends on engagement. Shadow banning comes with so many uncertainties, but there are a few factors many users agree on:

      1. Certain posts and videos remain hidden from other users
      2. It hurts user engagement
      3. It DOES exist

#Shadowbanning

Shadow banning is an act of restricting or censoring a user’s content on social media without notifying the user. This usually occurs when a user posts content deemed inappropriate or it violates the platform’s guidelines. If a user is shadow banned, the user’s content is only visible to the user and their followers.

Influencers, artists, creators, and business owners are vulnerable victims to the shadow banning void. They depend the most on user engagement, growth, and reaching new audiences. As much as it hurts them, it also hurts other users searching for this specific content. There’s no clear way of telling whether you’ve been shadow banned. You don’t get a notice. You can’t make an appeal to fix your lack of engagement. However, you will see a decline in engagement because no one can see your content in their feeds.

According to the head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, “shadow banning is not a thing.” In an interview with the Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, he stated Facebook has “no policy that is shadow banning.” Even a Twitter blog stated, “People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not.” There is no official way of knowing if it exists, but there is evidence it does take place on various social media platforms.

#Shadowbanningisacoverup?

Pole dancing on social media probably would have been deemed inappropriate 20 years ago. But this isn’t the case today. Pole dancing is a growing sport industry. Stigmas associating strippers with pole dancing is shifting with its increasing popularity and trendy nature. However, social media standards may still be stuck in the early 2000s.

In 2019, user posts with hashtags including #poledancing, #polesportorg, and #poledancenation were hidden from Instagram’s Explore page. This affected many users who connect and share new pole dancing techniques with each other. It also had a huge impact on businesses who rely on the pole community to promote their products and services: pole equipment, pole clothing, pole studios, pole sports competitions, pole photographers, and more.

Due to a drastic decrease in user engagement, a petition directing Instagram to stop pole dancing censorship was circulated worldwide. Is pole dancing so controversial it can’t be shared on social media? I think not. There is so much to learn from sharing information virtually, and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act supports this.

Section 230 was passed in 1996, and it provides limited federal immunity to websites from lawsuits if a user posts something illegal. This means that if User X decides to post illegal content on Twitter, the Twitter platform could not be sued because of User X’s post. Section 230 does not stop the user who posted such content from being sued, so User X can still be held accountable.

It is clear that Section 230 embraces the importance of sharing knowledge. Section 230(a)(1) tells us this. So why would Instagram want to shadow ban pole dancers who are simply sharing new tricks and techniques?

The short answer is: It’s inappropriate.

But users want to know: what makes it inappropriate?

Is it the pole? A metal pole itself does not seem so.

Is it the person on the pole? Would visibility change depending on gender?

Is it the tight clothing? Well, I don’t see how it is any different from my 17  bikini photos on my personal profile.

Section 230 also provides a carve-out for sex-related work, such as sex trafficking. But this is where the line is drawn between appropriate and inappropriate content. Sex trafficking is illegal, but pole dancing is not. Instagram’s community guidelines also support this. Under the guidelines, sharing pole dancing content would not violate it. Shadow banning clearly seeks to suppress certain content, and in this case, the pole dancing community was a target.

Cultural expression also battles with shadow banning. In 2020, Instagram shadow banned Caribbean Carnival content. The Caribbean Carnival is an elaborate celebration to commemorate slavery abolition in the West Indies and showcases ensembles representing different cultures and countries.

User posts with hashtags including #stluciacarnival, #fuzionmas, and #trinidadcarnival2020 could not be found nor viewed by other users. Some people viewed this as suppressing culture and impacting tourism. Additionally, Facebook and Instagram shadow banned #sikh for almost three months. Due to numerous user feedback, the hashtag was restored, but Instagram failed to state how or why the hashtag was blocked.

In March 2020, The Intercept obtained internal TikTok documents alluding to shadow banning methods. Documents revealed moderators were to suppress content depicting users with “‘abnormal body shape,’ ‘ugly facial looks,’ dwarfism, and ‘obvious beer belly,’ ‘too many wrinkles,’ ‘eye disorders[.]'” While this is a short excerpt of the longer list, this shows how shadow banning may not be a coincidence at all.

Does shadow banning exist? What are the pros and cons of shadow banning?

 

 

 

Skip to toolbar