By Bailey Merlin of the Bisexual Resource Center
For many, picturing a world in which they are more comfortable being themselves online than with family, friends or peers might be difficult. But for LGBTQ+ youth, that is often the reality. Recent surveys show consistently that young people are more likely to come out online than in person – not by preference, but out of a concern for safety. When homes are not affirming and classrooms become open forums for hateful rhetoric, social media platforms become a space to find connection, resources and a sense of belonging.
Governor Maura Healey understands that perspective. As the first openly LGBTQ+ attorney general in the nation and the first LGBTQ+ person and woman to serve as governor of Massachusetts, she has been a trailblazer and a role model to countless young people across the commonwealth.
It is because of that history, and the Legislature’s long-standing commitment to protecting LGBTQ+ rights, that we urge lawmakers to exercise great care as they consider the competing approaches to youth social media use. The state’s House, Senate and governor agree that young people deserve stronger protections from manipulative platform designs, harmful content and predatory behavior. But they differ significantly over whether those protections should restrict access, require parental approval or instead regulate the features platforms use to keep young people online.
The House has advanced the most restrictive approach. Its bill would prohibit children under 14 from maintaining social media accounts and require 14- and 15-year-olds to get parental consent. The Senate has offered a meaningfully different model that would preserve minors’ ability to maintain accounts while disabling personalized algorithmic feeds, autoplay, infinite scroll and overnight notifications. It would also allow minors to change most privacy, messaging and content-sharing defaults themselves.
While an improvement over policies that condition access on age or parental approval, the Senate’s proposal raises questions that warrant careful scrutiny. It directs platforms to use age-assurance methods unless a user opts out, and users who opt out would get the protected default settings automatically. Although the bill includes important safeguards for anonymity, data minimization and deletion, lawmakers should ensure that opting out is simple and prominent and that no user is effectively required to submit identification merely to speak, read or participate anonymously online.
Parental-control requirements are particularly concerning when they assume that every young person has a safe and affirming home. The House bill would require parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to maintain accounts, while the Senate’s proposal does not require parental consent for platform access and expressly rejects giving parents special access to minors’ accounts or data. Lawmakers should preserve that distinction in any final compromise.
Both proposals, in different ways, risk cutting vulnerable youth off from community, support and speech online. Severing access in this way, especially for those who only feel safe expressing and exploring their identities online, does not make the Internet safer and may even make things worse. Massachusetts can do better, and lawmakers should listen to the concerns of those who might be affected disproportionately by proposals such as these.
Age verification and parental consent mandates, no matter how well-intentioned, risk limiting access while demanding data collection that could expose them to breaches. Youth-serving organizations across Massachusetts, such as GLSEN, Bagly and Out Now Youth, consistently hear stories such as this from young people navigating identity, safety and belonging online. Imagine a teenager growing up in a nonaffirming home who has begun to question their identity. They might follow LGBTQ+ creators, search for health information or speak anonymously with others who share their experiences. Under the House approach, a 14- or 15-year-old could not maintain that account without verified parental consent, while a child under 14 would be barred altogether. Even under less restrictive proposals, age-assurance requirements may discourage users from participating anonymously if the process is confusing, intrusive or perceived as requiring identification.
For someone in a supportive household, these added steps might be a minor inconvenience, but for many others, they can mean cutting off their ability to reach some of the only spaces where they can be themselves.
Massachusetts can and should implement measures to protect kids online. But following the example set by states that have already raised serious constitutional concerns in courts nationwide should not be our approach. Lawmakers should avoid age-verification policies, strengthen protections for anonymous access, make age-assurance opt-outs clear and meaningful, and ensure that efforts to curb addictive design do not unintentionally prevent vulnerable young people from discovering supportive resources. Safety and equality are not competing priorities. t’s time for lawmakers to craft legislation that reflects that reality.
Bailey Merlin is the president of the Bisexual Resource Center. She is also the author of “A Lot of People Live in This House,” the co-host of the podcast “Bisexual Killjoy,” the founder of the growing global phenomenon Bi+ Book Gang and a dedicated bi-plus activist.
Feature image is by manas rb via Unpsplash.
