Attempts to age gate the internet and restrict social media use based on age checks are not distinct to American state legislatures.Countries with less robust free speech protections have had an easier time passing these regulations at a large scale—with disastrous results. As it turns out, requiring all social media users in a nation or state to turn over their sensitive information is a risky process, regardless of which continent you’re on. 

Last year, Australia spared no penalty and imposed strict consequences for any social media website which allowed users under the age of 16. The 16 and under social media ban included Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Threads, Kick, and Twitch at the time it was instituted. Scholars predicted that the age assurance requirements would inevitably fall short of their promises and risk users’ privacy in the process. Just months after its implementation, the ban is living up to its critics’ expectations. Reason Magazine reported on the phenomenon of young people being more tech savvy than the regulators down under anticipated: “…young people subject to the law are actively evading its impact. In a compliance update published last month, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, which enforces the ban, conceded that “a substantial proportion of Australian children under the age of 16 continue to retain accounts, create new accounts, or pass platforms’ age assurance systems.” If Australia’s ban is not keeping kids off of social media, what is it doing? Offering false promises to parents and strong threats to social media companies, all while collecting a trove of identifying information about every user in the country. 

Next stop, Brussels. The European Union (EU) is no stranger to ambitious regulatory schemes and zealous restrictions, particularly on tech companies. Social media platforms have drawn the ire of bureaucrats in Brussels for years and age verification was a natural fit for this approach. When European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen revealed the Union’s state of the art age verification technology, she invited feedback. In less than a day, security consultants discovered that the app could be hacked within minutes. Politicoreported on the calculated response from the EU: “The European Commission on Friday stood by its statement that the app is technically ready. ‘Yes, it is ready. Maybe we can add, ‘and it can always be improved.’” Some irony can be found in the EU’s willingness to test and improve their own technology while withholding the same optimism from social media companies, who have been steadily developing tools to help families customize and monitor their children’s online experience. 

The United States’ experience with age verification is a particularly litigious one. The First Amendment has proved a protection against zealous state level efforts to age gate the internet. Last year, a court blocked an Arkansas age verification measure on First amendment grounds. In Louisiana, a federal judge struck down an age check law. This year, a similar law in Texas that demanded age verification on the app store level was paused by a judge.

Age verification regimes overpromise and underdeliver, and their proven track record of risks and failures makes any new attempts at the process seem completely disconnected from the stated goals of protecting children and empowering families. Lawmakers in the United States can avoid the strain that these ill-fated legal battles place on citizens by simply looking to the lessons from Australia, the European Union, the states around them, or even just the United States Constitution. 

 

Links to Learn More 

Topics on this page
Age verification systemLouisianaFirst Amendment to the United States ConstitutionChild SafetyEuropean UnionFacebookReasonInstagramSnapchatTikTokXYouTubeTexasCato InstituteReason FoundationSouth CarolinaFreedom of speechGovernment regulation in Czech RepublicInformation privacySocial media
+16 more