Much to my surprise, several weeks ago I attended a hockey game where I was seated only a few rows behind distinguished collegiate gymnast and social media influencer Livvy Dunne. While not a follower of gymnastics, her popularity is such that she was readily identifiable by the throngs of young supporters who congregated around her, hoping for a picture. Dunne graciously took the time to connect with each of them — even waving off event security who offered her an escape.
In watching families approach Dunne, it is probably no stretch to presume that some of the young girls who make up her supporters want to be gymnasts themselves. If Dunne serves as an inspiration, it is also likely no stretch to presume that they are familiar with her through social media. Therein lies a lesson for all of Congress.
At issue is legislation such as S. 278, the “Kids Off Social Media Act,” which seeks to ban algorithms for those under 17. While all parents want the tools and resources to keep their children safe online, this bill eliminates potentially enriching experiences offered by social media that can help discern or guide one’s passions. A social media platform’s algorithm enables it to generate content of interest or value to the individual user, based on their personal preferences. Applied to Dunne, an aspiring gymnast who follows her might be fed videos of related camps, classes, instructional tips, and televised events that fuel their interest in the sport—or desire to compete. While algorithms can always be improved, we know social media companies are broadly successful in providing content we enjoy because, if they did not, they would struggle to maintain users in the first place.
Because these algorithms cater to our interests, responsible social media use, with parental oversight, can help one discover one’s passion and creative outlets to express it. Algorithms drive these experiences, using ads — much like how Nickelodeon and Disney Channel target kids with television ads — which enable social media companies to offer their services for free. For this reason, a ban on algorithms for those under 17 is pragmatically a ban on social media for those users—after all, why would a company provide a service without profit? Even child-centric services such as YouTube Kids face likely elimination under this legislation.
We know there is both corporate and parental responsibility when it comes to ensuring youth are protected online. The good news is, as platforms develop, technology improves, and experiences get better. Today, parents are offered more tools than ever to monitor their children’s activity on apps such as Instagram, and there will surely be more improvements that follow.
But when weighing calls from lawmakers to support heavy-handed legislation like the Kids Off Social Media Act, let us not lose sight of social media’s ability to inspire or nurture one’s passion – regardless of age. Dunne’s fandom reveals it to us.
