House Bill 186, also known as the “Act relating to prohibiting use of social media platforms by children,” is a deeply flawed piece of legislation that deserves strong opposition. While its intent to protect minors online is commendable, this bill represents troubling government overreach that will carry severe negative consequences for innovation, free speech, and the utilization of taxpayer resources in Texas.
Section 120.113 mandates that social media platforms verify that a person seeking to become an account holder is 18 years of age or older before accepting them. This will compel platforms to collect extensive and highly sensitive personal information. While the bill attempts to limit the use and retention of this data, the sheer act of collecting such a vast web of sensitive information by numerous private entities creates an immense and unresolved security risk. This collection of sensitive data on minors, in the absence of an existing secure, centralized verification mechanism, will inadvertently raise serious privacy concerns for Texas parents, as it enables the potential for civil liberties violations through increased surveillance.
These stringent age verification requirements will also impose a substantial burden on technology companies. It forces them to divert resources from innovation to comply with an unworkable patchwork of regulatory frameworks across states. Such costs will lead to reduced investment and economic activity in our state, ultimately resulting in job losses for Texans.
Furthermore, this bill undermines parents. It takes away their ability to choose what media their kids can access, just as they do with television shows and video games. As highlighted in my recent op-ed for Real Clear Markets, social media platforms can be a profoundly positive experience for minors under parental oversight. These algorithms are designed to deliver content of interest or value to the individual user, helping children discover and nurture their passions. For instance, an aspiring gymnast who follows a popular athlete might be shown videos of related camps, classes, instructional tips, and televised events that fuel their interest in the sport. Responsible social media use, guided by parents, can be a powerful outlet for learning and creative expression. This legislation eliminates these potentially enriching experiences and usurps the role of parents in determining what content is appropriate and beneficial for their own children.
Beyond the practical and economic concerns, this bill constitutes a clear violation of the First Amendment. Social media platforms, in their function of disseminating information and facilitating communication, are unequivocally a form of media. This legislation would even ban age-appropriate, educational content.
This is akin to capping speech — much like ordering television providers not to air Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, or other age-appropriate media minors currently have access to. Courts have consistently demonstrated reticence towards content or media blocking, as evidenced by recent court cases in states like Utah, which noted that minors also possess First Amendment rights. For this reason, legislation such as this triggers the highest level of constitutional scrutiny. It is highly unlikely this bill would withstand such a challenge, as courts would likely deem these restrictions a “blocking” of media, leading to the legislation being summarily thrown out. At the end of the day, social media is still media.
In conclusion, House Bill 186 is a misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. It stifles innovation, erodes parental responsibility to make informed decisions – while accounting for their own child’s maturity and needs – and infringes upon the fundamental right to free speech. We must consider the far-reaching negative consequences of this bill and oppose its passage.
Jon Decker is a senior fellow at the Parkview Institute
