Scholar argues that denying access to online platforms does more harm than good to minors.
Amid growing concern over children’s online safety, policymakers worldwide have increasingly introduced regulations restricting minors’ access to online content. Some jurisdictions, such as Australia, prohibit minors from accessing certain social media. Others, such as Texas, require age verification before users can access pornographic websites—a measure the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld as constitutional.
Such regulations, however, do more harm than good to minors and even harm online platforms, argues Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara School of Law. In a recent paper. Goldman urges policymakers to consider alternative approaches to promoting children’s online safety.
Goldman observes that policymakers around the world have adopted a similar regulatory framework, which he calls “segregate-and-suppress,” to protect children from harmful content online.
Goldman explains that this framework consists of two components. First, it requires online platforms to “segregate” minor users from adult ones by verifying their age. Such age-verification methods involve users uploading their government-issued identification document or photographs of themselves. Second, the framework seeks to “suppress” minors by restricting their access to those platforms. Such restrictions may take the form of a complete ban or conditional access restriction, such as capping the total hours of access or controlling how algorithms present content.
Goldman contends that segregate-and-suppress regulations are detrimental to minors. One reason that Goldman identifies is that age is itself sensitive personal information, and determining one’s age inevitably involves the disclosure of additional private information—such as name and physical characteristics. Because platforms have strong incentives to retain this information—for instance, as proof of compliance with age-verification requirements—users face heightened risks of information-security breaches, explains Goldman.
Another reason Goldman underscores is that the one-size-fits-all approach inherent in segregate-and-suppress regulations fails to account for minors’ diverse needs, creating conflicts among different groups of minors. Restricting access to a particular platform, argues Goldman, may benefit some minors while harming others.
For example, in supporting segregate-and-suppress regulations, policymakers often cite a report indicating that Instagram makes 20 percent of U.S. teens feel worse about themselves. The same report, however, also shows that Instagram makes 40 percent of U.S. teens feel better about themselves. As a result, even though regulatory restrictions on Instagram access would likely benefit some minors, they risk exacerbating psychological or emotional distress for others, Goldman notes.
Goldman also argues that segregate-and-suppress regulations adversely impact platforms. Age verification may deter users who are unwilling to complete the process—whether due to concerns about data privacy or time constraints—which, in turn, could drive platforms out of business, explains Goldman.
Goldman notes that enforcing age verification also imposes significant costs on platforms. To offset these expenses, platforms may implement additional paywalls, requiring users to pay for content that would otherwise be freely accessible. Such paywalls often lead platforms to collect more data from users, thereby increasing privacy and security risks, warns Goldman.
Although some commentators note that offline age verification—such as requiring proof of age to purchase alcohol and cigarettes—is a routine and uncontroversial practice, Goldman argues that it differs from online age verification. For example, with offline authentication, an authenticator can make an age determination by visually inspecting individuals and their documents without creating or retaining copies. Online authentication, by contrast, necessarily generates electronic records of users’ data—even if only temporarily—raising more significant privacy concerns, explains Goldman.
Goldman highlights transactional costs as another key difference between online and offline age verification. Offline verification typically occurs at the final stage of a transaction—for instance, when a customer attempts to purchase a cigarette at the register. By contrast, many segregate-and-suppress regulations require platforms to authenticate all users before they can access the service. Consequently, online platforms face higher authentication costs, as they must verify users before potentially deriving any revenue from them, notes Goldman.
In light of the shortcomings of segregate-and-suppress regulations, Goldman proposes several alternative paths for policymakers to improve child safety online.
To begin with, Goldman suggests that policymakers should equip minors with the digital literacy and citizenship skills for their future personal and professional growth. Rather than abruptly granting access to new services at a specific age, Goldman argues, a more effective approach is to guide minors in building resilience and navigating online spaces safely, enabling them to use the internet as a tool for more engaged and productive citizenship.
In addition, Goldman contends that policymakers should empower parents to help and guide their children. Even though parents often serve as the “first line of defense” in monitoring online activities, most parents lack sufficient digital literacy to offer meaningful guidance on online safety to their children. Providing parents with the necessary resources, education, and support would allow them to fulfill their role more effectively, argues Goldman.
Goldman reminds policymakers that they should be more attentive to minors’ First Amendment right to speak and access information online. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, the internet has become one of the “most important places” to exchange ideas. Segregate-and-suppress regulations, however, may compromise this right by restricting minors’ access to information essential for citizenship development and personal growth, explains Goldman.
Goldman concludes by underscoring the core problem with the segregate-and-suppress approach: It reduces complex, multifaceted social problems to a simplistic, one-dimensional solution. By channeling their limited policymaking capacity into such laws, policymakers risk overlooking solutions that are more likely to enhance children’s online safety, warns Goldman.
