November, 17 2022, 05:32pm EDT
![Fairplay](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012682/origin.jpg)
For Immediate Release
Contact:
David Monahan, Fairplay: david@fairplayforkids.org
Jeff Chester, Center for Digital Democracy: jeff@democraticmedia.org
Advocates to FTC: Write rules to protect kids from harmful manipulative design online
At every turn, young people face tricks and traps to keep them online for hours and sharing sensitive data.
WASHINGTON
A coalition of leading health and privacy advocates filed a petition today asking the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate a rule prohibiting online platforms from using unfair design features to manipulate children and teens into spending excessive time online. Twenty-one groups, led by Fairplay and the Center for Digital Democracy, said in their petition: "When minors go online, they are bombarded by widespread design features that have been carefully crafted and refined for the purpose of maximizing the time users spend online and activities users engage in." They urged the FTC to establish rules of the road to establish when these practices cross the line into unlawful unfairness.
The advocates' petition details how the vast majority of apps, games, and services popular among minors generate revenue primarily via advertising, and many employ sophisticated techniques to cultivate lucrative long term relationships between minors and their brands. As a result, platforms use techniques like autoplay, endless scroll, and strategically timed advertisements to keep kids and teens online as much as possible- which is not in their best interests.
The petition also details how manipulative design features on platforms like TikTok, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat undermine young people's wellbeing. Excessive time online displaces sleep and physical activity, harming minors' physical and mental health, growth, and academic performance. Features designed to maximize engagement also expose minors to potential predators and online bullies and age-inappropriate content, harm minors' self-esteem, and aggravate risks of disordered eating and suicidality. The manipulative tactics also undermine children's and teens' privacy by encouraging the disclosure of massive amounts of sensitive user data.
The advocates' petition comes just months after California passed its Age Appropriate Design Code, a law requiring digital platforms to act in the best interests of children, and as momentum grows in Congress for the Kids and Online Safety Act and the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act.
The petition was drafted by the Communications and Technology Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center.
Haley Hinkle, Policy Counsel, Fairplay:
"The manipulative tactics described in this Petition that are deployed by social media platforms and apps popular with kids and teens are not only harmful to young people's development- they're unlawful. The FTC should exercise its authority to prohibit these unfair practices and send Big Tech a message that manipulating minors into handing over their time and data is not acceptable."
Katharina Kopp, Deputy Director, Center for Digital Democracy:
"The hyper-personalized, data-driven advertising business model has hijacked our children's lives. The design features of social media and games have been purposefully engineered to keep young people online longer and satisfy advertisers. It's time for the FTC to put an end to these unfair and harmful practices. They should adopt safeguards that ensure platforms and publishers design their online content so that it places the well-being of young people ahead of the interests of marketers."
Jenny Radesky, MD, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, University of Michigan and Chair-elect, American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media:
"As a pediatrician, helping parents and teens navigate the increasingly complex digital landscape in a healthy way has become a core aspect of my work. If the digital environment is designed in a way that supports children's healthy relationships with media, then it will be much easier for families to create boundaries that support children's sleep, friendships, and safe exploration. However, this petition highlights how many platforms and games are designed in ways that actually do the opposite: they encourage prolonged time on devices, more social comparisons, and more monetization of attention. Kids and teens are telling us that these types of designs actually make their experiences with platforms and apps worse, not better. So we are asking federal regulators to help put safeguards in place to protect against the manipulation of children's behavior and to instead prioritize their developmental needs."
Professor Laura Moy, Director, Communications & Technology Law Clinic at Georgetown Law, and counsel for Center for Digital Democracy and Fairplay:
"As any parent or guardian can attest, games and social media apps keep driving kids and teens to spend more and more time online, in a way that neither minors nor their guardians can reasonably prevent. This is neither accidental nor innocuous--it's engineered and it's deeply harmful. The FTC must step in and set some boundaries to protect kids and teens. The FTC should clarify that the most harmful and widespread design features that manipulate users into maximizing time online, such as those employed widely by social media services and popular games, are unlawful when used on minors."
Groups signing on to the petition include: Center for Digital Democracy; Fairplay; Accountable Tech; American Academy of Pediatrics; Becca Schmill Foundation, Inc.; Berkeley Media Studies Group; C. Everett Koop Institute at Dartmouth; Center for Humane Technology; Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development; Eating Disorders Coalition; Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC); LookUp.live; Lynn's Warriors; Network for Public Education; Parent Coalition for Student Privacy; ParentsTogether Action; Protect Young Eyes; Public Citizen; Together for Girls; U.S. Public Interest Research Group; and UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health.
Fairplay, formerly known as Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, educates the public about commercialism's impact on kids' wellbeing and advocates for the end of child-targeted marketing. Fairplay organizes parents to hold corporations accountable for their marketing practices, advocates for policies to protect kids, and works with parents and professionals to reduce children's screen time.
LATEST NEWS
Right-Wing Supreme Court Rules Trump Has 'Absolute Immunity' for Official Acts
"In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," warned Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
Jul 01, 2024
This is a developing story… Please check back for possible updates...
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines on Monday that former President Donald Trump is entitled to "absolute immunity" for "official acts" taken while he was in office, a decision that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned makes any occupant of the Oval Office "a king above the law."
Writing for the majority in the 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that Trump "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
But Sotomayor countered in her dissent that the majority distorted the concept of core constitutional powers "beyond any recognizable bounds," effectively granting Trump the sweeping immunity he demanded as he faces charges for attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election.
"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," Sotomayor wrote. "Orders the Navy's SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
"In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," the justice added. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
The New York Timesnoted that the high court "has remanded the case to the federal district court judge overseeing the matter, Tanya Chutkan, to determine the nature of the acts for which former President Trump has been charged—which are unofficial ones he undertook in his personal capacity and which are official ones he undertook as president."
Earlier:
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule Monday on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
But the high court's delay in handing down its decision has already "helped the former president in his effort to avoid trial before the November 5 election," Reutersnoted Sunday, leading to accusations that the court's right-wing supermajority has essentially intervened in the presidential contest on Trump's behalf.
It's been more than four months since the court agreed to take up the case, and more than two months since oral arguments. Trump nominated three of the justices who currently sit on the Supreme Court.
"By not issuing a decision before the debate, the MAGA justices on the Supreme Court have in effect granted Donald Trump the immunity from trial he seeks—at least through the election," attorney Norm Eisen and Mike Podhorzer of the Defend Democracy Project said in a statement after yet another week passed without a decision in the closely watched case.
"By agreeing to take up the presidential immunity case at all, and then piling on delays, MAGA justices on the court, like the deeply conflicted Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, have used this case to interfere in the course of the 2024 presidential election," Eisen and Podhorzer continued. "By stalling so long that a trial is now unlikely, the justices have already succeeded in effectively giving Trump immunity regardless of the content of their ruling."
The immunity decision is one of four expected on Monday, with the rulings set to be released beginning at around 10:00 am ET.
"It's long overdue and frankly outrageous that the Supreme Court has dragged their feet and delayed Trump's January 6th trial for months," Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wrote on social media. "The court has no excuse for the lack of urgency on such a crucial issue."
"Trump's argument that former presidents are forever immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office finds no support in the Constitution's text and history."
Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the election subversion charges against Trump last year, has urged the Supreme Court to reject the former president's sweeping claim that he should be "absolutely immune from prosecution" for actions he took as president.
"The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former president, and all presidents from the founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts," Smith wrote in a filing to the Supreme Court in April.
NBC Newsreported ahead of Monday's ruling that "based on the oral arguments, it appeared likely the court would conclude that there could be some conduct alleged in the indictment that is subject to immunity."
"The justices could set a new test for determining what official acts receive immunity and then send it back to lower courts to determine how that affects Trump's indictment," the outlet added.
In an amicus brief, a group of constitutional law experts rejected the notion that Trump should enjoy immunity from prosecution for official acts, writing that the former president's claims "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent."
"Trump's argument that former presidents are forever immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office finds no support in the Constitution's text and history," the experts wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
After First Round of Voting, Will France's Centrists Drop Out to Stop the Fascists?
Leftist Jean-Luc Mélenchon said his party's third-place candidates would withdraw from three-way runoffs to help prevent the far-right from seizing power.
Jul 01, 2024
Leaders of France's left-of-center parties vowed Sunday to withdraw their third-place candidates from runoff races in an effort to prevent Marine Le Pen's fascist National Rally from securing an absolute majority in the country's Parliament.
But will centrist candidates follow suit?
That question became critical following the first round of voting in snap parliamentary elections called by French President Emmanuel Macron last month after his party suffered a stinging defeat in European elections. Macron's decision appears to have backfired in a major way.
Le Pen's viciously xenophobic Rassemblement National (RN) prevailed in round one on Sunday, winning 33.2% of the vote, while the Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP)—an alliance of left-of-center parties formed ahead of the snap elections to counter the far-right—came in second at 28%. Macron's centrist Ensemble coalition landed in third with 22.4% of the vote.
The decisive second round will be held on July 7, and efforts to stop Le Pen's party from seizing outright control of the National Assembly likely hinge on electoral cooperation between the center and the left. The Financial Timescalculated that the first round of voting "produced more than 300 three-way runoffs... an unprecedented number, although the final figure will depend on how many candidates drop out."
In races qualifying for runoffs, according to FT, Macron's Ensemble alliance had 95 third-place candidates after round one while the left-of-center NFP had 129.
Speaking to supporters Sunday, leftist La France Insoumise (LFI) leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon said his party would withdraw candidates from races in which they placed third and the far-right NR was in the lead—a vow that the heads of other left-wing parties echoed.
"Our instructions are simple, direct, and clear: not one vote, not one more seat for the RN," said Mélenchon.
"The question that should be asked of every Macronist in the next couple days: Does this line extend to La France Insoumise or not? Right now, it's not clear."
The centrists were much less direct about their intentions.
French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, who acknowledged the far-right is "at the gates of power," said the centrist alliance would withdraw candidates from runoffs if their presence would hinder "another candidate—who, like us—defends the values of the Republic," without specifically saying whether he includes leftist LFI candidates in that category.
"The question that should be asked of every Macronist in the next couple days: Does this line extend to La France Insoumise or not? Right now, it's not clear," France-based journalist Cole Stangler wrote Sunday.
Macron similarly urged voters to back candidates who are "clearly republican and democratic." But as The Washington Postobserved, the French president "has at times portrayed the far-left as equally dangerous as the far-right," raising concerns that centrists could allow the far-right to win close races by splitting votes in three-way runoffs that include candidates from Mélenchon's LFI.
As Reutersreported, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire "ruled out calling on voters to choose an LFI candidate" in a radio interview—a position that one senior Greens member denounced as "cowardly and privileged."
One government minister, Roland Lescure, did explicitly urge "all voters to block the extreme right without hesitation by voting for the best-placed alternative candidate," even if it's an LFI candidate.
"The real danger for France today is an absolute majority National Rally," said Lescure. "And we must do everything to prevent it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unprecedented' and 'Very Dangerous,' Hurricane Beryl Explodes Into Category 4 Storm
"The climate crisis is here. This is an emergency. Politicians need to start acting like it."
Jun 30, 2024
Meteorologists, climate campaigners, and extreme weather experts expressed shock and horror Sunday as Hurricane Beryl exploded into an "extremely dangerous" Category 4 storm as it headed into the warm waters of the southern Caribbean with a level of intensification characterized as unprecedented.
The National Hurricane Center on Sunday morning called it a "very dangerous situation" due to "potentially catastrophic hurricane-force winds, a life-threatening storm surge, and damaging waves" for the numerous mainland and island nations in Beryl's path.
According to the NHC, the Windward Islands of St. Vincent, the Grenadines, and Granada will be the first at highest risk from the storm as well as St. Lucia and Barbados. People on those islands and elsewhere in the region were told that all preparations for the storm "should be rushed to completion" without delay.
Weather Undergroundreports that subsequent locations that may face Beryl's wrath later this week could be Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, Belize and Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, though noted "there's uncertainty in that exact track" of the hurricane as detailed in the following graphic:
Possible storm tracks for Hurricane Beryl. (Source: Weather Underground / wunderground.com)
Citing records going back to 1851, the Washington Postreported Sunday that there "is no precedent for a storm to intensify this quickly, nor reach this strength, in this part of the ocean during the month of June."
Eric Blake, a hurricane expert, said that Beryl on Sunday was "rewriting the history books in all the wrong ways," as he urged people in its path to "be very safe and take this hurricane seriously" as "very few will have experienced a hurricane this strong" on those islands.
"This is unreal," said Nahel Belgherze, a journalist focused on extreme weather. "Hurricane Beryl continues to defy all known logic, now becoming the first June Category 4 hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic Basin. I can't even stress enough just how completely absurd that storm is."
"The climate crisis is here," said the Sunrise Movement in a social media post showing the extreme power and historic nature of Hurricane Beryl. "This is an emergency. Politicians need to start acting like it."
The group took the opportunity to re-share its petition calling on President Joe Biden to "declare a climate emergency" as a way to unlock federal funds and escalate the government's response to the crisis of fossil fuels that are the main driving of surging global temperatures.
In May, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted that the 2024 hurricane season—which officially runs from June 1 to the end of November—would be "extraordinary" and "above-normal," largely due to rising ocean temperatures attributable to human-caused global warming couple with La Niña conditions.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular