SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
campaign for a commercial free childhood
Child Advocates Celebrate 'Pause' But Push for Permanent End to Instagram for Kids
"Today is a watershed moment for the growing tech accountability movement and a great day for anyone who believes that children's well-being should come before Big Tech's profits."
Sep 27, 2021
Critics of Instagram and its plan to create a version of the photo- and video-sharing platform for children ages 12 and under celebrated Monday's announcement that the project is "on pause" while calling for the company to "permanently pull the plug."
"We won't stop pressuring Facebook until they permanently pull the plug on IG Youth and take real steps to make their platform safer for teens."
--Josh Golin, Fairplay
Adam Mosseri, head of Facebook-owned Instagram, confirmed the move on NBC's "TODAY" after months of pressure from child development experts and advocates, members of Congress, state attorneys general, and parents as well as recent reporting by The Wall Street Journal that has increased scrutiny on how Instagram impacts teenagers.
"Six months ago, when word leaked that Facebook was planning a kids' version of Instagram, it was assumed the project was a done deal because Facebook usually does whatever it wants. But we knew the stakes were too high," said Fairplay executive director Josh Golin in a statement.
"So, we organized parents, advocates, experts, regulators, and lawmakers to pressure Facebook to scrap its plans," he explained. "Today is a watershed moment for the growing tech accountability movement and a great day for anyone who believes that children's well-being should come before Big Tech's profits. We commend Facebook for listening to the many voices who have loudly and consistently told them that Instagram Youth will result in significant harms to children."
Golin, whose group was previously known as Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, added that "we urge Facebook to use this 'pause' to actually engage with the independent child development experts who understand how Instagram Youth will undermine young children's well-being."
"We also call on Facebook to immediately release its internal research that shows Instagram is harmful to teens," he said. "We won't stop pressuring Facebook until they permanently pull the plug on IG Youth and take real steps to make their platform safer for teens."
Mosseri made clear that the company still intends to continue the project--first revealed in March--saying Monday that "I still firmly believe that it's a good thing to build a version of Instagram that's designed to be safe for tweens, but we want to take the time to talk to parents and researchers and safety experts and get to more consensus about how to move forward."
Just before Mosseri explained the pause decision on national television, Facebook--which acquired Instagram in 2012--published another rebuttal to the Journal's characterization of the company's internal research, noting that Facebook's global head of safety, Antigone Davis, is set to appear before a Senate Commerce subcommittee on Thursday.
Facebook and Instagram both officially require users to be at least 13 years old--a restriction that traces back to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)--but young people often lie about their birthdays to create accounts on these and other platforms.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who spearheaded COPPA in the U.S. House of Representatives more than two decades ago, is among the lawmakers who have slammed plans for an Instagram for children. Responding to the pause on Twitter Monday, Markey said that "Facebook must completely abandon this project."
\u201cFacebook is heeding our calls to stop plowing ahead with plans to launch a version of Instagram for kids. But a "pause" is insufficient. Facebook must completely abandon this project.\u201d— Ed Markey (@Ed Markey) 1632755842
Others reiterated critiques of Facebook and Instagram while also calling for building an Internet that is safer for children.
"Instagram Kids is/was a bad idea because Facebook's surveillance capitalist business model is fundamentally toxic," said Fight for the Future director Evan Greer in a series of tweets Monday. "But the idea that teenagers should be denied access to social media is also bad. There are a lot of kids for whom the Internet is a lifeline. They deserve options."
"Kids deserve access to secure, transparent, non-exploitative social media and messaging that's not built on a model of harvesting their data and using it to manipulate them," said Greer. "And they deserve basic online rights including privacy and anonymity when necessary."
"Basically: let's not use kids as pawns in a push for sloppy and misguided policies that will do more harm than good (like poking holes in Section 230, undermining encryption, etc. etc.)," she added. "Let's envision the Internet we want to leave to our children's children, and fight for it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Citing Mental Health and Privacy Concerns, Dems Call On Facebook to Kill 'Instagram for Kids' Plot
"When it comes to putting people before profits, Facebook has forfeited the benefit of the doubt, and we strongly urge Facebook to abandon its plans to launch a version of Instagram for kids."
May 18, 2021
Echoing a recent letter from 44 attorneys general, a quartet of congressional Democrats on Tuesday urged Facebook to abandon its plan to launch a version of the photo- and video-sharing platform Instagram targeting kids ages 12 and under.
"Facebook has a clear record of failing to protect children on its platforms."
--Four DemocratsThe new joint statement from Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) as well as Reps. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) followed a letter the lawmakers sent to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in early April and the company's response (pdf) later that month.
"Facebook has a clear record of failing to protect children on its platforms," the lawmakers said. "In its response to our recent letter, the company refused to make meaningful commitments about how it will ensure that its proposed Instagram Kids app does not harm young users' mental health and threaten their privacy."
"When it comes to putting people before profits, Facebook has forfeited the benefit of the doubt," they added, "and we strongly urge Facebook to abandon its plans to launch a version of Instagram for kids."
\u201cFacebook has a clear record of failing to protect children on its platforms and won't make commitments to ensure that its proposed Instagram Kids app does not harm young users\u2019 mental health and threaten their privacy. The company needs to abandon Instagram for Kids.\u201d— Ed Markey (@Ed Markey) 1621351931
The statement came as Blumenthal, chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security, convened a hearing titled, "Protecting Kids Online: Internet Privacy and Manipulative Marketing."
Although lawmakers discussed many tech giants during the hearing, both Blumenthal and Markey called out the Instagram for kids effort specifically:
\u201cBlumenthall: "I agree with the 44 Attorneys General and child advocates: Facebook should abandon its plans for Instagram kids" (If you agree, sign here: https://t.co/uD9BOv48SR)\u201d— Fairplay (@Fairplay) 1621345107
\u201cSenator Markey: Facebook has refused to give myself & Senator Blumenthal meaningful answers on how they would protect children on IG Kids and therefore I am urging them to abandon their plans.\u201d— Fairplay (@Fairplay) 1621347263
Facebook controversially acquired Instagram in 2012 for $1 billion. Although both platforms officially ban users under the age of 13--a policy that traces back to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which Markey authored over two decades ago--some young people lie about their age to access the app.
In their letter (pdf) last month, which included 14 detailed questions, the lawmakers wrote that "if Facebook's objective is to decrease the number of users under the age of 13 on its current Instagram platform, it should invest in efforts to do that directly."
Child advocates and Big Tech critics have echoed that message since the social media giant's plan was first reported in March.
Josh Golin, executive director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), told Common Dreams at the time that "if Instagram wants to do something for younger children, it should focus on getting under 13s off of the platform entirely."
"If Instagram wants to do something for younger children, it should focus on getting under 13s off of the platform entirely."
--Josh Golin, CCFC
In mid-April, CCFC led a letter--endorsed by dozens of organizations and individual experts--which explained concerns that an Instagram for kids would "exploit" the developmental changes young children experience, expressed doubt that a "babyish" version would draw current users away from the initial app, pointed out that "excessive screen media use and social media use is linked to a number of risks for children and adolescents," and highlighted the parent company's history.
"While tweens online deserve safe and protected environments, Facebook and Instagram have zero credibility and have proven time and time again that their priority is profiting off their manipulative and addictive tactics to keep users scrolling," said James P. Steyer, founder and CEO of Common Sense, which signed the April letter.
The attorneys general, in their letter (pdf) to Zuckerberg last week, made the same arguments against an Instagram for kids, even citing the earlier letter from organizations and experts.
"It appears that Facebook is not responding to a need, but instead creating one, as this platform appeals primarily to children who otherwise do not or would not have an Instagram account," they wrote. "In short, an Instagram platform for young children is harmful for myriad reasons. The attorneys general urge Facebook to abandon its plans to launch this new platform."
\u201cI'm calling on @Facebook to abandon its plans to create a version of @Instagram for children under the age of 13.\n\nThis is a dangerous idea that can be detrimental to children and put them directly in harm's way.\u201d— NY AG James (@NY AG James) 1620656387
Critics of an Instagram for kids have called the proposal "dangerous." Reporting Monday on not only Facebook's plot but also the impact of tech on youth, Australia's ABC noted that merging research suggests "excessive screen time is atrophying parts of children's brains associated with impulse control and reward and making them less able to manage their emotions."
Although Facebook has said that the kid-version of Instagram, if launched, will not include ads, the company has shown no sign of halting its broader plan, despite mounting opposition.
"As every parent knows, kids are already online," a Facebook spokesperson toldReuters on Tuesday. "We want to improve this situation by delivering experiences that give parents visibility and control over what their kids are doing."
But for critics like Steyer, Facebook can't be trusted to create a healthy online environment for children--especially given that the company already fails to provide that for adults.
"What Mark Zuckerberg should do instead of targeting young customers," Steyer said, "is take the billions of dollars Facebook reaps every year from amplifying harmful content and instead invest in making a healthy and privacy protective product for adults."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Health Advocates Urge Facebook to Scrap Plan to Build Instagram for Kids 12 and Under
"Facebook and Instagram have zero credibility and have proven time and time again that their priority is profiting off their manipulative and addictive tactics to keep users scrolling."
Apr 15, 2021
A coalition of 36 organizations and 64 experts in child development and the impact of technology sent a letter Thursday to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg discouraging the ongoing development of an Instagram specifically designed for children ages 12 and under.
"It is beyond cynical that Instagram is using its failure to comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and its failure to protect kids as an excuse to target younger children."
--Josh Golin, CCFC
Facebook acquired the photo- and video-sharing social media platform for $1 billion in 2012. Both Facebook and Instagram are officially restricted to users ages 13 and older, which traces back to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
Reporting last month that an Instagram for kids was in the earlier stages of development provoked fierce criticism from parents and advocates, including leaders at Amnesty Tech and Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC).
The new letter (pdf) to Zuckerberg was written and organized by CCFC, which has also launched a petition urging Facebook to refrain from targeting children with a new platform and instead invest in educating parents that Instagram isn't for kids and identifying and closing accounts of young people who have lied about their ages.
"It is beyond cynical that Instagram is using its failure to comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and its failure to protect kids as an excuse to target younger children," said CCFC executive director Josh Golin in a statement.
"Instagram's business model relies on extensive data collection, maximizing time on devices, promoting a culture of oversharing and idolizing influencers," he noted, "as well as a relentless focus on (often altered) physical appearance--and it is certainly not appropriate for seven-year-olds."
James P. Steyer, founder and CEO of Common Sense--one of the groups that signed on to the letter--concurred. As he put it: "Facebook has gone back to their old bag of tricks, coming up with another product designed to get kids hooked when they are at their most vulnerable."
"While tweens online deserve safe and protected environments, Facebook and Instagram have zero credibility and have proven time and time again that their priority is profiting off their manipulative and addictive tactics to keep users scrolling," Steyer said. "What Mark Zuckerberg should do instead of targeting young customers is take the billions of dollars Facebook reaps every year from amplifying harmful content and instead invest in making a healthy and privacy protective product for adults."
Other signatories include Accountable Tech, Africa Digital Rights' Hub, Australian Council on Children and the Media, Berkeley Media Studies Group, Center for Health Science and Law in Canada, Child Online Africa, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Every Child Protected Against Trafficking U.K., Network for Public Education, Norwegian Cancer Society, Public Citizen, and Reset Australia.
Individuals who endorsed the letter include University of St. Gallen professor Veronica Barassi, author of Child Data Citizen; Patrick Burton, executive director of the Center for Justice and Crime Prevention in South Africa and co-author of various studies; psychologist Richard Freed, author of Wired Child: Reclaiming Childhood in a Digital Age; and Susan Linn, a lecturer in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and author of Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood.
The letter details concerns that an Instagram for kids would "exploit" rapid developmental changes children experience in the elementary and middle school years, highlights the growing body of research which "demonstrates that excessive use of digital devices and social media is harmful to adolescents," suggests that children already on Instagram "are unlikely to migrate to a 'babyish' version of the platform," and notes Facebook's troubling track record when it comes to young people.
"In short, an Instagram site for kids will subject young children to a number of serious risks and will offer few benefits for families," the groups warn, pointing to a letter (pdf) that Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) as well as Reps. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) sent to Zuckerberg last week.
"If Facebook's objective is to decrease the number of users under the age of 13 on its current Instagram platform, it should invest in efforts to do that directly," says the lawmakers' letter, also noting relevant studies and the company's record. "The alternative approach that Facebook appears poised to take--specifically, pushing kids to sign up for a new platform that may itself pose threats to young users' privacy and well-being--involves serious challenges and may do more harm than good."
The lawmakers requested a response from Facebook to 14 detailed questions about the company's Instagram for kids work by April 26.
Despite alarm among health advocates and lawmakers, Facebook doesn't seem inclined to drop the plan. According to the New York Times:
Stephanie Otway, a Facebook spokeswoman, said that Instagram was in the early stages of developing a service for children as part of an effort to keep those under 13 off its main platform. Although Instagram requires users to be at least 13, many younger children have lied about their age to set up accounts.
Ms. Otway said that company would not show ads in any Instagram product developed for children younger than 13, and that it planned to consult with experts on children's health and safety on the project. Instagram is also working on new age-verification methods to catch younger users trying to lie about their age, she said.
"The reality is that kids are online," Ms. Otway said. "They want to connect with their family and friends, have fun and learn, and we want to help them do that in a way that is safe and age-appropriate."
Signatory and American University professor emerita Kathryn Montgomery--a senior strategist at the Center for Digital Democracy, which also signed on to the letter as an organization--said Thursday that "Facebook claims that creating an 'Instagram for kids' will help keep them safe on the platform."
"But the company's real goal is to expand its lucrative and highly profitable Instagram franchise to an even younger demographic, introducing children to a powerful commercialized social media environment that poses serious threats to their privacy, health, and well-being," she said. "Given its failures to protect the public from disinformation, hate speech, and manipulation, parents cannot trust Facebook's promises to protect young children."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular