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."
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."
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:
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."
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 told Reuters 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
'Deeply Concerning': Critics Decry Facebook Plan to Build Instagram for Kids 12 and Under
"Social media companies have a responsibility to protect children and young people online, but building a separate version of their platforms is not the answer."
Mar 19, 2021
Parents, child advocates, and Big Tech critics are responding with alarm to BuzzFeed News' Thursday night reporting that Instagram, a photo-focused social network owned by Facebook, is planning to make a version for children under the age of 13--who are officially barred from both platforms but often able to access them anyway.
"If Instagram wants to do something for younger children, it should focus on getting under 13s off of the platform entirely."
--Josh Golin, CCFC
"It is deeply concerning that Instagram--a platform known for a host of troubling privacy, commercial, and design practices that undermine adolescents' well-being--is now setting its sights on even younger children," Josh Golin, executive director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), told Common Dreams by email.
"If Instagram wants to do something for younger children," Golin added, "it should focus on getting under 13s off of the platform entirely."
Rasha Abdul-Rahim, co-director of Amnesty Tech, also expressed concern over the possibility of an Instagram designed specifically for kids.
"Facebook poses one of the biggest threats when it comes to children's privacy," Abdul-Rahim said. "Increasing safeguards for children online is paramount, but the fact remains that Facebook will be harvesting children's data and profiting off their detailed profiles."
" Social media companies have a responsibility to protect children and young people online, but building a separate version of their platforms is not the answer," Abdul-Rahim asserted. "Facebook's very business model is built on ubiquitous and constant--which is entirely incompatible with human rights. By making users sign up to the opaque terms and conditions of Instagram, Facebook will be able to harvest huge amounts of data about children and create invasive, granular profiles that can last the rest of their lives."
Even with an age-specific platform, she added, "children will remain at risk of being bombarded with targeted advertising and incendiary content designed to keep their attention above all else. They will be left at the mercy of Facebook's algorithms that all too often amplify disinformation and divisive content in order to prioritize engagement."
BuzzFeed obtained an announcement that Instagram's vice president of product, Vishal Shah, shared Thursday on an employee message board.
"I'm excited to announce that going forward, we have identified youth work as a priority for Instagram and have added it to our H1 priority list," wrote Shah. "We will be building a new youth pillar within the Community Product Group to focus on two things: (a) accelerating our integrity and privacy work to ensure the safest possible experience for teens and (b) building a version of Instagram that allows people under the age of 13 to safely use Instagram for the first time."
Shah said that the work will be led by Facebook's Pavni Diwanji, who previously oversaw child-focused products at Google, including the controversial YouTube Kids. The internal announcement came two days after an Instagram blog post about protecting young people, which did not mention the new project.
Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, will oversee the work. He told BuzzFeed that the company does not yet have a "detailed plan" for development but knows that "more and more kids" want to use services like Instagram.
"We have to do a lot here," Mosseri said, "but part of the solution is to create a version of Instagram for young people or kids where parents have transparency or control. It's one of the things we're exploring."
The age-13 restriction on Facebook and Instagram traces back to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). As the Wall Street Journal detailed in 2019:
COPPA passed by a wide margin in 1998 and went into effect in April 2000--four years before Facebook and seven years before the iPhone. To this day, rather than go through the laborious process of seeking parental consent, most websites, apps, and social media platforms simply state that users must be at least 13.
Companies that collect or disclose data from kids can face civil penalties of more than $42,000 per violation, but they're liable only if they have actual knowledge that the person is younger than 13, the [Federal Trade Commission] says. If a 13-year-old--or a younger child who lies about his age--uses general-audience apps and websites, his data can legally be collected and shared.
Tech giants have come under fire for their treatment of personal data--and Facebook specifically for its "surveillance-based business model." Some critics, such as World Wide Web founder Tim Berners-Lee, argue for more user control. As Berners-Lee has said: "You should have complete control of your data. It's not oil. It's not a commodity."
An Instagram for the under-13 crowd would not be Facebook's first foray into services targeting children; in December 2017, Facebook launched Messenger Kids, which allows children under 13 to exchange text and video messages with individuals approved by their parents.
Dozens of advocacy groups, led by CCFC, responded to Messenger Kids with a letter (pdf) to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg declaring that "at a time when there is mounting concern about how social media use affects adolescents' well-being, it is particularly irresponsible to encourage children as young as preschoolers to start using a Facebook product."
"Raising children in our new digital age is difficult enough," they added. "We ask that you do not use Facebook's enormous reach and influence to make it even harder."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Scores of Education Experts Call on Schools to Reject Screen-Saturated Return to Learning
"Now is the time for parents and teachers to come together and demand what children really need."
Aug 11, 2020
As school districts across nation make plans for the fall semester--with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic forcing varying degrees of reliance on remote learning--scores of education experts on Tuesday sounded the alarm over the very real threat to students posed by increased screen time.
The warning comes in a new statement (pdf) that cites risks to student privacy, the potential entrenchment of controversial educational technology (EdTech), and students' need for authentic and human engagement.
"Our children and our nation deserve nothing less than safe schools and low-tech, child-centered, educator-driven learning."
--Education experts' joint statement"With no end in sight to the pandemic, school leaders would do well to remember that remote learning does not have to equal online learning, and to emphasize offline approaches to support children's wellbeing and learning," said Faith Boninger, Ph.D. of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder's School of Education.
Boninger is one of 70 experts that signed onto the statement authored by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood's (CCFC) Children's Screen Time Action Network. The call is also backed by three dozen advocacy groups including the Massachusetts Teachers Association, Badass Teachers Association, Boston Teachers Union, and ParentsTogether.
The groups say their message applies "whether school is in-person, remote, or some combination thereof" and suggest educators eye with suspicion claims from the companies that sell educational technology under the guise of personalized learning.
As the joint statement explains:
Seizing an opportunity to capture a larger portion of the $10 trillion global education market, for-profit EdTech vendors are selling families and policymakers the false premise that EdTech products offer effective and budget-friendly ways to learn. In reality, the products are costly to purchase and maintain, and frequently crowd teachers and staff out of the budget. The products also ensnare students, whose data and brand loyalty are harvested, and who often become targets of relentless marketing efforts. These efforts include the insidious practice of upselling, through which students and their families are pushed to purchase premium versions, thereby exacerbating inequalities among students. Equally important, these programs reduce the roles played by creative, compassionate teachers in educating the whole child.
"Learning happens best in the context of human relationships and is lost when the balance is skewed toward online platforms," the groups argue.
The statement goes on to cite research debunking technology's claims of boosting educational outcomes and adverse physical impacts--from eye strain to worsened sleep--from prolonged screen time.
"We're at a critical juncture when it comes to the education of our children, and we cannot let pandemic profiteering set the educational agenda for our children for years to come."
--Josh Golin, Campaign for a Commercial-Free ChildhoodMore insidious impacts are possible with increased digital device time as well, the groups say, giving as one example the threat that "sensitive student data, once processed into 'de-identified data,' can be used for non-educational, profitable activities. Worse, de-identified data can be reconstituted as personally-identifiable data."
Simply put, "reducing screen use during the pandemic has to be a priority--no matter the adopted reopening plan," say the child advocates.
To make that happen, the statement outlines five guiding principles for educational institutions as schools reopen during the ongoing pandemic:
- Limiting screen time so that's used only for necessary and intentional purposes. "Algorithm-driven adaptive learning platforms, gamified learning, and similar apps that incorporate persuasive design to keep kids online should be avoided."
- Remote learning "should be driven by human interactions and designed to maximize student engagement and agency through use of project-and place-based pedagogies and other self directed projects."
- Hands-on learning must be maximized through activities such as "reading actual books, writing by hand, art, movement, outdoor play, real-world math projects, and nature exploration."
- Investment should be made in educators, not EDTech.
- Schools must be mindful of privacy protections for students when bringing any technology into the learning environments.
"Our children and our nation deserve nothing less than safe schools and low-tech, child-centered, educator-driven learning," says the statement.
According to CCFC executive director Josh Golin, the choices schools make now will have reverberations well beyond the coronavirus crisis.
"We're at a critical juncture when it comes to the education of our children, and we cannot let pandemic profiteering set the educational agenda for our children for years to come," Golin said in a statement.
"During remote learning last spring, millions of parents saw firsthand the ineffectiveness and downsides of EdTech," he said. "Now is the time for parents and teachers to come together and demand what children really need."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Parents Fear Exploitation as Children's Screen Time Skyrockets 500% During Coronavirus Pandemic
"This is not a problem that parents can solve on our own. We need Congress to include online safety measures for our children in the next stimulus package."
Apr 23, 2020
As children across the U.S. connect with their teachers through technology while schools remain shuttered due to the coronavirus pandemic, a new survey shows many parents are deeply concerned about the drastically increased time children are spending online and in front of screens.
The parent-led national organization ParentsTogether released poll results Thursday showing that nearly half of U.S. children are now spending at least six hours per day online, compared with about 8% before the coronavirus pandemic began spreading across the U.S.--nearly a 500% increase.
More than a quarter of kids are spending eight or more hours online, while 30% of children are spending at least four hours using the internet.
"Our families need social media platforms and devices to stay connected right now. We shouldn't have to risk exposing our kids to sexual predators, bullies, unscrupulous advertisers, racist and sexist trolls, and platforms that deliberately addict them."
--Justin Ruben, ParentsTogether
The results of the survey, in which ParentsTogether polled 3,000 parents across the country, give rise to concerns over children's safety online--especially as many children are spending long periods of time using the internet without adult supervision.
The group spoke to parents whose kids have encountered sexual predation and bullying online, and have used apps and platforms which collect children's data.
"Our families need social media platforms and devices to stay connected right now," said Justin Ruben, co-director of ParentsTogether. "We shouldn't have to risk exposing our kids to sexual predators, bullies, unscrupulous advertisers, racist and sexist trolls, and platforms that deliberately addict them."
More than half of parents said they are concerned their children will become addicted to social media, games, or other on-screen activities as a result of the coronavirus pandemic as their use of screens rapidly skyrockets.
In addition to educational materials, children are largely spending time online using non-educational sites and apps. More than 78% of parents reported their children are using YouTube frequently. Nearly half said their children use Netflix and more than a third said their kids use TikTok.
The survey results come a week after 33 global groups wrote an open letter raising concerns about the rights of children who are learning remotely for the foreseeable future.
The "rushed adoption of technology" by schools which had to set up distance learning programs in a matter of days as the pandemic created a global emergency "risks undermining learners' and children's rights at an unprecedented speed and scale," the groups, including the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, wrote.
With schools relying on many free remote learning products that often exploit students' data or advertise to children, only 14% of parents surveyed by ParentsTogether said they felt the companies behind these products and websites are doing enough to protect young users.
Eighty-five percent of parents said Congress should include protections for children online in legislation addressing the coronavirus crisis, including putting limits on deceptive advertising and expanding the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which currently protects only children under the age of 13.
"This is not a problem that parents can solve on our own," said Ruben. "We need platforms to prioritize kids' safety and Congress to include online safety measures for our children in the next stimulus package."
Earlier this month, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a bill to combat the "commercialization" of websites used by children and the "manipulative design" of websites like Netflix and YouTube, aimed at keeping kids online longer.
"With kids stuck at home and spending more time on screens, this is urgent," Markey said last week.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Blast 'Paltry' $170 Million Penalty for Google's Violations of Child Privacy Rules
"The FTC let Google off the hook with a drop-in-the-bucket fine. Not a single Google executive or investor will bat an eye."
Sep 04, 2019
Consumer advocates expressed frustration Wednesday with the "paltry" $170 million penalty that Google has agreed to pay as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission and New York's state attorney general for the tech giant's alleged violations of federal online privacy rules for children.
"A paltry financial penalty of $170 million--from a company that earned nearly $137 billion in 2018 alone--sends a signal that if you are a politically powerful corporation, you do not have to fear any serious financial consequences when you break the law."
--Jeff Chester, CDD
Under the settlement, Google and its subsidiary YouTube--which regulators said illegally collected data from kids and used it to target them with advertising--will pay $136 million to the FTC and $34 million to New York and make changes by early next year to comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The deal comes after more than 20 consumer and privacy groups sent a complaint (pdf) to the FTC in April of 2018.
The settlement was approved by the FTC's three Republican commissioners and opposed by the two Democrats, who felt it did not go far enough. Although--according to a statement from the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James--this marks "the largest-ever settlement in a COPPA enforcement matter," some critics charged that the fine "isn't even a slap on the wrist."
"This punishment is grotesquely low. Google exploiting kids privacy for profit and no real repercussion," tweeted Zephyr Teachout, a progressive attorney, professor, and former political candidate.
"YouTube knowingly broke federal law by tracking kids in order to rake in advertising dollars without the requisite notice to and permission from parents. But the FTC let Google off the hook with a drop-in-the-bucket fine. Not a single Google executive or investor will bat an eye," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), COPPA's author, wrote in a series of tweets. "The FTC should have issued a colossal fine that fits Google's crime and demanded that Google make significant structural changes to their business practices."
In a pair of tweets, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen declared the fine "an absolute joke" and highlighted both Google's revenue in recent years and the revolving door between the Big Tech firm and the FTC.
"This is a sad, not celebratory day for children's rights," the group's president Robert Weissman said in a statement. "The leading consumer protection agency has just demonstrated that it will not defend children from blatant exploitation even when it is specifically empowered and ordered to do so."
Public Citizen was among the groups that signed on to the FTC complaint about Google and YouTube's COPPA violations, filed by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) through their attorneys at Georgetown Law's Institute for Public Representation.
"We are pleased that our advocacy has compelled the FTC to finally address YouTube's longstanding COPPA violations and that there will be considerably less behavioral advertising targeted to children on the number one kids' site in the world," CCFC executive director Josh Golin said in a statement Wednesday.
"It's extremely disappointing that the FTC isn't requiring more substantive changes or doing more to hold Google accountable for harming children."
--Josh Golin, CCFC
"But it's extremely disappointing that the FTC isn't requiring more substantive changes or doing more to hold Google accountable for harming children through years of illegal data collection," Golin added. "A plethora of parental concerns about YouTube--from inappropriate content and recommendations to excessive screen time--can all be traced to Google's business model of using data to maximize watch time and ad revenue."
CDD executive director Jeff Chester, who helped lead the campaign for COPPA's passage in 1998, concurred.
"We are gratified that the FTC has finally forced Google to confront its longstanding lie that it wasn't targeting children on YouTube," said Chester. "However, we are very disappointed that the commission failed to penalize Google sufficiently for its ongoing violations of COPPA and failed to hold Google executives personally responsible for the roles they played."
"A paltry financial penalty of $170 million--from a company that earned nearly $137 billion in 2018 alone--sends a signal that if you are a politically powerful corporation, you do not have to fear any serious financial consequences when you break the law," he warned. "More fundamental changes will be required to ensure that YouTube is a safe and fair platform for young people."
According to Chester, "the commission's inability to stop Google's cynically calculated defiance of COPPA underscores why Congress must create a new consumer watchdog that will truly protect Americans' privacy."
News of the settlement comes a day after The Washington Post reported that "more than half of the nation's state attorneys general are readying an investigation into Google for potential antitrust violations, scheduled to be announced next week, marking a major escalation in U.S. regulators' efforts to probe Silicon Valley's largest companies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ahead of Week Dedicated to 'Unplugging,' WHO Urges Strict Limits on Screen Time for Young Children
"What we really need to do is bring back play for children."
Apr 24, 2019
The World Health Organization on Wednesday released guidelines on screen time for young children, recommending no "sedentary screen time" for one-year-olds and curbed access for older kids.
For the guidelines, the Washington Post reported, the "WHO drew on emerging--but as yet unsettled--science about the risks screens pose to the development of young minds at a time when surveys show children are spending increasing amounts of time watching smartphones and other mobile devices."
Children aged two, three, and four should have no more than one hour of screen time in a 24-hour period, but "less is better," the WHO says.
"What we are cautioning on is over-use of those electronic screen times with young children," WHO expert Dr. Fiona Bull said at a news briefing.
The recommendations also address sleep and physical activity.
Infants, the WHO says, should not be restrained--whether in a stroller, high chair, or carrier--for more than an hour at a time. They should also be physically active at several points in a given day. For non-walkers, their day should include at least 30 minutes of "tummy time" spread out in the day.
One- to four-year-olds are recommended to have three hours of physical activity per day. For three- and four-year-olds, that should include one hour of moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity.
The value of "good quality sleep" is stressed, with 14 to 17 hours of sleep per day suggested for infants and 10 to 13 hours for three- and four-year-olds.
The recommendations do, however, tout the benefits of some sedentary time such as being read to by a caregiver. They also say that "quiet play (play that is not energetic and so not defined as physical activity and may be done while sedentary) is very important for development and can take many forms."
"What we really need to do is bring back play for children," said Dr. Juana Willumsen, WHO's point person on childhood obesity and physical activity, in a statement. "This is about making the shift from sedentary time to playtime, while protecting sleep."
The WHO's recommendations are similar to those issued last year by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which suggested no digital media other than video chatting for children under two. It also recommended a one-hour limit on screen use for those aged two to five.
The new guidelines from the United Nation's health body come just ahead of Screen-Free Week.
That effort, sponsored by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), will take place April 29-May 5, and "is an annual invitation to play, explore, and rediscover the joys of life beyond ad-supported screens," the organization says.
That goes for the young and old alike.
"A sense of reconnection with the world around us is obtainable at any time we choose-if we choose," pediatrician and author Mark Bertin recently wrote. "Unplugged, we engage differently with people, and fill our time with creative and mentally active pursuits."
"As little as one week off screens has been shown to improve social emotional skills. It's hard, and it's an adjustment, and kids push back--but we can regain control of technology," he added. "For modern families, little is more important than making sure your children use technology instead of being used by it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Kids' Screen Time Surging, New Project Aims to Challenge Corporate Profiteering
"Often missing from the story about screen time is that the entities who benefit most from children being on screens are corporations and marketers."
Oct 25, 2017
As a new study shows surging use of hand-held devices by young children, a fresh initiative aims to tackle the growing trend while directly challenging corporations who exploit children's screen time in the name of profit.
"Often missing from the story about screen time is that the entities who benefit most from children being on screens are corporations and marketers."
--Josh Golin, CCFCLaunched Wednesday by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), the new "solutions-oriented" project--called the Children's Screen Time Action Network--targets those on the frontlines of screen issues, be they parents, educators, pediatricians, or psychologists. The effort will provide resources to help caregivers reduce screen time and not just make screen time "better" for kids.
"The idea is to help professionals to move beyond just what's wrong to what can we do about it," Josh Golin, executive director of CCFC, told Common Dreams in an interview.
Among the issues Golin's group heard from professionals is that they often felt "like they were the only people doing this work." Part of the goal, then, was to let them know "they're not the only ones who've noticed that the children they see as professionals are really being negatively affected by too much screen time."
In addition to being a hub for resource-sharing and connecting with a cohort of peers, the network seeks to be a place to share best practices.
"One of the reasons why CCFC wanted to start this network and be the facilitator of the network is to ensure that commercialism and corporate marketing is part of the story when we talk about screen time," Golin explained.
"So often when we talk about screen time," he said, "we're talking about things like education, how it's affecting their learning, how it's affecting their attention, their sleep, affecting their relationships. Often missing from the story about screen time is that the entities who benefit most from children being on screens are corporations and marketers."
While on traditional television "a few rules still exist to limit the ways you can advertise to children," he explained, but with "mobile and online, essentially anything goes when it comes to marketing to children."
"One of the reasons that these new screens are so compelling and addicting," Golin warns, "is that they are deliberately designed to be that way for the benefit of corporations and the benefit of advertisers."
"That has to be part of the conversation," he said. "Screens are marketing devices. It's easy to forget that because we're all so addicted to them but they are."
The new effort comes on the heels of a study that reveals just how much unfettered access marketers have to the youngest screen-users.
Last week, an analysis by Common Sense Media on the use of smartphones and tablets by children aged 0-8 showed that while those in this age group spent from five minutes a day on handheld devices in 2011, the amount jumped to 48 minutes a day in 2017. It also fund that 42 percent of children 8 and younger now have their own tablet devices--a jump from less than 1 percent in 2011. Forty-two percent of parents also said say the TV is on "always" or "most of the time" at home.
The changes, said James Steyer, CEO and founder of Common Sense Media, to NPR, represent "a seismic shift" that is "fundamentally redefining childhood experiences" with "enormous implications we have just begun to understand."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Demanding 'What We Need to Survive,' Workers to Descend on McDonald's Shareholders Meeting
Fast food giant also faces renewed calls to ditch controversial 'McTeacher's Nights'
May 25, 2016
As McDonald's prepares to hold its annual meting on Thursday, low wage workers--buoyed by successes from the "unstoppable" Fight for $15 movement--are gearing up to confront the burger giant and again demand a decent wage and union rights.
On Wednesday, in addition to a mid-day strike at the flagship Rock N Roll McDonald's in Chicago, organizers say thousands of underpaid workers will stage a protest at the company's headquarters just outside the city, in Oak Brook, Illinois.
The suburban location will be the site of a second rally and march on Thursday as well as the shareholder meeting takes place.
According to a statement from organizers, in addition to those working for the fast food giant in the U.S. and abroad, other underpaid workers, including those in the child care and airport sectors, will be taking part.
"We're not just about $15 per hour," 20-year-old Ke'Jioun Johnson, who works at a McDonald's in Chicago, said to Reuters. "We're going to keep fighting until we get union rights," said Johnson, adding, "It's what we need to survive--a living wage and the hours to live off of."
As its workers eke out a living, "They company's stock is trading near all-time highs, spurred by a profit-boosting turnaround plan that includes all-day breakfast," Reuters notes.
That's a point noted by organizers as well, who say the low wages force workers to rely on public assistance--as such a sort of corporate welfare takes place. As the New York Times editorial board wrote last month, " taxpayers continue to pick up the difference between what fast-food workers earn and what they need to survive. An estimated $1.2 billion a year in taxpayer dollars goes toward public aid to help people who work at McDonald's."
McDonald's is also facing heat this week over its controversial "McTeacher's Nights."
During these fundraising events, McDonald's further markets itself to children by having teachers "work" and serve the fast food fare to their young students, and in so doing, says the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, the events
encourage students to eat junk food, undermining the hard work that parents, teachers, and administrators do to promote healthy habits for children. Parents and students trust teachers to do what's best for students' health. By enlisting teachers to market junk food to kids, McDonald's manipulates that trust. In the midst of one of the largest preventable health crises in the U.S. -- one that is closely linked to diet and increasingly affects children -- it's deeply irresponsible for McDonald's to exploit limited school budgets to market fast food to children.
Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood joined other advocacy groups Public Citizen and Corporate Accountability International this week in gathering roughly 30,000 petition signatures to McDonald's executives urging an end to the events.
"This profit-driven marketing ploy disproportionately targets children and takes advantage of the important relationships built on trust that students and teachers share," said Kristen Strader, campaign coordinator for Public Citizen's Commercial Alert program, in a media statement.
A former McDonald's' CEO, meanwhile, is making waves for his comments Tuesday on FOX Business Network's Mornings with Maria.
Ed Rensi said that increasing the wage to $15 an hour would "cause a job loss across this country like you're not going to believe," and suggested that it would instead be better to ditch the workers and purchase "a $35,000 robotic arm" to do the tasks.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy