Tag: Social

A new bipartisan bill intended to shield children under 13 from harmful content on social media does not apply to YouTube Kids, which parental rights advocates warn still feeds transgender ideology and DEI videos to minors. 

Parental rights advocates who spoke to Fox News Digital also took issue with the bill, deemed the Kids Off Social Media Act, over its restrictions on the algorithm, suggesting the measure constitutes “government overreach.” 

The bill was introduced by Sens. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Katie Britt, R-Ala., and is expected to go to mark-up on Wednesday. In an online question-and-answer fact sheet, Schatz’s office said YouTube Kids does not fit the definition of social media under the bill, nor do video games and other platforms like wireless messaging, educational platforms and teleconferencing. 

Upon visiting the YouTube Kids site, users are prompted to determine whether they are a parent or a child. It tells parents they must set up an account for their children and can block videos or channels they do not like. Among the content available to children on the site are videos made by “queer” creators, including from the accounts Queer Kid Stuff, Nickelodeon and CBC Kids News, advocates note. Other popular videos center on DEI, such as explaining “systemic racism” to children. 

DEI OFFICE CLOSURES AT UNIVERSITIES PILE UP AFTER ANOTHER STATE ORDERS END TO ‘WOKE VIRUS’

“I don’t think that we should just exclude apps from scrutiny because they say kids in them. You know, we’re all familiar with the so-called gender-affirming care, which isn’t really helpful or caring in any way. We’ve learned that, right? So the title of something shouldn’t just allay our fears. I don’t know why YouTube Kids has been excluded,” Moms for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice told Fox News Digital. 

“What we have seen on YouTube Kids, I’ve seen personally myself, is evidence of transgender ideology being fed to kids,” she explained. “We know that trans activists have been targeting children. We know that there are vulnerable children who see this content. They often will click on it. Sometimes the algorithm will feed them more of that content. And so I think it’s very concerning. I don’t want parents to just say, this is meant for children and everything’s okay.” 

“We have always said it, Moms for Liberty, we do not co-parent with the government.,” Justice said. “So I really would like to continue to tell parents they need to be involved. They need to be the ones that are making those choices.” 

“There’s a tidal wave of evidence barreling down on the United States showing that so-called gender-affirming care is bad for children,” she said, championing President Donald Trump’s executive action to remove DEI and gender ideology from classrooms. “We do not want our children indoctrinated, indoctrinated to think that they were born in the wrong body. This is a horrible message. Stopping the natural, healthy development of children is criminal. And so the idea that you have a website that is feeding kids content around gender, ideology or DEI is extremely concerning. And it is worrisome that perhaps parents think, well, it’s YouTube Kids, so it’s safe.” 

Reached by Fox News Digital, a spokesperson for YouTube defended the YouTube Kids app but did not address the legislative proposal directly.

“The YouTube Kids app puts parents in the driver’s seat,” the spokesperson said. “Parents can choose what their kids see and what they don’t see. They have control over the content their kids watch and can easily go into the app to curate a list of allowed channels or block content from their child’s profile through the ‘approved content only’ setting.”

Meanwhile, Justice highlighted separate legislative measures introduced by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to protect children online, including one bill introduced last session that would require age verification in the app store. 

Lee is not listed as a co-sponsor of the Kids Off Social Media Act, which would prohibit social media platforms from allowing children under the age of 13 to create or maintain social media accounts, but does not include a parental consent provision. That bill would not require users to present a government ID to gain access to social media and instead requires social media companies to use data about their users, including pictures they post, channels they follow or the date of birth they require upon sign-up to determine if a child is on their platform. 

As for another aspect of the Kids Off Social Media Act, Justice said she was concerned that the bill bans “algorithmic boosting” for children under 17. Under the bill, social media platforms would not be able to use machine learning to follow exactly how long children watch posts and what they click on to learn what makes each individual child stay on the platform the longest. 

Schatz’s office argued that social media companies exploit kids for profit in this way, but Justice said her main concern is the government controlling the algorithm. 

THERAPISTS SOUND ALARM AFTER STUDY SHOWS DRAMATIC RISE IN GENDER DYSPHORIA AMONG CHILDREN

“If your son likes hockey, and it gives you more hockey information, well, I don’t know that that would bother me,” Justice said, explaining that she met a fellow mom who told her she goes on her children’s social media accounts and “trains” the algorithm to pull up more conservative political content so that her teenagers are exposed to another perspective outside mainstream media. 

“So I just think there are a lot of questions about who’s controlling the algorithm,” Justice said. “We know that there are oftentimes really dangerous content that can affect children’s mental health. We have evidence of that. And so we want to be really careful about how that algorithm is being used. And again, I just don’t know that I want the government making those decisions for my family.” 

Another parental rights advocate, Cat Parks, the former vice chair of the Texas GOP, told Fox News Digital that her primary concern with the Kids Off Social Media Act is that it “represents unnecessary government overreach in an area where parents need to have ultimate authority.” Parks said the “real issue here is that it’s parents who need to be informed to be able to make the correct decisions for their children, not something that’s mandated by the government.” 

“As a parent, I’m very involved in my son’s online presence and approve what platforms that he’s allowed to interact with. So what I don’t want, I don’t want government to be able to strip my ability for my child’s feed to be personalized or for me as a parent to choose and make the decisions about what he has access to,” Parks said.

Justice argued that the onus is on parents to shield their children from harmful content, and while there may be a role for government to play, “it’s really kind of murky as to what that role is going to be.” 

“We know that the algorithm is addicting,” she said. “I know that it wants you to keep scrolling and feeds you more information that it thinks that you’d be interested in. It’s just a question of what is that information now – transgender ideology, gender ideology. We’re working to wipe it off the face of the map. So, hopefully, that type of content won’t be as prevalent. But again, the bottom line is parents need to be active, engaged and involved in what their children are accessing online.” 

“I don’t want the government to be my kid’s daddy,” she added. “They have a father, and he’s a great one, and we’ll make good decisions for our kids together.” 

Most apps have age restrictions, but Schatz’s office cited a 2023 United Kingdom regulatory study that found nearly 40% of children ages 8–12 still use social media platforms. 

In the question-and-answer document, Schatz’s office also said the bill “does not prevent LGBTQ+ youth from accessing relevant resources online.” 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“We have worked closely with LGBTQ+ groups while crafting this legislation to ensure that this bill will not negatively impact this community,” the fact sheet said. “Under this bill, kids would still be able to affirmatively seek out content and have that information displayed in a chronological feed. Furthermore, this bill would not impact access to platforms such as websites run by non-profits, direct messaging and teleconferencing services, and educational websites, among others.”