By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Texas federal judge issued a temporary block on Senate Bill 2420, the App Store Accountability Act, which would have mandated age verification for app downloads and parental consent for minors’ in-app purchases. The plaintiffs, Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT) and two high school students, argued that the law imposed unconstitutional content-based restrictions on speech and parental rights. Judge Robert Pitman sided with the plaintiffs, citing the law’s likely unconstitutionality, while also acknowledging the importance of child safety online. This decision follows a similar ruling earlier in the year that blocked parts of the SCOPE Act, further highlighting ongoing legal challenges to Texas’ efforts to regulate minors’ access to online content.
Read the original article here
Federal judge blocks Texas app store age verification law from taking effect in the new year, delivering a sigh of relief for many, and it’s easy to see why. The underlying concern revolves around the potential for these “age checks” to morph into data-harvesting operations, inevitably leading to data leaks and privacy breaches. Instead of mandating that everyone upload IDs, which is a significant privacy concern, a more effective approach could be to strengthen default parental controls, giving parents the tools they need to protect their children without compromising everyone’s data.
The idea of parents verifying their children’s age, rather than the government, is a sentiment echoed by many. A simple solution could be a “child phone line” designation when purchasing and setting up a device, automatically blocking certain apps and websites. This approach offers a targeted method of control.
Anyone living in Texas should be prepared to challenge the law legally if it were to actually take effect. One of the underlying fears is that it would create a “nanny state,” a concept many find undesirable, particularly when it comes to personal freedoms and internet usage. This can be especially true if it appears to be a tool used for censorship.
The argument that all of these child protection measures are unnecessary is a strong one. Good parenting, with the use of parental controls, can handle most of the challenges. This is not about protecting anyone, and instead, it might make children more miserable. Instead of addressing the actual problem, the focus is on creating a mechanism for internet censorship, thereby controlling the flow of information.
The potential for censorship is a real concern, and it’s easy to see how a law like this can be used to limit access to certain types of content or even restrict the discussion of certain topics. The worry is that those in power could use it to label anything LGBTQ+ related as “perverse.” This isn’t about adult videos; this is about gay people existing and wanting to access the same kind of content as everyone else.
The core issue isn’t age checks themselves. Proof of age is accepted in many offline contexts, and the problem is how data is collected and managed. Stronger data protection measures and limitations on data harvesting are needed.
Some raise legitimate questions about how to protect children with less-than-ideal parenting. The focus should be on helping them socialize, teaching them to express their feelings, and giving them the support they need. The solution isn’t to child-proof the entire world.
There’s also a fundamental issue of parental responsibility and government overreach. If the government determines what content parents have to protect their children from, where do they draw the line? Is it appropriate for the government to regulate religion, or harmful ideologies?
The core issue is that the government is not responsible for making these decisions. Parents should be the ones to make those choices. Additionally, the argument is that this entire thing is really about data harvesting and tracking adults. It is using protecting children as a smokescreen to remove rights.
Many have suggested mandating the use of ID for phone lines, with toned down child phones for those who need it. Parental control should be the parent’s responsibility. It would require an invasion of privacy to moderate internet usage for children. This isn’t going to protect anyone.
There are even accounts of content slipping through even with parental controls turned on. The experiences of parents show that even those who are well-versed in parental controls find themselves caught off guard when apps change their behavior. This highlights the ever-evolving nature of technology and the challenges parents face.
The reality is that parental controls aren’t always effective. They can be poorly designed, with workarounds and loopholes. The example of a Troomi phone, where a child found a way to access YouTube despite restrictions, is a perfect example of this. Parental controls are not foolproof.
The idea of criminal prosecution for parents is just not right. How many times per hour can a kid hear the word “fuck” before the parents are locked up?