Gov. DeSantis’ social media ban hurts parents and minors

Originally published at The Center Square.

The recent surge of bills attempting to rein in social media outrage in Florida and across America has sparked debate over the role of government in regulating them.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed an initial bill banning minors on social media. In his veto message, he said, “Protecting children from harms associated with social media is important, as is supporting parents’ rights and maintaining the ability of adults to engage in anonymous speech.”

We should empower parents to determine what's best for their children on social media, or otherwise. This will work better than putting politicians and government bureaucrats in charge, which is what these types of bills do. These bills are likely unconstitutional, as they violate the First Amendment.

Furthermore, excessive government regulation of social media stifles innovation and entrepreneurship in the digital space, especially small businesses.

By imposing burdensome restrictions on online platforms, we risk hindering the development of new technologies and services that could benefit families. A more pragmatic approach fosters competition in the marketplace, allowing consumers to choose the platforms that best align with their values and preferences.

These regulations would hurt many start-up firms as they won’t have the resources to hire as many lawyers to jump through the hoops imposed on them that larger, incumbent companies can afford. They would also need to pay third-party verification systems that cost thousands of dollars, making it more challenging to start a business, as noted in a recent report by Engine.

Gov. DeSantis has been a vocal advocate for parental empowerment, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability from social media companies. His initial pushback of government overreach of social media should be championed rather than resorting to bans for questionable reasons, as social media isn’t the culprit for bad parenting or bad legislation.

In light of ongoing NetChoice cases at the Supreme Court, where the organization has fought against state-level regulations deemed infringing on free speech and commerce, we should uphold free speech in the digital age. By joining parents in advocating for greater transparency and accountability by social media companies where applicable, we can champion the interests of Americans and assert state sovereignty.

​Rather than relying on government mandates and regulations, we should foster a culture of parental responsibility and provide families with the resources they need to navigate the digital landscape safely.

If politicians and bureaucrats take over these responsibilities, it will lead to less incentive for parents to be engaged with their kids and what they’re doing online. This would be a terrible path forward as the government has already made bad situations worse regarding safety-net handouts, a monopoly government school system, and more.

Let’s stick with a proven approach that supports parents and social media providers rather than a top-down, likely unconstitutional one.