(Photo by Robin Worrall/Unsplash)

MASSACHUSETTS LAWMAKERS KNOW parents are concerned about their children’s online experiences. Families want tools that help them guide their kids and keep them safe, and policymakers are responding with urgency. However, urgency should not come at the expense of getting the policy right.

Legislation recently passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives and similar overly prescriptive proposals, such as language in Gov. Healey’s recently filed supplemental budget take a sweeping approach to a complex issue. In looking at the House bill, for instance, it would ban social media access for children under 14 and require parental consent for teens ages 14 and 15. While well-intentioned, this proposal risks creating new problems for families while raising significant privacy and constitutional concerns.

The bill’s goal is to protect children, but in practice it restricts younger users’ access to lawful online content. Courts have repeatedly made clear that protecting minors does not give the government a generalized power to limit what people can read, view, or say.

Teens, like adults, have First Amendment rights, including the ability to access information and engage in online communities. Broad restrictions that limit access to digital services risk going further than our Constitution allows.

The practical challenges are just as significant. To enforce age-based restrictions, online services would need to verify users’ ages with a high degree of certainty. This often means collecting sensitive personal information such as government-issued identification, biometric data, location data, or other detailed records. The more accurate the system, the more invasive it becomes for users.

Policies designed to protect young people should not require families to hand over more personal data in the process. Expanding the collection of sensitive information, particularly for minors, creates new risks, from data breaches to identity theft. It also introduces the possibility of government access to that data through enforcement actions.

When faced with broad and unclear requirements, many companies may choose the simplest path to compliance: denying access to younger users altogether. That outcome would not just affect entertainment. It could limit access to educational resources, peer networks, and support communities that many young people rely on. For teens who may not have safe or supportive environments at home, these online spaces can be especially important.

None of these concerns diminish the importance of youth safety online. Parents deserve meaningful options, and lawmakers deserve credit for engaging on this issue. But effective solutions require a more targeted approach.

Many services already offer parental controls, privacy protections, time limits, and account settings designed specifically for younger users. These tools allow families to make decisions based on their own needs and values, rather than relying on rigid mandates. Expanding digital literacy education can also help both parents and children better navigate online spaces responsibly.

Massachusetts has an opportunity to lead by advancing policies that are thoughtful, workable, and respectful of both families and fundamental rights. This can be accomplished by focusing on solutions that empower parents, protect privacy, and preserve access to information.

Lawmakers, parents, educators, and technology providers all share the goal of protecting young people online. With a more balanced approach, the state can protect young people without cutting them off from the opportunities the internet provides.

Kyle Sepe is the Northeast region state policy manager for the Computer & Communications Industry Association. Abigail Wilson is the director of state policy for the Software & Information Industry Association.