Instagram’s new protections for kids don’t go far enough
Instagram just announced “sweeping” changes to how it handles minors’ accounts, a belated acknowledgment that a social platform that seeks to encourage engagement can have pernicious effects on children. Accounts whose owners selfidentify as minors will now be private by default, stop notifications between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., and allow parent accounts to see who receives their children’s messages.
But these policies will have little impact because Instagram has not set up age verification.
In response to Instagram’s new policy, many kids will simply create “finstas” — fake accounts — and carry on as before. Additionally, 16- and 17-year-olds will be able to opt out of these settings without needing parental approval. Instagram’s new policy is less of a solution and more of a performance in response to public outcry.
Even these minor changes came only after dozens of lawsuits by state attorneys general and recent legislation aimed at protecting minors online. In an age of polarization, such consensus is a strong indicator of how bothered the public is by all this.
While our new connected reality does have upsides, many teenagers suffer greatly from the constant judgment that characterizes social media platforms. And then there are the many documented cases of exploitation of vulnerable youngsters.
Obviously, those best able to protect themselves from social media’s harms are going to be the young people who already have trusting relationships with their parents. But what about the rest of them?
Age verification is the kind of policy that would allow such changes to have widespread effect. But it’s not an easy fix. And it would certainly not be without major downsides, especially if it allowed a company to collect even more information on everyone. That could be solvable with new technological approaches. But so far, tech companies have little incentive to do much. Little else is likely to happen until Congress finally gets serious, resists the lobbying by these wealthy companies and forces platforms to act. Until then, the most vulnerable kids are still on their own.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.