California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a controversial new piece of legislation on Friday, Sept. 20, that aims to place further restrictions on social media under the guise of protecting minors. Set to take effect in 2027, this legislation introduces several questionable compromises in the name of safeguarding young users. While this bill undoubtedly has pros and cons, it raises an important question: Who should be responsible for ensuring children’s safety online? Is it the government’s job to make these decisions, or should it be left to the parents?
I believe that responsibility for parenting should lie squarely with the parents themselves. This legislation, also known as the “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act,” imposes new rules that, in many ways, seem to infringe on parental rights and personal freedoms. The bill makes it illegal for online platforms and apps to offer “addictive feeds” to users under the age of 18 unless the company can prove it was unaware of the user’s age or the minor has parental consent. But is this a solution, or just a government overreach?
One of the critical components of the bill is the requirement for chronological feeds instead of algorithm-driven ones. Proponents argue that algorithms often prioritize addictive content, keeping users hooked with endless scrolling and exposing minors to harmful or misleading information. The move away from these curated feeds is intended to reduce manipulative engagement. However, I would argue that algorithm-driven feeds have value. Properly designed algorithms can filter out irrelevant or harmful content, providing users with a more personalized and meaningful experience. A default chronological feed could expose minors to unfiltered or even more inappropriate content simply because it doesn’t discern what’s relevant or safe.
The bill also introduces a mandate for silent notification times. Platforms will be prohibited from sending notifications to minors between midnight and 6 a.m. on weekdays and during school hours from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. from the months September through May. The intent is to minimize distractions affecting students’ focus during school or disrupting their sleep patterns. While this may sound beneficial in theory, it oversteps the boundaries of government intervention in family life. Parents are already empowered to control these aspects of their children’s digital lives by setting phone usage rules or utilizing parental control software. Do we really need legislation for something that families should be managing on their own?
A key concern with this legislation is the government’s role in dictating how businesses operate. By requiring companies to change the fundamental nature of their platforms — such as how they deliver content or send notifications — this bill raises questions about corporate freedoms. Some technology advocacy groups argue that the law interferes with businesses’ abilities to exercise editorial discretion in content delivery. Like other businesses, social media companies should be free to manage their platforms in ways they deem fit, especially when users have agreed to their terms of service.
I believe that businesses, particularly those in the tech industry, have a right to display and curate content how they see fit. Imposing mandatory chronological feeds could hinder innovation and alter the very nature of social media platforms, potentially diminishing the quality of the user experience.
Perhaps most troubling is the implication that the state is stepping in to “parent” people’s children. By imposing these restrictions, the government suggests that parents are not equipped to make decisions about their children’s social media use on their own. However, parents can limit screen time, turn off notifications and determine whether their child has access to a smartphone or social media. If a parent is concerned about social media’s effects, they can opt-out entirely or, at the very least, monitor their child’s usage. Mandating these settings could disrupt trust between parents and children, fostering resentment and creating unnecessary conflict within families.
Ultimately, how a child engages with social media should rest with the parent, not the government. Parents should be empowered to guide their children in making responsible choices rather than having the state impose blanket restrictions that may not align with every family’s values or needs.
While this legislation intends to safeguard young users, I find it oversteps into the personal domain of families and businesses. Parents, not the government, should be responsible for the way they raise their children. While reducing addictive elements on social media may be beneficial, there are other ways to address these concerns without resorting to heavy-handed legislation that interferes with personal freedoms and business operations.
Mike Rodriguez, FCRH ’27, is a political science major from Atlantic City, N.J.
