Imagine opening Instagram or TikTok, ready to scroll away through your feed, but instead being greeted with a page that makes you scan your driver’s license and get your parent’s permission before you can continue. This is what Senate Bill 63 (SB 63) would make happen in Nevada if passed. This law would make social media platforms check the age of every single user.It will totally bar anyone under the age of 13 (similar to the federal COPPA regulations, which already limit online monitoring and account opening for children younger than 13). For those below 18, it would restrict functions such as auto-play, likes, and push notifications—things most teenagers claim make applications more enjoyable and interactive.
Lawmakers say SB 63 aims to support teens’ mental health by treating social media addiction and minimizing objectionable material. This is an important goal. Over the past couple years, studies have shown that teens who spend over three hours a day on social media are more likely to be depressed and anxious. That being said, the bill oversteps in how teens are allowed to use the internet. Many teens, including some I have spoken to, feel like the law does not trust them and treats them like children.
Maya, 17, from Las Vegas, says it is more about the government babysitting her than protecting her, to need her mom’s permission to go on TikTok. Asha, 16, also claims teens already know how to use social media responsibly and shouldn’t lose access to essential features just because they are a minor. I talked to them casually at school and questioned them about how they utilize social media daily. Both of them expressed frustration in that they felt left out of conversation regarding their own online activities.
Critics of the legislation, including civil rights groups like the ACLU, argue SB 63 would stifle First Amendment rights by censoring free speech online. They also worry about privacy since websites would need to collect sensitive ID information from millions of teenage users, including government-issued ID. That raises questions about how the data is going to be stored and utilized. Rather than imposing these restrictions, they contend, we ought to be promoting digital literacy and self-regulation to enable teens to use social media safely and confidently. For instance, organizations can hold school workshops that teach teens how to track their screen time, recognize misinformation, and report harmful content.
SB 63, if it becomes law, will change how we scroll and will change how we Nevada teens communicate, construct, and express ourselves online. What is most troubling is that this bill directly affects us, but most teens were not part of the discussion. If our legislators are going to be legislating the terms of our online lives, we need to be part of that too. In brief, the mental health of teenagers must be safeguarded, yet SB 63’s solution would hurt teenagers more than help. What we need instead is education, information, and real solutions that will uphold our privacy and rights. The time has come for Nevada teenagers to speak up, get involved, and make our voices heard prior to the law changing the way we interact forever. Maybe that means writing to the school boards, commenting publicly, or even speaking at a hearing—we have the right to be heard.
Comments are closed.