A new double -sided account intended to protect children under 13 years of adverse content on social networks does not apply to YouTube childrenwhich warn parental law advocates still feeding on transgender ideology and dei videos to minors.
The proponents of parental rights who spoke with Fox News Digital also dealt with the law of law, considering that children were outside the Social Media Act, because of their limitations of algorithm, suggesting that the measure represented “Government’s overpowering.”
The proposal of the law was introduced by SENS. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Chris Murphy, D-Conn., And Katie Britt, R-Ala., And she is expected to go to brands-up on Wednesday. In the Internet list with the question and answers, the Schatz office said that YouTube Kids does not match the definition of social media under the account, nor the video game and other platforms such as wireless messages, educational platforms and teleconferences.
After visiting the YouTube Kids web site, users are asked to determine whether they are a parent or child. This tells parents that they have to set an account for their children and can block videos or channels they don’t like. Among the content available to children on the site are videos made by “Queer” creators, including with regard to Queer Kid Stuff, Nickelodeon and CBC Kids News accounts, the advocates noted. Other popular videos of Dei, such as the explanation of “systemic racism” to children.
Social media apps can be seen grouped on a mobile device. (Jaap Arriens/Nurphoto via Getty Images)
“I don’t think we should just exclude applications from surveillance because they tell the children in them. You know, we are all familiar with the so -called career that confirms the gender, which is not very useful or caring in any way is not useful or caring. Moms for Liberty co -founder Tiffany Justice said Fox News Digital.
“What we saw on YouTube to the children, I personally saw myself, the proof is that the transgender ideology feeds on children,” she explained. “We know that trans activists aimed at children. We know there are vulnerable children who see this content. They will often click on it. Sometimes the algorithm will feed them more than that content. And so I think it’s very worrying. And I don’t want parents They just say, this is intended for children and everything is fine. ”
“We always said that, moms for freedom, not parents with the government,” justice said. “So, I really would like to continue telling parents that they should be involved. They must be those who make those decisions.”
“There is a tidal wave of evidence that is thrown to the United States showing the so -called gender care is bad for children, “she said, advocated by President Donald Trump’s executive action to remove Dei and gender ideology from classrooms.” We do not want our children indoctrinated, indoctrinated thought they were born in the wrong body. This is a terrible message. Stopping the natural, healthy development of children is criminal. And so the idea is that you have a website that feeds children’s content around sex, ideology or Dei -and is extremely worrying. And it’s worrying that parents may think, well, these are YouTube children, so it’s sure. ”
He was reached by Fox News Digital, a YouTube spokesman defended YouTube Kids App, but did not directly respond to the legislative proposal.
“The YouTube Kids app puts his parents in the driver’s seat,” a spokesman said. “Parents can choose what their children see and what they do not see. They have control over the content that their children look at and can easily enter the app to make a list of permissible channels or block their child’s profile through a ‘approved content only’ setting.”
In the meantime, justice emphasized separate legislative measures introduced by Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, to protect children on the network, including one proposal for the Law introduced at the last session to require a check of age in the App Store.
Lee is not listed as the sponsor of the Children’s Law outside the social media, which would ban the social media platforms to allow children under 13 to create or maintain accounts on social media but does not include a parental provision. This account would not require users to present the Government ID to get access to social media and instead requires social media companies to use their users, including the images they publish, the channels that follow, or the date of birth they need after applying to the application Is the child on their platform.
YouTube Kids logo is displayed on the mobile phone screen. (Faisal Bashir/Sopa Pictures/Lightctics via Getty Images)
As for the second aspect of the Law on Children outside the Social Media, Justice said she was concerned that the account forbidden the “algorithic reinforcement” for children under the age of 17. According to the proposal of the law, the social media platforms will not be able to use machine learning to follow how long the children look at the posts and what they click to learn what each individual child remains on the platform for the longest time.
The Schatz office claimed that companies in social media exploit children for profit in this way, but justice said that her main concern is a government controlling the algorithm.
Therapists sound alarm after studying shows a dramatic increase in gender dysphoria among children
“If your son loves hockey, and that gives you more information about hockey, well, I don’t know that I would bother me,” Justice said, explaining that she met her colleague’s mom who told her to go to her children’s social networks accounts and “trains” the algorithm to withdraw more conservative political content so that its teenagers are exposed to another perspective outside the main media.
“So, I just think there are a lot of questions about who controls the algorithm,” Justice said. “We know that there is often a truly dangerous content that can affect the mental health of children. We have evidence about it. And so we want to be very careful about how this algorithm is used. And again, I just don’t know that I just don’t know it you want it that the government makes these decisions for my family. ”
Another advocate of parental rights, cats, former Vice President of the Texas GOP, told Fox News Digital that her main concern for children outside social media is that “it is” unnecessarily competing for the Government in an area where parents should have the ultimate authorities. ” Parks said that “the real problem is here that parents who need to be informed so that they can make the right decisions for their children, not something that the Government ruled.”
“As a parent, I am very involved in the internet presence of my son and approve of which platforms that are allowed to communicate with. So what I do not want, I do not want the government to remove his ability for a child for a feed child to be personalized or for me Parents to choose and make decisions on what to access, “Parks said.
The YouTube application logo is shown on the iPhone at the Apple Store. (Sheldon Cooper/Sopa Pictures/Lightctics via Getty Images)
Justice claimed that it was on parents to protect their children from harmful content, and although it could be the role for the Government, “this is really blurry what this role will be.”
“We know the algorithm depends,” she said. “I know he wants to continue moving and feeding you more information that you think you would be interested in. This is only a question of what that information is now – transgender ideology, gender ideology. We are working to wipe her out of the map’s face.
“I don’t want the government to be my baby’s dad,” she added. “They have a father, and he is great, and together we will make good decisions for our children.”
Most applications have age restrictionsBut the Schatz office quoted the United Kingdom Regulatory Studio in 2023, which revealed that almost 40% of children aged 8 to 12 still use the social media platforms.
In the questions for questions and answers, the Schatz office also said that the account “did not prevent LGBTQ+ young people from approaching relevant resources online”.
Click here to get the Fox News app
“We have cooperated closely with LGBTQ+ groups as we have made this legislation to ensure that this proposal of the law will not adversely affect this community,” the fact of fact said. “According to this account, the children could still confirm the content and have this information shown in the Chronological Feed. Furthermore, this account would not affect the access of platforms such as websites that manage non -profit organizations, direct messages and services of teleconference, and educational website, among others. ”
