The fallout from Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen’s explosive testimony about social media’s threat to children before the Senate Commerce Committee last fall is coming into focus.
There is bipartisan support in Congress to ban advertising targeted at children under 16, require tech firms to create default safety tools to protect children online, and give parents more control over their browsing. their children on the web.
The Commerce Committee last week advanced two bills: It approved the Children and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act by a voice vote and the Children’s Online Safety Act by a unanimous 28-0 vote.
Haugen had shared internal documents revealing that Facebook knows its photo-sharing platform Instagram can be addictive for teenagers and has likely led to rising rates of eating disorders and depression.
Facebook has been asking for years to be regulated, and the company certainly has the resources to keep up with the new rules. It has also created parenting tools and reminders that prompt teens to take a break or change subjects.
But a consensus is emerging that Haugen was on to something.
“Using principles from behavioral psychology, algorithms and technology companies are finding ways to keep kids and teens engaged for longer periods of time,” Nusheen Ameenuddin, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Council on Communication, told POLITICO and Media. “They’re feeding them more content … based on their clicks, their preferences — all these things that they really have no control over.”
The Children and Adolescent Online Privacy Protection Act, co-sponsored by unlikely allies Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), is an update to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 and extends existing teen privacy protections to children up to age 16 and prohibits advertising aimed at them. It would also give children and their parents the right to review and delete information that online platforms have collected about them. The bill would put the Federal Trade Commission in charge of enforcement and calls for a Privacy and Youth Marketing Division at the agency that would evaluate how well it is keeping children safe online.
The Child Online Safety Act, co-sponsored by another unusual couple, Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), would require social media platforms to allow children and parents theirs to opt out of content algorithms that fed them harmful content and disabled addictive product features. The bill limits the collection of children’s data, provides controls for parents and children over their online experience, and limits who can contact a child on social media. It also calls for independent audits and research to identify potential harm.
Mitch Prinstein, chief science officer at the American Psychological Association, said the bill is a good jumping off point for a broader discussion about how children should interact with social media. “There’s emerging evidence to suggest that the longer they’re in, the more it’s changing the structure and function of their brain development.”
But Congress still needs to agree on details and resolve ground battles before a new law can be passed.
During the Commerce panel’s assessment, the ranking Republican, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said he prefers a bill passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on a 53-2 vote last month, which would addressed the issue of data privacy more broadly, including for adults. as a child. But that bill would preempt existing state rules, such as California’s consumer privacy law, fueling opposition.
Welcome back to The pulse of the future, where we explore the convergence of healthcare and technology. ICYMI, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) sent a letter to the FTC demanding an investigation into Amazon’s impending deal with One Medical. He wants to know if a One Medical doctor says he has high blood pressure, will he have to worry about being bombarded with ads for Whole Foods supplements? Dystopian! What do you think?
Share yours news, tips and reviews with Ben in [email protected] or Ruth in [email protected] and follow us on Twitter for the latest @_BenLeonard_ AND @RuthReader. Send tips securely via SecureDrop, Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp here.
HOME OK HOME TELEHEALTH – The House of Representatives voted 416 to 12 last week to approve a bill by Wyoming Republican Liz Cheney that would keep expanded access to Medicare until the end of 2024.
Sliding scale voting was a huge boon for telehealth advocates. The legislation would allow Medicare as well as federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics to continue to cover virtual visits from patients’ homes. It would also extend a waiver allowing patients to avoid in-person mental health visits.
The currently relaxed rules are set to end five months after the end of the Covid-19 public health emergency, which could come in October.
Republicans upset with the process: GOP lawmakers were shocked that House leadership bypassed bipartisan negotiations and the committee process to derail Cheney’s bill, even though most Republicans voted for the legislation.
Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) told POLITICO that the House should have passed his bill, the Telehealth Modernization Act, which would have made some relaxed rules permanent.
What to expect next: Cheney’s bill has been sent to the Senate, where it is expected to have bipartisan support. Still, a busy legislative calendar lies ahead, and telehealth legislation probably won’t move until the “lame duck” session after the midterm elections, a Senate aide told POLITICO.
UNITEDHEALTH faces the DOJ – Antitrust litigation challenging UnitedHealth Group’s acquisition of Change Healthcare is underway before federal district judge Carl Nichols in Washington, DC
DOJ filed suit in February, arguing that the acquisition would give UnitedHealth insight into competitors’ operations. Change Healthcare provides technology tools to health systems and insurers that help them process claims. United argues that the DOJ’s argument rests on “speculative theory.”
The case will highlight how the Biden administration is shifting traditional thinking on antitrust to deal with technology.
At the American Bar Association’s conference on health care law earlier this year, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Andrew Forman of the Antitrust Division provided insight into how he is thinking about market power in health care: “The Division has some competitive concerns. , including the loss of drivers. competition at the top, exploitation of sensitive competitive information and reduction of innovation.
The trial is likely to end next week.
DATA BROKERS THAT DO NOT BUY UNDER PRESSURE — Democrats are pushing data brokers to stop collecting information on expectant parents to protect them from possible legal repercussions if they seek abortions in states where the procedure is now banned, but they have largely failed, Alfred reports. From POLITICO.
Brokers have long sold information on pregnant women, including their trimester status and preferred birth methods. It is valuable for companies that manufacture and sell products that new parents need.
Abortion bans that took effect after the Supreme Court handed abortion rights to states in June target abortion providers, but abortion rights groups argue that states can use the information against people who have abortions as well.
“It’s wildly irresponsible for a data broker to stick their head in the sand and pretend that their business of tracking pregnancies and selling that information for profit won’t be weaponized by right-wing extremists,” said Ron Wyden of Oregon, of who introduced with several other Senate Democrats in June the My Body, My Data Act to limit the collection of reproductive health data, in an email.
With no federal data privacy legislation telling them to, many brokers are not changing their practices.
POLITICO found more than 30 listings offering data on expectant parents or selling access to them through email postings. Most were updated after the court decision.
Joe Pych, CEO of NextMark – a directory of marketing email lists – said it was no problem to host such lists.
“As far as I know, there is no law today that prohibits prenatal mailing lists. If that were to change and this type of data became illegal, we would work with the providers to remove these listings,” Pych said.
FTC SUES Flaws Over Virtual Reality App — The Federal Trade Commission sued last week to prevent Facebook parent Meta from buying Within, the developer of a virtual reality fitness app, POLITICO’s Josh Sisco reports.
The lawsuit appears to be a thorn in the side of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his attempt to develop the metaverse. Brenda makes the fitness app Supernatural, which uses Meta’s virtual reality headset to help users stretch and work out.
The move is another sign of aggressive action by FTC Chairman Lina Khan, who wants to expand traditional notions of antitrust law to prevent big tech companies from getting even bigger.
“The FTC’s case is based on ideology and speculation, not evidence,” Facebook spokesman Stephen Peters said in a statement.
Cities are lobbying to host ARPA-H headquarters. Experts don’t understand why – Lev Facher, STAT
AI predicts the shape of almost every protein known to science – Cade Metz, The New York Times
Facebook Hits Another Health Data Privacy Lawsuit – Marianne Kolbasuk McGee, Healthcare Information Security
