Texas has partially implemented a new law that aims to give parents unprecedented control over their children’s online activities, however it has not had a smooth start.
The Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment (SCOPE) Act, also known as CSHB 18, was championed by Republican Representative Shelby Slawson and went into effect on September 1.
“Parents would be given the authority to consent to the platforms their children interact with online,” Slawson said during a committee hearing last year, highlighting concerns about cyberbullying and online predators.
However, the road to implementation has been rocky. Just days before the law was set to take effect, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman issued a last-minute, partial block, preventing the enforcement of SCOPE’s “monitoring and filtering” requirements.
Pitman’s ruling cited concerns about potential threats to online free speech, particularly noting the vague nature of terms like “promoting,” “glorifying,” and “grooming.”
An iPhone screen showing various social media apps. Texas’ new law to protect minors online is off to a rocky start.
Matt Cardy/Getty Images
Other issues include the range of SCOPE; the law, as it stands, also affects Texas schools, for example. It goes beyond providing adequate age-appropriate filtering for social media and wider internet access within classrooms.
Educational software company Impero said that “direct and informed parental consent is required for a student’s use of a software application, with two qualified exceptions.”
The company added that “[school] districts need to ensure that parental consent is listed in the policies communicated to parents and reiterated in acceptable use policies delivered to students.”
Criticisms of the law include the unintended consequence of increasing data collection by requiring more people to verify their identities, and the unintended result of requiring companies to provide an overview of how digital providers use algorithms to provide information to minors.
The latter could expose details about how such algorithms identify and remove harmful content, information that nefarious actors could use to post more harmful content in the future.
The bill analysis for SCOPE also includes arguments in support of implementation, outlining why the above criticism is unfounded: “The bill would not require digital service providers to reveal any source code for their algorithms. It would only require an overview of how the providers used the algorithms”.
There is, however, also the matter of enforcement. A violation of the provisions of SCOPE would be considered “a false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice,” which would be remedied under Texas’ Business and Commerce Code, and includes the right to sue for damages, but it is unclear how this might apply.
