Paris Marx, with a thoughtful take on the recently announced Bill C-34, the “Safe Social Media Act”:

The media focused on the higher age limit — it’s been happening in other parts of the world and is easier for people not well-versed in tech policy to understand, including many journalists — but it was not really the centerpiece of the legislation. If anything, the age limit serves as a stick to get companies to comply with a broader set of design standards meant to make their platforms safer for younger users. Unlike in the Australian legislation, if platforms make those changes, they can win an exemption from the age limit.

I also appreciated the implied nuance in the legislation; however, critically, those design standards have yet to be defined. Perhaps users will be granted actual control over what they see in their feeds; perhaps there will be legally defined promises for what notifications users may opt into or out of. These would be welcome improvements. But we simply do not know what they are yet.

Worse, by tying all-user policies on the one hand to an age gate on the other, I worry the outcome will be a compromise satisfying neither. Someone is currently supposed to be 13 or older to have an account with a social media service, both under Canadian law and in platforms’ terms of service agreements. Raising the floor to 16 is not the biggest issue one way or another. The real carrot is, therefore, weighing whether social media companies are willing to stop mandating their slot machine for feelings on every Canadian user in exchange for not having to verify their ages. Given the number of places already enforcing some age-gating and the development of infrastructure associated with that, I think many social media platforms will find it far easier to start carding people rather than changing their ways.

I do not think an imperfect law is inherently bad, however. Like Marx, I am encouraged to see a worldwide discussion among policymakers of how to rein in these specific kinds of businesses that have marketed directly to children despite their many design flaws for which these companies accept no responsibility. I am only skeptical these companies will do the right thing when they always prefer the cheaper and less accountable option.