Moms for Liberty says social media children do not apply to YouTube children

A new bipartisan bill is not applied to protect children under 13 from harmful content on social media YouTube KidsWhat parents’ rights proponents warn that it still feeds transgender ideology and videos Dei to minors.

Proponents of parent rights who spoke with Fox News Digital also called into question the bill, considered the law of children on social media, for their restrictions on the algorithm, which suggests that The measure constitutes “excess of government”.

The bill was introduced by sens. Brian Sccatz, D-Hawaii, Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Chris Murphy, D-Con., And Katie Britt, R-Ala. In an online and online response sheet, Sccatz’s office said YouTube Kids does not fit the definition of social media under the bill, nor video games and other platforms such as wireless messaging, Educational platforms and teleconference.

By visiting YouTube Kids site, users are asked to determine if they are a parent or child. It is told to parents that they must set up an account for their children and can block videos or channels they do not like. Among the contents available to children on the site are videos made by “Queer” creators, including Queer Kid Stuff, Nickelodeon and CBC Kids News. Other popular videos are focused on DEI, how to explain “systemic racism” to children.

The closures of the Dei Office at the universities accumulate after another state orders are completed to “wake up the virus”

“I don’t think we just have to exclude applications from scrutiny because they say children. We learned it, right? Tiffany Justice Tiffany He told Fox News Digital.

“What we have seen on YouTube Kids, I have seen personally myself, is evidence that transgender ideology feeds on children,” he said. “We know that trans activists have been targeted at children. We know there are vulnerable children who see this content. They will often click it. Sometimes the algorithm will feed them more than this content. And I think it is very important. I don’t want parents just say, this is designed for children and everything is fine. ”

“We have always said it, mothers for freedom, we do not co-co-spent with the government,” said Justice. “So I really would like to continue telling parents that they need to be involved. They need to be those who take these options.”

“There is a wave of evidence that is reduced to the United States that shows that the so -called Attention that states the gender It’s bad for children, “he said, who defended the executive action of President Donald Trump to eliminate Dei and the gender ideology of classrooms.” We do not want our indoctrinated children, indoctrinated to think that they were born in the wrong body. This is a horrible message. Stop the natural and healthy development of children is criminal. Therefore, the idea that you have a website that feeds the content of children around gender, ideology or Dei is extremely important. And it is worrying that maybe parents think, well, they are Youtube children, so it is safe. “”

Arrived by Fox News Digital, a YouTube spokesman defended the YouTube Kids application, but did not directly address the legislative proposal.

“The YouTube Kids app puts parents in the driver’s seat,” the spokesman said. “Parents can choose what their children see and what they do not see. They have control over the content of their children and can easily enter the application to heal a permitted channel list or block the content of their profile child through the “approved” content only ‘configuration.’

In the meantime, justice emphasized the separated legislative measures introduced by Senator Mike Lee, R-Tauh, to protect children online, including a bill introduced the last session that would require age verification at the App Store store.

Lee does not appear as a co-patriot of the Children’s Social Media Law, which would ban social media platforms that allow children under 13 to create or maintain social media accounts, but do not include a consent of consent. Parental. This bill would not require users to submit a government identification to access social networks and require that social media companies use data on their users, including the images they publish, the channels they follow or the date. From birth to the registry, determine if a child is on his platform.

As for another aspect of the children’s social media law, he said it was worried that the bill prohibits “increasing” for children under 17. By virtue of the bill, social media platforms could not use automatic learning to follow exactly how much children see publications and what they click on to learn what each child is on the longest platform.

Sccatz’s office argued that social media companies exploit children to profit in this way, but justice said that their main concern is for the government to control the algorithm.

Therapists sound alarm after study shows a dramatic increase in gender dysphoria among children

“If your child likes hockey and gives you more information about hockey, I don’t know that this would bother me,” said Justice, saying that he met a mother’s companion who told him to go to network accounts Social of their children and the “trains” the algorithm for more conservative political content so that their adolescents are exposed to another perspective outside the main media.

“So I only think there are many questions about who controls the algorithm,” said Justice. “We know that there is often really dangerous content that can affect children’s mental health. We have evidence of this. And we want to be very careful about how this algorithm is used. And again I don’t know that I want the Government to take These decisions for my family. ”

Another proponent of parent rights, Cat Parks, the former Vice President of Texas GOP, told Fox News Digital that his main concern over the children’s social media law is that “it represents an overcoming of the unnecessary government in An area where parents need to have a definitive authority. “.

“As a parent, I am very involved in the online presence of my son and approve with the platforms with which he is allowed to interact. So what I don’t want, I don’t want the Government to get my ability to my son Food to be personalized or for me as a parent to choose and make decisions about what has access, “said Parks.

Justice argued that the UNAU is about parents to protect their children from harmful content and, although there may be a role for government, “it is really a kind of discomfort about what this role will be.”

“We know that the algorithm is addictive,” he said. “I know you want you to continue to displace -and feeds you more information than you think you would be interested in. This is just what information is now: transgender ideology, gender ideology. We are working to erase -on the map’s face.

“I don’t want the government to be my son’s father,” he added. “They have a father, and it is great, and we will make good decisions for our children together.”

Most applications have age restrictionsBut Sccatz’s office cited a UK regulatory study of 2023, which found that about 40% of children from 8 to 12 years old still use social media platforms.

In the question and answer document, Sccatz’s office also said that the bill “does not preclude LGBTQ+ Youth from accessing relevant online resources.”

Click here to get the Fox News app

“We have worked closely with the LGBTQ+ groups as we elaborate this legislation to ensure that this bill will not adversely affect this community,” the data sheet said. “Under this bill, children could still seek affirmative content and have this information that is shown in a chronological feed. In addition, this bill would not affect access to platforms such as websites led by non -profit services , Direct Messaging and Teleconference Services, and educational websites, among others. ”