By Joseph Kelly

I’m a father of six kids and a longtime Democrat. When I first heard about Massachusetts Senate Bill 30, the so-called “addictive feeds” legislation, I was interested in its stated goal of better protecting our children online. A closer look reveals that the bill is the wrong approach and could do much more harm than good.

There have been many well-intentioned approaches to social media legislation in Massachusetts, in other states, and at the federal level. We have to be clear about what this bill would actually do. S.30 proposes to ban “addictive feeds,” or personalized content recommendations, for anyone who cannot or will not verify their age as an adult. This could be devastating for small businesses that depend on social media to reach customers. Local customers would only see the blanket advertising that large chains can afford but that small shops cannot.

The bill’s sponsors aim to protect kids, but they’re ignoring how these same recommendation systems can help teenagers find support and community they may not otherwise have access to. My own kids are able to connect with what they are most interested in, and these same tools help filter out harmful content I don’t want them exposed to. For marginalized teens, including LGBTQ+ teens, online connections to supportive communities can literally be lifesavers.

Action is needed on this issue, but we have to think our proposed solutions through. An overly broad bill like this can have consequences for vulnerable communities and small businesses. We can and should expand digital literacy and safety programs in our schools and invest much more in youth mental health services. We can and should support federal legislation that puts parental tools and safe age verification in place without impacting privacy or access for adults.

Nearly identical legislation in other states has faced repeated constitutional challenges in lengthy taxpayer-funded cases. Civil rights groups have pointed out time and again that putting government bodies in charge of content limitations, however positive the intent, is both dangerous and unlikely to hold up to the First Amendment. Do we want to spend our state’s finite resources defending a law that will ultimately get struck down?

We should be fighting for policies that strengthen working families and expand opportunities for everyone in Massachusetts. S.30 does the opposite. It would hurt small businesses, create barriers for immigrants, and eliminate tools that help vulnerable teens find support, while draining state resources on inevitable legal challenges.

Our kids deserve real protection, not performative legislation that sounds good in headlines but creates real harm for the communities that need our support most. Let’s tell our lawmakers to move past S.30 and focus on approaches that actually help families thrive in the digital age.

Joseph Kelly serves on the Executive Committee of the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee and was Secretary for the 2020 Massachusetts members of the Electoral College. He lives in Hingham.