“Surveillance pricing” lets companies set an different price for each consumer based on the maximum they are willing to pay. SB 6312 prohibits grocery stores from using this unfair practice

## Age-verification laws are being weaponized to censor LGBTQ+ and abortion-related content online, restricting access to critical resources under the guise of protecting children. In the case of _Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton_ , plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of HB 1811, the age-verification law imposed by Texas for websites with adult content. (Leon Neal / Getty Images) The internet age-verification craze that’s sweeping the nation isn’t really about protecting little Dick and Jane from Pornhub—it’s about giving government and companies the power to decide what’s “harmful” and rolling back all Americans’ rights, especially those of LGBTQ+ people. This growing legislative trend has sparked a lot of concerns and First Amendment challenges, including a case now pending before the Supreme Court, _Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton_. These pernicious “for the children” bills would let politicians deem harmful LGBTQ+ content, or content about abortion rights, or even content about a political party other than their own. These are censorship bills, and let us assure you, porn is only a small aspect of these politicians’ real worries. These same politicians choose to define the terms “sexual material” and “harmful to minors” so loosely that they could encompass anything from sex education to R-rated movies or even mention of LGBTQ+ people’s existence. Sometimes, this impact—censorship of LGBTQ+ content—is implicit, and only becomes clear when the laws are actually implemented. Other times, this intended impact is explicitly spelled out for everyone to see. Take Oklahoma’s newly enacted SB 1959, for example. The Sooner State’s age verification law, which took effect Nov. 1, purportedly aims to shield young people from content that is “harmful to minors.” It incorporates definitions from another Oklahoma statute which defines material “harmful to minors” as any description or exhibition of nudity and “sexual conduct.” That same statute then defines “sexual conduct” as including acts of “homosexuality.” So this law explicitly requires a site to verify someone’s age before showing content about homosexuality, a broad enough requirement that it could apply to websites like GLAAD and Planned Parenthood. On a federal level, proposals such as the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which failed in the last Congress but is expected to rise again like the undead in this one, would make government officials the arbiters of what young people can see online and will likely lead to age verification. All you would need is one Federal Trade Commissioner staffer seeking publicity, or one state attorney general seeking to ensure reelection, for censorship of constitutionally protected free speech to begin. This leaves platforms unsure and unable to precisely exclude the minimum amount of content that fits the bill’s definition, leading them to preemptively over-censor content that could even include this very article. The Orange County Department of Education in Costa Mesa, Calif., hosted a town hall Sept. 26, 2018, to discuss the California Healthy Youth Act, which took effect in January 2016 and requires school districts to provide students with accurate and unbiased sexual health and HIV prevention education. The law was under attack by conservatives in Orange County, where several school districts refused to implement the law. (Leonard Ortiz / Digital First Media / Orange County Register via Getty Images) KOSA co-sponsor Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), said the quiet part out loud when she spoke about “protecting minor children from the transgender [sic] in this culture and that influence.” And when Blackburn says, “Jump,” the online giants seem to respond with, “How high?” According to a recent report, Meta has been hiding posts that reference LGBTQ+ hashtags like #lesbian, #bisexual, #gay, #trans and #queer for users that turned the filter for “sensitive content,” as well as showing users a blank page when attempting to search for LGBTQ+ terms. Teenage users had no choice in the content they saw, with the sensitive content filter turned on by default. In January 2024, Meta had announced a new set of “sensitive content” restrictions across its platforms (Instagram, Facebook and Threads), including hiding content which the platform no longer considered age-appropriate. This was followed by the introduction of Instagram Teen Accounts to further limit what users under 18 could see. This feature is on by default, and teens under 16 can only reverse the settings through a parent or guardian. Meta apparently has now reversed the restrictions on LGBTQ+ content, calling them a “mistake.” (Try again, Zuck!) By letting LGBTQ+ content be integrated into the “sensitive content” filter, Meta aligned itself with those who are actively facilitating a violent and harmful removal of rights for LGBTQ+ people under the guise of keeping children and teens safe. People of all ages engage with such content online to explore their identities, advocate for broader societal acceptance and against hate, build communities and discover new interests. When corporations like Meta intervene to decide how people create and connect, a crucial form of engagement for all kinds of users is removed and the voices of people with less power are regularly shut down. All these efforts fail to protect children from the actual harms of the online world, and instead deny vulnerable young people a crucial avenue of communication and access to information. And at a time when LGBTQ+ individuals are already under vast pressure from violent homophobic threats offline, these online limitations have an amplified impact. LGBTQ+ youth are at higher risk of bullying and rejection, often turning to online spaces as outlets for self-expression. For those without family support or who face physical or emotional abuse at home, the internet becomes an essential resource. A report from the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network highlights that LGBTQ+ youth engage with the internet at higher rates than their peers, often showing greater levels of civic engagement online compared to offline. Access to digital communities and resources is critical for LGBTQ+ youth, and restricting access to them poses unique dangers. Stop this harm before it happens. Reach out to your state and federal legislators and support organizations like LGBT Tech, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others that are fighting for all people’s digital rights—young or old, gay or straight, cis or trans. The fight for LGBTQ+ youth’s safety and rights is not just a fight for visibility—it’s a fight for their very survival. Allies, advocates and marginalized communities must push back against these dangerous laws and policies to ensure the internet remains a space where all voices can be heard free from discrimination and censorship. * Email * Facebook * Bluesky * Threads * Pinterest * X * LinkedIn * Flipboard