LGBT Tech Leads Coalition Statement in Opposition to Age-Minimum Social Media Bans

Efforts to ban young people from social media are becoming a recurring feature of the youth online safety debate in states across the country, from Hawaii to California to Arizona to Rhode Island. While often framed as common-sense protections for children, these bills take one of the broadest and most dangerous approaches possible: cutting young people off from account-based online spaces altogether instead of addressing specific product harms, business practices, or design choices.

LGBT Tech spearheaded this coalition statement opposing under-16 social media bans and similar minimum-age social media access bills.

Joined by ACLU, NBJC, The Trevor Project, GLAAD, interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, Public Knowledge, Glisten (Formerly GLSEN), TechFreedom, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, Advocates for Youth, Center for Democracy & Technology, HTTP, COLAGE, Lambda Legal, and the Transgender Law Center, the statement makes a simple point: youth safety demands serious and evidence-informed solutions, not blanket restrictions that sever young people from a demonstrated source of information and community.

These bills do not just regulate platforms. They restrict access to modern public life, restricting access to an entire category of lawful online participation for youth and any users unwilling or unable to verify identity / age. That approach may be politically simple, but it is not policy smart. The right response to youth online harms is one that pursues targeted, privacy-preserving, and evidence-informed measures.

---

[PDF VERSION]

COALITION STATEMENT

IN OPPOSITION TO AGE-MINIMUM SOCIAL MEDIA BANS

We, the undersigned organizations, are committed to protecting young people online and addressing real harms youth face on digital platforms. However, we oppose legislative proposals that would prohibit users under 16 from creating or maintaining social media accounts, as well as similar “minimum age” social media access bills that would block all youth from participating in account-based activities.

Under-16 bans are a broad restriction on access to modern communication and community spaces. These bans do not target specific harmful behaviors or product risks. Rather, they limit access to an entire category of lawful online participation and restrict access to platforms that are central to speech and association in modern life.

These bans disproportionately harm marginalized youth, including LGBTQ+ youth, young people of color, and those in unsupportive or hostile environments. For many, online spaces are among the first or only accessible sources of identity-affirming community, support networks, and youth-serving organizations or educational resources. In a worsening political and social environment for many young people, policies that sever these lifelines are not neutral. They increase isolation and may restrict help-seeking.

Under-16 bans also risk pushing youth into less safe, less moderated environments. Young people are unlikely to stop seeking connection online when mainstream platforms become inaccessible; instead, many may turn to less safe workarounds or spaces with fewer guardrails. That displacement undermines the safety goals these proposals purport to advance.

These proposals also risk creating a chilling effect on reporting and help-seeking. Young people who experience harassment or exploitation on platforms may be less likely to report abuse or seek help if doing so requires admitting the presence of a prohibited account. Correspondingly, if youth are legally barred from participation, platforms face reduced pressure to invest in relevant safety features and improvements in moderation designed to protect younger users. The result here is fewer harm signals and significantly weakened accountability and feedback loops across platforms. 

The harms do not stop with youth. Spillover is inevitable, and these proposed systems are likely to affect anyone unable or unwilling to verify their age, including those without reliable identification, those who rely on anonymity for safety, and those misclassified by automated tools. The result is broader exclusion and heightened barriers for communities already facing discrimination and surveillance.

For these reasons, we urge policymakers to reject blanket under-16 social media bans and similar minimum-age social media access bills. Youth safety demands serious and evidence-informed solutions that reduce harm without severing young people from a demonstrated source of information and community.

SIGNATORIES

LGBT Tech

ACLU

NBJC

The Trevor Project

GLAAD

interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth

Public Knowledge

Glisten (Formerly GLSEN)

TechFreedom

National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund

Advocates for Youth

Center for Democracy & Technology

HTTP

COLAGE

Lambda Legal

Transgender Law Center