One of the most pressing is how and in what ways social-media use affects minors.
asserted
use → affect → minors
According to the State of Florida, social-media companies seed their platforms with "addictive features"—push notifications, auto-play, infinite scrolling, etc.—in order to make them, well, addictive.
uncertain
them → accord → features"—push
These features, the state says, are "psychological hooks" that "overstimulate the reward center in the brain" and "foster compulsive overuse."
asserted
that → say → overuse
Florida insists that children are particularly susceptible to these "addictive features" because their brains are still developing.
asserted
brains → insist → features
In particular, the state contends, the features contribute to "[c]ompulsive or uncontrollable" social-media use among children and threaten a "youth mental health crisis."
asserted
features → contend → crisis
Children face "'sleep problems, attention problems, and feelings of exclusion,' all of which put [them] at risk of 'depression, anxiety, and neuroticism.'
asserted
all → face → depression
In an effort to protect children from social-media addiction and its ensuing effects, Florida passed HB3, which imposes age-restriction requirements on platforms that use "addictive features."
asserted
that → protect → features
In particular, HB3 requires platforms within its ambit to prohibit anyone under the age of 14 from creating an account, and to prohibit anyone else under 16 from doing so without parental consent….
[W]e hold that HB3 likely passes First Amendment muster because it is a content-neutral speech regulation that satisfies intermediate scrutiny….
asserted
that → require → scrutiny
The court held that HB3 was a speech restriction and thus implicated the First Amendment:
asserted
HB3 → hold → Amendment
Florida contends that HB3 "regulates product design, not children's speech," and, accordingly, doesn't even implicate the First Amendment.
asserted
HB3 → contend → Amendment
In particular, the state says, HB3 restricts only the creation of accounts, not social-media access writ large, and thus regulates only "commercial transaction[s]"—namely, a platform's ability to "enter[ ] into a contract" with children of a certain age.
asserted
state → say → age
Even accepting the state's characterization, it seems clear enough to us that HB3 "disproportionate[ly] burden[s]" CCIA's member platforms' "protected First Amendment activities"—namely, "compiling and curating others' speech" for their users.
asserted
it → accept → users
In particular, HB3 burdens platforms' ability to communicate with their users by requiring them (1) to prohibit minors under 14 years of age from creating or maintaining accounts and (2) to secure parental consent before communicating with 14- and 15-year-olds.
asserted
HB3 → burden → olds
But it concluded that HB3 was content-neutral:
asserted
HB3 → conclude → ?
HB3 is facially content neutral: It regulates social-media platforms based on their functional capabilities and features, not the content they communicate.
asserted
they → regulate → capabilities
The law neither references the substance of the speech on any platform nor draws distinctions based on it.
asserted
law → reference → it
Put differently, HB3 applies to platforms wholly without regard to the topics discussed or the ideas or messages conveyed on them.
asserted
HB3 → Put → them
Truth Social is just as likely as Instagram to be affected by HB3 so long as (1) a proportion of minors under 16 spend an average of at least two hours a day on it; (2) it uses infinite scrolling, push notifications, auto-play, or livestreaming, or displays user-engagement metrics; and (3) it selects content algorithmically for users.
asserted
it → affect → users
And tellingly, neither a platform nor a user can "avoid or mitigate" the effects of HB3 by "altering" the substance of any posted expression.
asserted
platform → avoid → expression
HB3's justification is also content neutral: to "protect[ ] children from [social-media] addiction and associated mental-health harms."
asserted
justification → protect → addiction
That purpose is "unrelated to the content of expression" on any given platform, and it doesn't "reflect[ ] disagreement with the message such speech conveys."
asserted
speech → give → message
CCIA contends that HB3 is content based because it applies only to so-called "social" speech: The law, CCIA asserts, targets websites "based on the 'social' subject matter 'of the material they disseminate.'" …
asserted
they → contend → material
Put simply, "social" speech, as CCIA seems to be using the term, is simply speech that occurs between users on social-media platforms, wholly without regard to "the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed."
asserted
that → put → topic
Users can engage in so-called "social" speech about any topic, from the sublime (religion, philosophy, etc.) to the ridiculous (celebrity gossip, cat videos, etc.)….
asserted
Users → engage → ridiculous
And it held that HB3 likely passed the "intermediate scrutiny" applicable to content-neutral speech restrictions, because the law "advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests":
CCIA doesn't dispute that HB3 advances an important state interest; it acknowledges that "protecting minors is certainly a laudable goal."
asserted
protecting → hold → minors
Even so, it says, HB3 fails intermediate scrutiny's first element because Florida's interest "is plainly related to the suppression of expression."
asserted
interest → say → expression
In particular, CCIA emphasizes that HB3 prohibits addictive features only on websites, not on other "services that disseminate speech"—like, for instance, "books that end in cliffhangers."
asserted
that → emphasize → cliffhangers
Florida singles out social-media platforms, CCIA insists, because they host speech that Florida "distrusts."
asserted
Florida → single → that
CCIA's argument doesn't necessarily follow.
asserted
argument → follow → ?
It would hold up only if websites have an inherent expressive value that differs from the expressive value inherent in all books.
asserted
that → hold → books
But both books and websites communicate content that spans the full range of expressive values; they just do so in different formats.
asserted
they → communicate → formats
Absent a restriction on the substance of the topics, ideas, or messages communicated by websites as compared to those communicated by books, HB3's "singling out" of websites is not, as CCIA argues, "plainly related to the suppression of expression."
asserted
CCIA → communicate → expression
…
HB3 [is] also likely … appropriately tailored to advancing Florida's interest in protecting minors.
asserted
HB3 → tailor → minors
In particular, HB3 doesn't "burden substantially more speech than necessary" because it (1) calibrates its restrictions by age, (2) regulates minors' creation of social-media accounts, not necessarily their access to the platforms themselves, (3) covers only those platforms that have been determined to induce heavy use by children, and (4) applies only to platforms that use both algorithms and one of several addictive features.
asserted
that → burden → features
First, HB3 is age delimited.
asserted
HB3 → delimit → ?
It prohibits minors under 14 from creating accounts, and it requires 14- and 15-year-olds to obtain parental consent before doing so.
asserted
it → prohibit → consent
Notably, it imposes no limitations for those 16 years of age and older.
asserted
it → impose → age
The law thus applies only to younger minors and recognizes the fine-grained distinctions even among those to whom it applies—namely, that 13-year-olds (in general, middleschoolers) are different from 14- and 15-year-olds (those starting high school), who, in turn, are different from those 16 and up (budding adults).
asserted
who → apply → those
Second, even among those to whom HB3 does apply, the law restricts only their ability to create their own accounts, not their ability to access social-media platforms per se.
asserted
law → apply → platforms
Even a minor—indeed, even a young child—may continue to use the platforms provided he either (1) uses his parents' (or someone else's) account or (2) gains access without an account.
uncertain
he → continue → account
…and 13 more, not listed.
The Aporia