Would The Next George Floyd Video Survive Meta’s New Teen Safety Rules?

from the but-kids-can’t-witness-violence! dept

Earlier this year, one of the smartest internet rights people around, Heather Burns, suggested the “Darnella Test” regarding any kind of “kid safety” rule online. It’s named after Darnella Frazier. You might not recognize her name, but you’ve seen her work. She was the 17-year-old who was walking to the corner shop when she happened to see Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, in the process of murdering him. She got out her phone and filmed it, enabling the world to see that the initial statement from the Minneapolis police — the one headlined “Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction” — was bullshit.

She won a Pulitzer Prize for the video.

But she was a teen. On social media. So Burns came up with the Darnella test, to explore whether any particular internet regulation would have prevented Darnella from documenting the murder of George Floyd:

For any young person who is just going to be walking along the street for a snack and ends up witnessing something that nobody should ever see because it should not be happening. For that young person whose only recourse, at that moment in time, is to document and report.

And as that future Darnella pulls out their phone to document the event:

1. Would they be allowed to have that phone, at all, under xyz regulation?
2. Would they be allowed to have that social media account, at all, under xyz regulation?
3. Would they be allowed to upload video, or livestream content, under xyz regulation?
4. Would the video, because of their age-verified account information, be instantly flagged and/or taken down for violent content?
5. Would the video, as urgent journalistic content in the public interest, be suppressed and censored based not on the content within it but on the age of the person who filmed it?

That’s your Darnella test. Run through it as if your life depends on it. Because it just might.

Thankfully, unlike the various outright bans of social media for teens, the newly announced Meta settlement with most state AGs does not actually ban kids from social media. But that doesn’t mean it passes the Darnella test. At the very least, the settlement will make it much harder for the next Darnella to document and distribute things that need to be documented and distributed.

Let’s start by running the settlement’s terms through the Darnella Test, question by question, to see what a future Darnella would actually be able to do. Especially since the goal of the settlement is that it become the industry norm across all of social media.

The first question doesn’t really apply here, since it has nothing to do with kids having phones directly, so that passes the Darnella test.

You could argue that the second question regarding whether or not the next Darnella would have a social media account also passes, since nothing in the settlement officially bars teens from having an account. But it certainly could impact them indirectly. The age assurance requirements make signing up more of a hassle, so the next Darnella might not bother creating an account at all. And if she does, that verification is precisely what marks her account as a teen account — which is what triggers everything that follows.

We can lump the next three questions together, because they’re all about the content itself. And here is where it seems clear that the settlement agreement fails the Darnella test. The “age-appropriate content restrictions” and the “content restrictions” for teen users would almost certainly create real problems for a teenager documenting a murder like George Floyd’s. A video of a police officer kneeling on a man’s neck until he stops moving is graphic violence by any classifier’s reckoning — and the entire point of a verified teen account is that graphic violence doesn’t stay on it.

And on that last item in the test — whether or not “urgent journalistic content in the public interest” would be suppressed — there are serious problems, even if the video somehow slipped past the content restrictions. The settlement imposes a default two-hour daily time limit on teen accounts — which means the answer might depend on how much time the next Darnella had already burned scrolling before she happened to walk past a murder in progress. Considering that George Floyd was murdered in the evening (around 8:30pm) there’s a good chance a teen user would have already used up their allotted time.

Yes, it’s possible that the next Darnella might have more time due to a parent or guardian bypassing the two hour restriction, but we don’t know that ahead of time. And a teenager watching a man die on the pavement in front of her does not have time to go find a parent and ask them to unlock the app.

Also, crime — and other things worth documenting — doesn’t happen only during your waking hours. The settlement includes “night mode” restrictions that say that teens will not be able to post content between midnight and 6am. If Darnella happened to witness Floyd’s murder past midnight, she might be out of luck. Or, at least, the police would have extra hours to lock in their false narrative.

And this is the problem with so much of the discourse regarding child safety online. It starts from the position that the internet is inherently unsafe for kids, and that the only remaining question is how thoroughly to block them from it.

But reality is more complicated than that. A kid with a phone and a social media account might also be the only thing standing between the official story and the actual truth. A teenager may be the one livestreaming a school shooting from a locked classroom. Or be a bystander filming ICE violating the rights of people across America. They might be the person documenting police violently attacking protestors.

Yet, under a framework built around “protecting teens from the dangerous internet,” such things will face multiple hurdles. A verified minor uploading graphic, unmoderated content in real time will violate all sorts of rules.

Run the actual Darnella video of Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd against the “industry wide” standard Meta just paid $17 billion to create. It doesn’t pass. It’s graphic violence, filmed by a verified teen account late in the evening, perhaps after she’s used up all her allotted time. If it were after midnight she’d be barred entirely from posting. The next Darnella video might not exist. But at least 52 Attorneys General get to pretend they “protected kids.”

Filed Under: age verification, darnella frazier, george floyd, kid safety, social media

Companies: meta