Since the public library is a place for anyone and everyone to utilize the library's technology, I can't help but wonder - how are kids protected at public libraries? One form of protection involves laws that aim to protect children's digital safety. Two federal laws include CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act) and COPPA (Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act). CIPA was adopted in 2001 and updated in 2011. I found it interesting that CIPA is tied to a library's or school's funding, providing financial incentive for an organization to adhere to CIPA. Meanwhile, COPPA was adopted in 1998 and updated in 2013. I found COPPA interesting to learn about because it has specific requirements for consent when it comes to student data. For example, schools can collect verifiable parental consent, such as a consent form signed by a parent. Alternatively, a school can collect consent on behalf of the school itself, but only within a particular scope of consent that involves how student data is used. For example, student data can only be used for the school's educational purposes, and this data cannot be disclosed to third parties outside of the purposes of the school's data needs. If a school falls outside that limited scope of consent, then the school could face dire financial consequences, such as $40,000 per COPPA violation per student. In case you're likewise interested in exploring the topic of student data consent within COPPA, I learned about this "federal statute" with "teeth" in the following YouTube video:
Speaking of YouTube, did you know that YouTube had the largest COPPA fine in history? YouTube reached a settlement with the FTC of $170 million due to COPPA violations regarding how they collected user data, which included YouTube users under the age of 13 (of note, "under 13" is the applicable age range for COPPA). In addition to paying this gargantuan fine, YouTube changed their entire content system, which involves not only the YouTube platform, but also YouTube creators. Creators must label their content as being "directed" (or not directed) "to children" (under 13). If you're interesting in learning more, I'd recommend checking out the article YouTube’s new kids’ content system has creators scrambling. In this new system, it's not only YouTube that can face fines; creators shoulder the responsibility of accurately labeling their content as "directed to kids" - an accuracy that can be ambiguous, given the murky verbiage of "directed" to kids. The "under 13" age range is also murky territory. What makes a YouTube video directed to a 14-year-old, but not a 13-year-old? Answers may vary.
When I think of this discussion of age ranges in libraries, I'd like to note that my particular library doesn't lump all the books into an "under 13" category. There are picture books, beginning reader books, ready for chapter books, fiction shelves geared for elementary students, and teen shelves geared for middle school students. If we lumped Pete the Cat with With a Dog AND a Cat, Every Day is Fun, it wouldn't be of much help to the kids and families looking for books, would it?
When it comes to kids, teens, and families using library technology, it might be worthwhile for libraries to think of COPPA as an incomprehensive baseline. From there, libraries can provide and guide library technology with consideration for unique grade levels and age groups. On the subject of age groups, I'd attest that "under 13" is not enough, since it doesn't regulate the data collection of teens or protect the digital safety of teens. Particularly since teens are so active on social media and online spaces, as discussed in this article by the PEW Research Center, shouldn't their digital safety be a top priority in our federal laws?
When I further investigated this absentee age group, I learned that there's a bill in the works called the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act, also known as COPPA 2.0. Among other changes, this bill brings about the major change of including teens in ages 13 through 17. Additionally, there's a proposed bill called the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) which addresses online safety beyond COPPA for kids under 17. For additional information on COPPA 2.0 and KOSA, I'd recommend the article Federal Children’s Privacy Requirements to Be Updated and Expanded. Whether these changes protect digital safety or compromise digital privacy is up for debate, and I'd be curious to hear about your thoughts on these proposed changes.
With these changes in mind, I'd like to note that my perspectives of these changes are influenced by my own age. As an adult in my thirties, it's worthwhile to take a step back and remember who these laws would be directly affecting - which is to say, kids and teens. Are kids going to stop watching their favorite YouTube videos simply because they don't fall under the "under 13" category? On the contrary, I'd attest that our tech savvy kids and teens will simply include whichever magic number grants them access to the technology they enjoy and the content they enjoy. As said by researcher danah boyd, "On the internet, every child is 14." Does restricting content by age encourage kids to lie in order to access that content? I'd argue that it not only incentivizes kids to lie, but can also result in a moralistic battleground over what's flagged as inappropriate for kids (such as LGBTQ+ content being flagged simply for including LGBTQ+ representation). When it comes to my work in libraries and the ongoing climate of libraries, it's no secret that particular community members may attempt to censor the following, while libraries (hopefully) continue to advocate for the following:
At my library, we wouldn't encourage kids to lie about their age to check out books. We wouldn't restrict an elementary student from checking out a book simply because it's located in the teen book section. We can guide book selection by shelving a book in the teen section; we cannot censor book selection because the child isn't deemed "old enough" to read that book (especially since "old enough" can be subjective). Since libraries prioritize access to technology, it may be worthwhile to consider our own role in guiding technology users. It's crucial to protect students' online safety, whether through federal law or library policy. It's equally crucial to protect students' privacy, providing resources for students to advocate for their own needs and to access the information they need - whether through books or through technology use.
As a final note, the laws themselves are not written in a way that students can easily understand. Public libraries, however, can provide resources for students and families created by and with students and families, guiding safe and enjoyable technology use with respect to federal laws, state laws, and library policies.
.jpg)
When you talked about the murkiness of YouTube videos being "directed" to those under 13 it immediately made me think of a media literacy topic I've taught. Advertising alcohol to those under 21 is prohibited. Music videos often contain representations of alcohol- and children watch these videos. So are alcohol companies in violation?! There is an endless supply of things to talk about when it comes to safety, students, and the Internet. Thanks for your thoughts!
ReplyDeleteHello, Nicole! That's an excellent point about the inclusion of alcohol representation in music videos - especially with music videos promoting particular brands of alcohol, or musicians owning their own alcohol brands (Bruno Mars apparently owns his own alcohol brand, per a quick Google search on the topic). Thank you for reading my blog and for sharing your own insights!
DeleteHi Aron,
ReplyDeleteI liked your line about COPPA being an incomplete baseline-I had much the same reaction when thinking about what which age would be appropriate for students to be able to consent to having data collected as outlined by that law, because the difference in maturity across students of that age means that the 'readiness' or 'capability' of children to fully understand what they are consenting to is very difficult to determine. The same idea comes in where you noted about the difference between a YouTube video targeted at a 14 year-old versus a 13 year-old, and where exactly that difference lies. Through this process I've thought of this debate similarly to movie ratings-there are supposed 'rules' about what causes a movie to be PG-13 or R, and yet there have always been people who did not follow these ratings, or who would debate that a movie's rating is not truly indicative of the age of a suitable viewer. As you said, there does still need to be ways to protect children's privacy and safety, but there will always be debate as to what extent and for what ages these protections must apply.
Hello, Adam! That's an excellent point about the movie ratings. I find movie ratings interesting to learn about because the Hays Code, which preceded the current MPA rating system, was very upfront about being a moralistic censorship system - with prohibited topics like interracial romance, LGBTQ+ representation, and mocking religion. I learned a bit about it in this article, in case it's of interest:
Deletehttps://www.npr.org/2008/08/08/93301189/remembering-hollywoods-hays-code-40-years-on
Hello Aron the Future Librarian,
ReplyDeleteAs a frequent user of Youtube, your mention of how Youtube was fined for breaching COPPA came a s a little bit of a shock that I was not expecting. Knowing my personal history I too used quite a lot of Youtube when I was younger as well which make me wonder if any of my data from that time was collected. It just blows my mind that 170 million dollars was required in the settlement. This also goes to show just how much these laws are required for these free websites that attract millions of people a day.
Hello, Simon! It blew my mind too! Great point that the platform being free is a key part of what makes it appealing to millions of daily viewers. I also used YouTube quite a bit as a kid (the Fred videos come to mind), and I wonder how much of my own data was collected without my knowledge. Thanks for reading my blog and for sharing your thoughts!
DeleteHi Aron,
ReplyDeleteI thought your viewpoint on the topic of CIPA/COPA for this week was fantastic! You brought up an excellent point when you stated that even if children may be under the age group that is permitted to access or read specific material, it is not the responsibility of the library to prevent children from accessing certain books. This is because doing so would be equivalent to censoring content, which is not the responsibility of librarians.
Hello, Cydney! Very well said, how preventing access can lead to censoring content. At least from my perspective working in a public library, it seems like librarians shoulder an increasingly vast number of responsibilities. I fully agree that digital safety is crucial for our young patrons, and I hope that libraries can empower kids and families to make informed decisions for themselves inside and outside the library, rather than removing that decision by removing access. Thanks for reading and for sharing your perspective!
Delete