Mediaboss Marketing

Do you want to understand the biggest story of the day before anyone else?Sign up herefor our brilliant new daily newsletter

USWNT midfielder Korbin Albert apologized last week after reposts and other social media activity resurfaced online, including one post on TikTok that included a sermon given in a Christian worship space talking about how being gay and feeling transgender is wrong.

This incident has prompted questions around the U.S. Soccer Federations social media policies.

Albert is currently in camp with the USWNT ahead of this weeks SheBelieve Cup, with the team facing off against Japan on Saturday. The federation itself has not formally addressed Alberts social media activity, nor has interim head coach Twila Kilgore. Largely, reaction crystallized around a post from former USWNT player Megan Rapinoe until Wednesday, when team captain Lindsey Horan and Alex Morgan issued a statement during a virtual media availability.

We just want to address the disappointing situation regarding Korbin that has unfolded over this past week. Weve worked extremely hard to uphold the integrity of this national team through all of the generations, and we are extremely, extremely sad that this standard was not upheld, Horan said. Our fans and our supporters feel like this is a team that they can rally behind, and its so important that they feel and continue to feel undeniably heard and seen.

We stand by maintaining a safe and respectful space, especially as allies and members of the LGBTQ+ community, Morgan continued in the statement. This platform has given us an opportunity to highlight causes that matter to us, something that we never take for granted.

GO DEEPER

Morgan, Horan on Albert situation: 'disappointing'

While Albert has provided a current example of how social media may cause unintended consequences in the workplace, its not the first time its happened in womens soccer. At the club level, Sydny Nasello was drafted by Portland Thorns FC ahead of the 2022 NWSL season, but the team did not sign her after her social media activity surfaced, including posts and shared content. While Nasello apologized at the time, she later said on a Tampa Bay radio show that her personal politics had prevented her from playing in the league.

Its a dream that was stripped from me just because I have different political beliefs, Nasello said. And the NWSL is so one-sided in that aspect that I think its sad and its disheartening to see. Because you can be an advocate for politics, but only if youre on one side.

For U.S. Soccer, a national governing body (that is not a governmental entity) and a non-profit, the approach to how to handle a player who has shared what it deems to be personal religious or political beliefs seems like it could differ from that of a single NWSL team that is part of a privately owned, for-profit league.

What are U.S. Soccers policies that are already in place that could address this or a similar situation? Does U.S. Soccer have the power to stop calling up a national team player due to their social media activity? Wheres the line on what would trigger discipline? Would the organization use such a power?

This examination of existing guidance from the federation focuses more on content that could be defined as a personal belief.

The first policy to consider is the collective bargaining agreement between the federation and the U.S. womens national team players association. There is a fairly standard article that bans discrimination for both parties on a number of factors, including religion, race, sex, gender, gender identity, age, and more, in Article 6.

Its Article 8 that could conceivably give U.S. Soccer some far-ranging space to make such a call, which reads: All Federation decisions concerning the selection and participation of Players with or on the WNT shall be made solely to promote and/or enhance the best interests of the WNT and the WNT Program. The federation could make a case that if a player is posting or sharing content online that it views as harmful or offensive, that is not in the best interests of the team or program.

U.S. Soccer has its own policies as well, publicly available on its website, including a code of conduct and a prohibited conduct policy. A U.S. Soccer spokesperson confirmed the federation has a social media document, but said it reflected guidance more than a policy.

The code of conduct includes a section titled Guiding Your Behavior, which asks four questions: Is it consistent with the Code? Is it ethical? Is it Legal? Will it reflect well on me and U.S. Soccer? If the answer to any of those questions is no, the guide concludes DONT DO IT.

While there are no specific rules in the code of conduct on social media use, the document stresses that people treat each other with respect and dignity in a section on how to work as a team. This means we raise our criticism constructively, acknowledge that professional disagreement may nonetheless exist, and understand that all team members are entitled to work in an environment that is free of harassment, bullying or unlawful discrimination.

This is a notable section given that Albert also engaged with social media posts that both wished for, then celebrated, Megan Rapinoes injury to close out her career, which could also impact Alberts standing in the locker room amongst her teammates.

Consequences for any violations of this code are not specified, though the federation says it takes all reports seriously and reserves the right to take all available disciplinary and/or remedial measures for violation of this code.

Under the prohibited conduct policy, harassment is defined as unwelcome conduct, whether verbal, physical or visual, that is based upon a persons protected status. U.S. Soccer will not tolerate harassing conduct that affects tangible job benefits, that unreasonably interferes with an individuals work performance, or safety, or that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

In Alberts case, the current roster for the SheBelieves Cup largely stayed out of the ensuing discussion on social media. Center back Abby Dahlkemper shared Megan Rapinoes post on her own Instagram, but it was mostly either retired players or players not heading to Aprils camp, such as Alana Cook and Lynn Williams, who publicly engaged.

On Tuesday, Williams and Sam Mewis both teammates to Jaelene Daniels in North Carolina discussed Alberts social media activity and apology. Daniels history with the USWNT has some similarities to Alberts, with Daniels having posted a reaction to the Supreme Courts ruling for marriage equality on her social media, but her status with the U.S. national team was also more complicated by the fact that she turned down a call-up because she refused to wear rainbow numbers during Pride matches. That social activity occurred in 2015, and she was subsequently called up to the national team under then head coach Jill Ellis.

Back then, we didnt know how to approach the situation and we put soccer first, Williams said on the episode of Good Vibes FC. I feel like, if Ive learned anything, its that there are just some things bigger than soccer, and one of them is human rights.

On Wednesday, Morgan said that the USWNT had an internal conversation about the current situation, but that the conversation would remain internal. One thing to also know is that we have never shied away from hard conversations within this team, she said.

While theres certainly precedent in the United States to terminate employees over social media posts, right now the federation does not appear to have the policies in place to support such a decision. Albert likely wont be the last player to have personal viewpoints clash with the culture associated with the USWNT.

(Photo of Korbin Albert: Brad Smith/ISI Photos/USSF/Getty Images for USSF)

See the original post here:
Can U.S. Soccer punish Korbin Albert for social media activity? The policies and guidance in play - The Athletic

More and more people are relying on social media for health advice. Consequently, the people creating health-promoting content hold a growing responsibility for the information shared. This responsibility extends beyond their audience, as it pertains to their entire profession.

Scepticism is likely on the rise due to all the self-proclaimed experts present on various social media platforms. With every action that online health professionals take they must therefore safeguard the integrity of their field.

Professionals of preventive health who are creating content on social media may consciously or unconsciously be shaped by the content they share. We may ask: how much is social media linked to their professional identity and in what way?

And even further, is there a two-way relationship wherein these individuals may simultaneously use social media to build a professional image?

The role professionals of preventive health fields play in society is ever expanding as their voices are being magnified with social media. Should we be exploring how to leverage the role of social media in educating and forming future health professionals?

Identity may be defined as an individuals organised constellation of traits, attitudes, self-representations, and social roles. With the advent of social media, and all it offers in terms of a person's ability to share different aspects of themselves, there has been a revitalisation of research around identity.

In the context of professional identity, where an individual showcases their self-concept, and sense of belonging within a specific professional community, social media has greatly aided in this aspect of self-representation.

The fields of preventive medicine and public health share several objectives, including promoting general health, and preventing disease. When looking at the link between preventive health fields and social media, promotion is an important aspect.

One example of health promotion is the recent debate in Norway surrounding nutritionists who have been leveraging their platforms to promote healthy baby food. However, the products and recipes they promote might not provide babies with all the iron and other nutrients they need.

This raises several questions. When a professional nutritionist posts on social media, thereby becoming a content creator, does he or she post solely for the benefit of the audience, or is it about establishing themselves as professional nutritionists?

The same questions would go to professionals within other preventive health fields. Look at mental health professionals, for instance. According to Triplett, there is a growing number of mental health professionals who use social media to share informative content with a broader public.

Information that would traditionally be communicated in a therapeutic setting is thus distributed through social networking platforms. Is this about painting a picture of themselves as professionals in the field?

Trainers and physical education instructors are no strangers to this social media takeover, either. In a study by Raggatt and others, half of the participants (a total of 180) indicated that they themselves are interested in learning about health and fitness through online communities.

In other words, social networking platforms have helped in shaping them as professional trainers.

On the one hand, professional identity construction is considered to always be under development. On the other hand, social media has a growing importance in the construction of professional identities as it offers places where individuals showcase their private lives as well as their professional experiences.

Thus, if social media is becoming more important in constructing identities, could we foresee how professions would be changing in the next years? And how can we prepare for that change?

References:

The ScienceNorway Researchers' zone consists of opinions, blogs and popular science pieces written by researchers and scientists from or based in Norway. Want to contribute? Send us an email!

The rest is here:
Does social media content creation impact the professional identity of preventive health professionals? - Sciencenorway

As debates over a potential ban intensify in the US, TikTok has released a economic impact report claiming the social media platform helped American SMBs generate millions in revenue last year, as well as supported the US economy pretty significantly.

According to the platform, $14.7 billion in SMB revenue was generated in 2023, with those businesses contributing $24.2 billion to the US economy and supporting 224,000 jobs.

In order to help secure its place in American app stores, TikTok claimed that more than half (52%) of American SMBs rely on the platform to stay competitive, with an overwhelming majority (88%) seeing a boost in sales after promoting on the app.

Claiming to have spread the benefits of the app across the entire country, TikTok said that SMBs in California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois saw the biggest benefits.

In the report, TikTok also revealed its app's positive impacts on users and communities, highlighting the apps powers to help users discover new brands and products, make better-informed decisions, and find a wider variety of products.

The pertinent timing of this report comes amid heightened scrutiny over the platform. In March, a bill proposing a TikTok ban passed in the House of Representatives.

Other social networking platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, have already started to introduce TikTok-like features, such as vertical video feeds and ecommerce opportunities, however Trumps reversal on the issue has added complexity to the debate. Now opposing the ban, the former president believes it would significantly benefit Meta.

Sign up to the TechRadar Pro newsletter to get all the top news, opinion, features and guidance your business needs to succeed!

Although TikToks Singaporean CEO, Shou Zi Chew, has already appeared in court, the report, together with the launch of its dedicated STEM feed, which expanded to Europe this month, serves as a crucial element in the companys defense.

Follow this link:
TikTok says it helped SMBs make billions last year - TechRadar

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

More here:
A photo taken on April 3, 2024 shows the logo of US online social media and social networking service Facebook on a ... - The Mountaineer

Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit newsroom producing investigative and public-service journalism that holds power to account and drives positive change in Pennsylvania. Sign up for our free newsletters.

HARRISBURG Despite bipartisan interest in setting ground rules for social media companies, Pennsylvania lawmakers are struggling to reach a consensus amid privacy and other concerns that don't neatly break down along party lines.

In recent months, the legislature has debated bills that would mandate disclosure of artificial intelligence-generated images, ban TikTok from state-owned phones, and require monitoring of minors' social media. The debate around the latter most clearly demonstrates the balancing act legislators are trying to achieve.

Social media can help young people find community, but can also expose them to disinformation and hate speech, and encourage them to self-harm, according to the American Psychological Association.

From California to Ohio, red and blue states alike have passed laws that attempt to combat this by requiring age verification and parental consent to use apps.

NetChoice, a tech industry group whose members include Meta, TikTok, and X, has challenged many of these laws in federal court, sometimes with the backing of civil liberties groups like the ACLU. Several suits have succeeded.

In one, a federal judge last August issued an injunction blocking an Arkansas parental consent law from going into effect until the courts settled the matter.

In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks wrote that NetChoice was likely to succeed in its First Amendment challenge. He added there was no evidence that the law would protect minors from materials or interactions that could harm them online.

Regulating speech is tricky under the First Amendment, says Megan Iorio, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a nonpartisan advocacy group in Washington, D.C. In a March interview with Marketplace, she argued there is no privacy-protective way to verify a user's age.

But placing the onus on parents to mitigate the harm of opaque social media algorithms is also not how things should work, she added.

The government should be able to pass regulations to prevent harms to kids, Iorio said.

This session, legislative leaders in Pennsylvania have attempted to thread this needle with two bipartisan bills. But both efforts have stalled amid tech lobbying and a wide swath of concerns from both major parties.

In March, state House Democrats advanced a bill sponsored by state Rep. Brian Munroe (D., Bucks), who represents a suburban Philadelphia swing district.

Like other states proposals, the bill would require social media companies to verify users ages and obtain parental consent before anyone 16 or younger opens an account. It would also allow parents to restrict how much their children use an app by allowing parents to view their kids' privacy settings or set time limits on an accounts use.

Additionally, it would prohibit the collection or sale of a minors browsing history, require that such users opt in to algorithmic recommendations, and make it unlawful for a social media network to intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently cause or encourage a minor to access content which the social media company knows or should have known subjects one or more minors to harm. The provisions would be enforced by the state attorney general.

Munroe told Spotlight PA the idea for his proposal came from a project by local high school students on social medias mental health impacts.

Parents, Munroe said, do give a level of consent to tech companies when they provide a phone to a child. But once I give that to you, it's a jungle, he said.

We need to be able to offer tools that are going to make it more mainstream for parents to be able to have a say in what their children are involved in, Munroe added.

Controversially, the bill accomplishes this in part by requiring social media companies to monitor any group chats on their platforms that involve two or more individuals aged 16 or younger. If the company finds any chats, posts, videos and images that are deemed sensitive or graphic under a platform's terms of use, the company must report the content to the minors parent or legal guardian.

That provision drew the opposition of the Pennsylvania chapter of the ACLU, which argued in a memo to lawmakers that the bill would invite parental surveillance, define harm in broad, subjective, and unenforceable ways, and likely have dire consequences for young people.

One of techs biggest lobbies, TechNet, also opposed the language. In a statement, Margaret Durkin, the groups mid-Atlantic executive director, told Spotlight PA that the bill will have unintended consequences that could jeopardize Pennsylvanians privacy and data.

Beyond allowing parents or legal guardians to access direct messages between users, social media platforms might overregulate and remove accounts that could undermine the free speech rights of users when attempting to comply with the law, Durkin wrote.

Despite these concerns, a state House committee advanced the proposal in March with bipartisan support.

State House Majority Leader Matt Bradford (D., Montgomery) planned to bring the bill up for a vote by the full chamber a week later, according to a schedule shared by his spokesperson at the time. But in a closed-door meeting, progressive Democrats raised concerns about the chat-monitoring provision, legislative sources told Spotlight PA.

Commonwealth Media Services

In response, Bradford urged lawmakers to stick together despite their concerns, sources said.

But that evening, health care provider Planned Parenthood PA announced its opposition in an email to state House Democratic lawmakers, arguing that the proposal threatened youths free speech and access to information on their sexual and reproductive health.

That seemed to sink the bill. Bradford took it off the voting calendar the next day, and state House Democrats canceled a related news conference to tout the proposal scheduled for that week.

A spokesperson for Bradford did not reply to a request for comment.

Munroe told Spotlight PA that he has since convened a working group with Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and his progressive colleagues to find a compromise. He suggested lowering the age for chat monitoring to 13, or removing the provision altogether while leaving the data protections, parental controls, and age verification in place.

Both groups, he noted, are OK with the bills intent but disagree on the language. He plans to keep working on the issue.

I don't represent the ACLU. I don't represent Planned Parenthood. I represent the parents and the citizens of 144th District in this commonwealth, Munroe said. And I can tell you, from all the conversations I've had, they want something done.

A similar bill has also struggled in the state Senate.

A proposal nearly identical to Munroes, minus chat monitoring, advanced out of a state Senate committee with unanimous support last year. Republican leadership, however, has not brought the legislation up for a final vote.

We were having difficulty crafting language that was going to get the support of the majority of our colleagues, state Sen. Kristin Phillips-Hill (R., York), a member of the GOP leadership team and the prime Republican sponsor of the bill, told Spotlight PA.

She added that members of both major parties have opposed it, with some arguing it goes too far and others arguing it doesnt go far enough. Those positions dont break down along party lines, she added.

If you're more of a libertarian on the Republican side, you may express some of the similar concerns as we heard by some of our most progressive colleagues in the House, Phillips-Hill told Spotlight PA.

The chat-monitoring provision is also opposed by Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, said his spokesperson Manuel Bonder.

Noting that nothing is close to reaching the governors desk, Bonder still said that there are some pretty serious concerns with that bill.

Overall, Bonder added, Shapiro believes we have to take action to lean in on innovation and approach these technologies in a way that is responsible and ethical.

There appears to be more agreement in the General Assembly on another tech issue: banning TikTok from state devices. Shapiro has so far been opposed.

The popular app is owned by ByteDance, a Chinese company. Pennsylvania billionaire Jeffrey Yass, a major Republican donor, has a personal stake in the company, as does Susquehanna International Group, which he co-founded.

Some national security experts worry the Chinese government could demand the company turn over user data.

Under a bill sponsored by Phillips-Hill, any app owned by a foreign adversary would be banned from devices owned by public agencies, including school districts. The bill as originally drafted applied specifically to TikTok and passed the state Senate unanimously.

In a bipartisan vote, the state House agreed to amend the bill to expand its scope in late March. The proposal has not come up for a full, final vote in the chamber.

The bill would affect the Shapiro administration, which uses TikTok to tout the governors agenda to almost 43,000 followers. A February video in which Shapiro promised to protect abortion rights set to Beyonces Texas Hold Em had garnered 1.7 million views as of April 2.

We try and balance the need to reach people where they are, but also take the necessary precautions that the IT department has advised us on, Shapiro told PennLive in a March interview.

Those precautions, Bonder said, include having TikTok on a single device that does not connect to the states WiFi network or have any other apps or data on it. That phone is used only to create the governors official TikTok videos, Bonder added.

The governor has talked many times about how he believes there should be no wrong door for accessing state government,, Bonder told Spotlight PA.

For some people thatll mean coming to the Capitol and having a meeting. For some that's sending an email. And for some, thats engaging on social media.

In a statement, a TikTok spokesperson echoed that sentiment, arguing that "bans on state government devices and networks prevent state agencies from reaching a wider audience.

Bills like these are being pushed through without regard for the facts, the spokesperson added.

The legislation is mostly redundant. The Office of Administration effectively the commonwealths human resources and IT department for tens of thousands of state employees currently blocks TikToks URL on its WiFi network, and the app cannot be downloaded from the states application portal, according to a Shapiro administration memo to lawmakers viewed by Spotlight PA.

However, the governors administration said it opposed the bill, citing a need for flexibility that it achieves through executive orders or management directives instead of waiting for legislation.

Today the issue is TikTok. In three months, six months, or a year, it could be another app that needs to be addressed, the memo said.

Shapiro isnt the only skeptic. State Rep. Tarik Khan (D., Philadelphia) was one of two Democrats to vote no on the updated TikTok ban. He argued that the language set a precedent of guilt by association that we should not be establishing in the commonwealth.

But Khan, who has introduced bipartisan legislation that would ban the use of AI to misrepresent the words, actions or beliefs of the current or former candidate, also argued that inaction is not an option.

We have to be nimble, and we have to be ready to set guardrails, Khan told Spotlight PA. And the worst thing we can do is just do nothing.

BEFORE YOU GO If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.

Go here to read the rest:
TikTok ban, social media rules for kids weighed in PA - Spotlight PA