Gov. Sanders announces bills targeting social media harm to children
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) — Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced two bills to expand social media protections in Arkansas, following her 2025 State of the State address.
Senate Bill 612 would create a private right of action against social media platforms that knowingly cause harm through their design, algorithms or features, particularly contributing to a minor's suicide or attempted suicide.
Platforms found in violation could face civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation, along with damages and legal costs. Parents or guardians of minors who suffer harm from harmful online content may sue the platform responsible, with courts able to award relief, medical expenses and punitive damages.
'This legislation establishes a private right of action for parents whose child commits suicide or attempts suicide because of his or her exposure to toxic material on social media, allowing them to sue abusive Big Tech companies in state court,' according to a press release from the Governor's office.
'Defense Against Criminal Illegals Act' passes Arkansas senate
The second bill amends the Social Media Safety Act of 2023, expanding the protections provided to minors on social media. Key changes include:
A broader definition of 'social media' to cover additional platforms.
A reduction in the age of minors covered by the law to include those as young as 16.
A ban on social media algorithms targeting minors.
A penalty for companies that fail to comply with the law's provisions.
Senator Tyler Dees and Representative Jon Eubanks are the primary sponsors.
These changes will apply to new accounts created after the legislation is enacted. The amendments are intended to address issues with the original Social Media Safety Act, which is currently blocked by a court injunction.
Governor Sanders signed the Social Media Safety Act into law in 2023, requiring parental consent for minors to create social media accounts. However, its enforcement is currently on hold due to a judge striking it down on Apr. 1.
'These amendments seek to remedy those issues and allow it to go into effect,' said the Governor's office in a press release.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
When Is a Torched Waymo More Than a Torched Waymo?
In 1867, with the railroad barons steadily gaining power across the United States, a group of angry farmers decided to organize into a trade union known as The Grange. These agricultural workers were tired of the tech magnates who, by controlling the means that their crops moved to markets, could charge whatever they want and essentially decide how much money the farmers made (or if they'd make any money at all). Their union forced Congress, deeper in the pocket of Big Railroad than your car keys, to form the Interstate Commerce Commission — 20 years later. It would only be 20 years after that when President Theodore Roosevelt finally gave the ICC enough teeth to stop the industry's decades of exploitation. More from The Hollywood Reporter Gavin Newsom Found: 'The 33' Casts Actor as Politician in Film About Homeless Crisis (Exclusive) 'Starwalker' Director Talks Defying Queer, Trans Rights Backlash With "Joy in Our Rebellion" Doechii Calls Out Trump's "Ruthless Attacks" Amid L.A. Protests in BET Speech: "What Type of Government Is That?" A strange invocation. Angry Farmers, some kind of new band? But you don't need to work too hard to see the modern parallels. A runaway technology controlled by an oligarchical few that thwarts regulation so they can keep reaping profits at the expense of everyday Americans — the narrative floats in the air these days in Hollywood, as it does in media, advertising and other creative fields, where the prospect of AI-foisting tech companies pushing those pesky humans out of work seems more real by the day. (On Wednesday that battle saw a new front open with Disney and Universal following the lead of media companies and suing an AI firm.) The parallel is teased out by Tom Wheeler — the former chair of the FCC and now a fellow at the Brookings Institution — in his 2023 book Techlash: Who Makes the Rules In the Digital Gilded Age? It came to mind this week with the reports that the anti-ICE protesters in downtown Los Angeles had ordered Waymos — those Google-owned automated taxis that carefully turn in front of you driving down Olympic — so they could burn them to a crisp. An act of 'techlash' you're likely to hear about a lot more in the months ahead, just as you'll hear the term itself. (Though popularized by Wheeler, the portmanteau, which connotes defiant acts against Big Tech, was actually coined by The Economist five years earlier.) This is a critical, dangerous time in the tech realm, when AI models are grabbing data with consequences little understood much less slowed. A rapidly growing machine intelligence could make companies richer but jobs scarcer; models slicker but privacy looser; life more efficient but human relationships more fragile. A few vehicle husks near the 101 can't carry all that weight. Or can they? I called Wheeler to ask what he thought of the DTLA acts and where they fit into the techlash movement. Wheeler was skeptical the Waymo-burning was a conscious act of defiance against Big Tech; more likely, he thought, the cars were just an easy vandalism target. I disagree, but it doesn't really matter in the final analysis. Wheeler thinks the sentiment is growing — and he hopes that if everyone from grassroots protesters to D.C. lawmakers will act on it, we can craft a more human-centric tech-regulatory policy than we've had so far, than we seem headed for. 'Thus far we've allowed — and allowed is the key word — the tech bros to craft regulation in a way that benefits themselves,' says Wheeler, who served as FCC chair in the second Obama administration. 'We need to craft regulation in a way that benefits the public interest.' Wheeler isn't kidding. Just a few months ago Trump revoked Biden's executive order on AI, which wasn't that toothsome to begin with. A provision in the current 'Big Beautiful' bill literally bans or punishes any state that tries to enact AI regulation. We're a long way from sniffing Europe, which has developed an AI Act that actually could regulate harms. And as Wheeler points out, we don't have the kind of time we did with the railroads — 40 years in transit technology is 400 in modern Silicon Valley given the speed of AI developments. Even four may be too long. Wheeler puts the most hope in the federal agency proposed by the Democratic senators Michael Bennet and Pete Welch. Such an agency, Wheeler says, is the only way to give meaning to the techlash and to stop companies from running amok. Old industrial-era approaches of micromanaging the process won't work, he says; a new results-based system that looks at the ultimate harms a company does is the only one that will. The conflation of the anti-ICE riots with anti-Big Tech causes may seem odd, but the two aren't as far apart as you'd think — both offer a lashing back at inequality and a lack of human sympathy. Toss in the fact that the government is working closely with Palantir, the shadowy firm that allows for high-level AI analysis of collected data for potential surveillance ops, and you can see how the causes begin to merge. 'People are starting to see the links between the dark and noxious parts of the tech industry and the current administration,' says Wendy Liu, a programmer-turned-evangelist who wrote the 2020 manifesto Abolish Silicon Valley which argued for a radical de-fanging of the tech industry. (She says an argument that seemed a little radical even to her at the time now feels intuitive.) 'If you see the anti-ICE protests as defending the idea of being human and caring about human values, then destroying the property of a trillion-dollar corporation whose goal is to make human labor obsolete makes perfect sense,' she adds. 'The protests aren't just about immigration — they're about a right-wing anti-human administration.' A cogent analysis, though I'd argue the partisan lines are not as clear. MAGA figures like Sen. Josh Hawley are coming after swaths of Big Tech. Moderate Republicans like Ohio congressman Warren Davidson are going public with their fears about the Palantir deal. Marjorie Taylor Greene, of all people, has said the AI state restriction is an overreach and wants it out of the bill. And of course there's the exiled Musk, well, X factor. The so-called tech right is not as monolithic as it seems, no matter how many broligarchs shelled out for a ringside seat to Trump's inauguration. But trying to rally them or other electeds to do more by using techlash tactics like the one we're seeing at the protests could be dicey. Waymos and those robots that putter down sidewalks delivering coffee have a weirdly anthropomorphic quality; raised in a Hollywood culture of Wall-E and Johnny No. 5, we tend to root for them. When a Waymo turns carefully in front of me while the human driver nearly kills me crossing the street, I admit I feel those same pangs. 'These are gentle creatures, and it's our worst impulses that have us going around bashing them.' I know it's an illusion. But it's a powerful one. That's the danger with attacking a Waymo — it gives Big Tech the chance to say, even subtextually, 'look at these marginal zealots, attacking these cute robots that didn't hurt anyone.' It lets them play the victim. A better symbol to the displacing of human Uber drivers might be, well the Uber drivers themselves. Rather than burn a few driverless cars, why not gather thousands of drivers in one massive eye-catching display to show all the people potentially out of work from self-driving taxis? Less destructive, more constructive. (A testimony to how far we've fallen, by the way, when Uber is the humanist good guys, given all the evidence it has been steadily increasing the percentage it takes from drivers.) Or do what Hollywood Guilds did during the strikes two years ago — gather en masse to show the human toll automation could cause, a playbook other industries will no doubt be following for years. Wheeler agrees that protesting job displacement by attacking the means of automation is misguided. 'Smashing frames doesn't work,' he says, referring to the early 19th-century movement in England to destroy the knitting tools that automated clothing production and edged out humans, named for the (likely fictional) worker Ned Ludd. 'And let's not forget the Luddites failed.' Liu disagrees. 'I personally lean more conservative in my behavior and wouldn't [attack a car]. But I understand why people feel the need to express their rage by burning something. And this is the best way because it doesn't hurt anyone; it's really just corporate property. And there aren't a lot of symbols to destroy — what are you going to do, go to a tech company's office and burn [it]?' I noted that this presupposes burning is necessary for a protest movement in the first place. 'Sometimes we need these acts of destruction to get people's attention. Look at the Boston Tea Party,' she said. I'll leave to protest tacticians the best route here. But I do think Liu is onto something in a crucial regard. The many perils of the computer-model takeover — whether it's displacement, disinformation, bias, an outsourcing of human thought or a reduction in human contact — are not easy to see; unlike looms or railroads, a program that thinks hardly asserts itself physically. In such a world, a self-driving taxi, while an imperfect symbol, may be the best we have. The coming months will tell the efficacy of torching cars as a protest act — whether it will turn out more like the Boston Tea Party or the Luddite Revolution. But the techlash movement will no doubt grow, burning figuratively if not literally. Let's just hope it can notch some wins before our economy and humanity go up in smoke. Best of The Hollywood Reporter Most Anticipated Concert Tours of 2025: Beyoncé, Billie Eilish, Kendrick Lamar & SZA, Sabrina Carpenter and More Hollywood's Most Notable Deaths of 2025 Hollywood's Highest-Profile Harris Endorsements: Taylor Swift, George Clooney, Bruce Springsteen and More
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump-Musk fight reveals fragility of relationship between Silicon Valley and White House
The falling out between President Trump and Elon Musk is just the latest reminder that the relationship between the new White House and the titans of technology has turned out to be complicated. The CEO of Tesla (TSLA) was among several big names from Silicon Valley awarded prime seats for the president's Jan. 20 Capitol inauguration, alongside Meta (META) CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Apple (AAPL) CEO Tim Cook, Amazon (AMZN) chair Jeff Bezos, and Google (GOOG) CEO Sundar Pichai. In the five months since, the president has either confronted all of their companies in court or applied pressure on those firms with his own words. Musk and Trump made their break official last week in a series of social media posts that featured insults and threats hurled by both men. The other executives and their companies had already been grappling with a tougher-than-expected stance on their industry. Zuckerberg, for example, was not able to convince Trump to stop an antitrust trial against Meta from going forward this spring. The president has since threatened Cook's Apple with 25% duties on overseas-made iPhones and criticized the iPhone maker's ramped-up production in India. Meanwhile, the company is defending against an antitrust lawsuit led by the Justice Department, filed during President Joe Biden's administration. Trump's Justice Department has also pushed ahead with a Biden-era recommendation for a judge to break up Pichai's Google empire. Trump even called Bezos to complain about Amazon after it was reported that the online retail giant was considering displaying the cost of tariffs next to prices on its site. Trump said Bezos "solved the problem very quickly.' Yet Amazon still faces a lawsuit from Trump's Federal Trade Commission that is due to start in February 2027. The FTC, which brought the case during Biden's term in office, told a judge in the spring that it needed to push the original October 2026 trial date due to Amazon's litigation delays. One of the biggest questions facing the tech world as Trump took office was how aggressive Trump's antitrust enforcers would be following four years of a Biden administration marked by legal fights with many of Silicon Valley's biggest names. By sustaining many of these cases and probes against Big Tech, Trump has parted ways with traditional Republican-style enforcement, legal experts say. "This isn't the Bush administration," Trump's FTC chair Andrew Ferguson told a group of American CEOs this spring in Washington, D.C., referring to one of the weakest US antitrust enforcement periods in modern history. Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor Anat Alon-Beck expects the Trump administration will continue to rein in Big Tech, especially given bipartisan support for the idea that Big Tech currently has too much power. There have been some positive developments for the tech firms too. Big Tech has gained the benefit of a relaxed regulatory environment, especially in the industry of artificial intelligence, making fundraising and complying with securities laws easier. In an executive order titled 'Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence,' the president rescinded Biden's executive order on AI safety and directed federal agencies to remove regulatory obstacles to US global AI dominance. "So they have to take what they can get from the current administration," Alon-Beck said. One tech giant that does have an early win from Trump is Microsoft. President Trump's antitrust cops ended what had become an uphill government effort to unwind Microsoft's (MSFT) $69 billion acquisition of video game maker Activision Blizzard that also began during the Biden administration. The decision came when the FTC voluntarily dropped a lawsuit that Biden's FTC boss, Lina Khan, first filed against the tie-up in December 2022. But Microsoft may not emerge unscathed, either. Bloomberg has reported that Trump officials at the FTC are also broadening a probe into Microsoft and its relationship with AI upstart OpenAI ( The probe was first launched by Khan, a key architect of a new movement seeking to expand the legal theories that can give rise to antitrust claims. In June of last year, multiple news organizations reported that the probe also involved a DOJ investigation into chipmaker Nvidia's (NVDA) competitive conduct. The probe was to address concerns over the company's dominance in the market for microprocessors that power AI. The Trump administration has not indicated it has dropped the investigation. And in April, Nvidia said in a regulatory filing that the president had kept in place Biden's export restrictions on the company's H20 AI chips to China. As for Musk, Trump this past weekend said he had no desire to repair the relationship, which he said was over. He warned there would be 'serious consequences' if Musk financed candidates to run against Republicans who voted in favor of the president's domestic policy bill. But on Monday, Trump made some conciliatory comments about Musk and Tesla. "I'd have no problem with it," Trump said at a White House event on Monday when asked if he would be willing to speak with Musk. "I'd imagine he wants to speak with me." He added, "I wish him well, very well actually." The Tesla CEO has also conceded that he regrets some of his social media posts about Trump, saying on Wednesday that they "went too far". Wedbush technology analyst Dan Ives wrote in a note on Monday that he doesn't expect Trump and Musk to fully patch their soured relationship but would not be surprised if it improved in the months ahead. At the end of the day, Ives wrote, "Trump needs Musk to stay close to the Republican party and Musk needs Trump for many reasons," including a federal framework for autonomous vehicles. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Macron to push for ban on social media for under-15s after school stabbing
PARIS (Reuters) -French President Emmanuel Macron said he would push for European Union regulation to ban social media for children under the age of 15 after a fatal stabbing at a school in eastern France, the latest such violent attack that left the country reeling. Macron said in an interview late on Tuesday that he hoped to see results within the next few months. "If that does not work, we will start to do it in France. We cannot wait," he told the France 2 public broadcaster, hours after a fatal stabbing at a middle school in Nogent, Haute-Marne. Police questioned a 14-year-old student on Tuesday over the knifing of a 31-year-old school aide during a bag search for weapons. Prime Minister Francois Bayrou told parliament the incident was not an isolated case. Macron said social media was one of the factors to blame for violence among young people. Writing on social media platform X after the interview, Macron said such regulation was backed by experts. "Platforms have the ability to verify age. Do it," he wrote. Macron's comments come amid a wave of measures in countries around the world aimed at curbing social media use among children. Australia last year approved a social media ban for under-16s after an emotive public debate, setting a benchmark for jurisdictions around the world with one of the toughest regulations targeting Big Tech. Although most social media do not allow children under 13 to use their platforms, a report by Australia's online safety regulator found children easily bypass such restrictions.
