Healey Proposes Her Own Social Media Bill

Advocates Remain Wary

Gov. Maura Healey unveiled her own youth social media legislation April 15, one week after the Massachusetts House passed what supporters called one of the country's most restrictive youth social media measures, and as LGBTQ+ advocates warned both proposals could put queer young people at risk.

"This isn't a ban," Healey said at a State House news conference. "But it is deactivation." Her bill would require social media platforms to automatically disable features including infinite scrolling, autoplay video, push notifications and algorithm-driven content feeds for users under 18. Users 16 and older could change those default settings themselves; users 15 and younger would require a parent or guardian to do so. The proposal also includes a two-hour daily limit for users under 16.

Healey called her proposal "complementary" to the House bill, which passed 129-25 on April 8 and would prohibit children under 14 from opening social media accounts entirely, while requiring parental consent for users ages 14 and 15.

LGBTQ+ rights advocates, however, say both proposals could endanger vulnerable youth. Evan Greer, a Boston-based transgender activist and director of the digital rights group Fight for the Future, said the legislation overlooks research showing that social media can serve as a critical support system for queer young people.

"While numerous studies have shown that excessive social media use is harmful to youth mental health, other studies have shown that cutting LGBTQ youth off from social media actually leads to worse mental health outcomes," Greer said in a statement to Boston.com. "The data is quite nuanced, and while it supports action to crack down on predatory business practices, it does not support an outright ban."

Advocates also raised alarms about a parental surveillance provision in the House bill that would allow any parent — or anyone claiming to be a parent — to request a minor child's social media account data, raising concerns about LGBTQ+ teenagers being outed to unsupportive families. The House LGBTQ+ Legislative Caucus offered an amendment narrowing that provision, limiting parental requests to age verification data only.

But in a statement issued April 23, Fight for the Future — joined by groups including the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, the ACLU of Massachusetts, the Queer Neighborhood Council and the Transgender Emergency Fund — said the fix created a new concern: it requires companies to store sensitive age verification data, including government IDs or biometric face scans, in case a parent later requests it.

The groups also warned that facial analysis systems frequently fail for transgender people, and that an abusive or estranged parent could still have a queer teenager's account shut down using forged documents.

"The amendment offered by the LGBTQ+ Legislative Caucus, while well-intentioned, did not solve the core concerns with H. 5366, and will not protect LGBTQ youth from harm," the coalition said.

House lawmakers added language stating that platforms may not disclose information related to a minor's sexual orientation, gender identity or other protected characteristics without consent. Education Committee Chair Rep. Ken Gordon, a chief backer of the House bill, cited that provision in a Boston Globe op-ed, saying LGBTQ+ concerns had been addressed. Advocates say it does not resolve the underlying risks.

A broad coalition of civil rights and privacy organizations has opposed mandatory age-verification requirements, warning they could expose users to data breaches and compromise anonymity for vulnerable communities. Similar laws in states including Florida and Ohio have faced significant First Amendment challenges in court.

"Massachusetts legislators are actively helping Trump's authoritarian takeover by pushing for legislation that expands censorship and surveillance," Fight for the Future said in its April 23 statement.

Because the Senate previously passed a narrower cellphone-focused measure and has not yet approved broader social media restrictions, lawmakers would need to reconcile major differences before any final legislation reaches Gov. Healey's desk.