I had never heard of the NGL app until recently. But that’s not surprising. Anonymous question apps seem to be popular among teenagers.
Bark, a maker of parental content monitoring software, called NGL a source of “drama” and online bullying. But this appears to be a fairly standard social media product, allowing users to post questions or tips and receive anonymous responses.
Now, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has ordered NGL to ban users under 18 years of age.
Want to know more about sex, technology, body autonomy, law and online culture? subscription sex and technology from reason and Elizabeth Nolan Brown.
That slippery slope again
The FTC and the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office said NGL was “unfairly” marketing the app to minors. “NGL knowingly marketed its app to children and teens despite knowing they faced online bullying and harassment,” said FTC Chairman Lina M. Khan.
To settle the lawsuit, the agency not only asked NGL to pay $5 million but also demanded that the app ban people under 18 from using it.
In my opinion, this is a worrying development.
Executive agencies ordering social media apps to ban minors is effectively a backdoor way to accomplish a task that Congress has failed to authorize through legislation and the courts have consistently refused when state lawmakers did so.
Granted, the FTC doesn’t appear to require NGL to check IDs. According to the FTC’s press release, it simply “needs to implement a neutral age restriction to prevent new and existing users from accessing the application if they indicate that they are under 18.”
But the FTC is still setting minimum age requirements for the use of certain social media, circumventing the authority of parents and legislators.
Additionally, from now on, a) further penalizing companies if a child lies about their age, thereby requiring NGL to use identity checks or other age verification schemes, and/or b) requiring more intrusions to be used in future orders to social media companies age verification scheme.
FTC’s case against NGL is full of anti-tech tropes
I was unable to confirm the accuracy of all of the FTC’s allegations against NGL, which include accusations that it “falsely claimed that its artificial intelligence content moderation process filters out cyberbullying and other harmful information” and “deceived users into signing up for its site.” The identity of the sender of the message will be revealed to enable paid subscriptions.
In a statement posted on the NGL blog, the company said it spent two years “cooperating with the FTC’s investigation” and that “many of the allegations made against young people in our user base are factually incorrect.”
Knowing the way the FTC tends to misrepresent the behavior of technology companies, I was initially skeptical of the FTC’s claims about NGL. There were many red flags in the publicity surrounding the case.
The focus of many authorities’ campaigns is not on NGL’s unfair or deceptive practices, but on the app’s basic functionality. For example: “The anonymity provided by this app could fuel rampant cyberbullying among teenagers, causing untold harm to our young people,” Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón said in a statement.
“NGL and its operators actively marketed their services to children and teens despite being aware of the dangers of cyberbullying through anonymous messaging apps,” the FTC said.
Of course, many apps allow anonymity. Here is Potential Causing bullying does not justify government action.
But a common refrain from government officials attacking tech companies is that the company is wrong because it should know people Can Use the App in an unwelcome or unfriendly manner. This is an easy way to declare any online platform guilty, since almost all forms of open online communication are ethically neutral and multifaceted, capable of promoting very positive interactions, very negative interactions, and everything in between .
The FTC has also rolled out other old anti-tech tactics, such as accusing the company of failing to perfect content moderation (NGL said it “filters out cyberbullying and other harmful information” but “fails to stop rampant cyberbullying and threats” ) and points to isolated, unsubstantiated instances of trouble to back up his point (“One consumer reported that their friend attempted suicide because of an NGL app”).
Perhaps NGL is not a model of transparency and integrity among tech companies. But the FTC’s actions here have all the hallmarks of anti-tech hatred and moral panic, with young people using technology to justify disturbing overreach.
A “novel” case
FTC Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson acknowledged that the FTC’s action in this regard was unusual.
They were based in part on “novel theories,” Ferguson said in a statement, which also included Commissioner Melissa Holyoke. The theory is that NGL violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by “marketing anonymous messaging apps to children and teenagers despite knowing that the apps were harmful to children and teenagers.”
Please note that this is not considered a specific NGL behavior violation. It’s just a fact that it’s essentially an app that’s marketed to minors.
Ferguson said he voted to approve the complaint because he agreed “it was unfair to use defendants’ marketing methods to market this anonymous messaging app to teenagers.” more:
If the allegations in the complaint are true, NGL sent false, anonymous, and distressing messages to minors specifically to make them doubt their worth in society as part of a fraudulent scheme to convince these minors to pay in order to Ability to see who sent the message. This alleged behavior is specifically designed to manipulate vulnerable teenage psyches and is reprehensible and unfair.
However, Ferguson wanted “to be clear… this does not mean that section 5 explicitly prohibits the marketing of any anonymous messaging apps to young people.”
This is an important distinction, but one that not all colleagues believe is worthwhile.
More sex and tech news
• The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will reconsider a case involving the removal of 17 books from a Llano County, Texas, library, including It’s Totally Normal: Body Changes, Growth, Sex and Sexual Health——On the subject matter. PBS noted: “While library patrons say the removal of the books constitutes an illegal suppression of views by the government, county officials argue that they have broad authority to decide which books belong on library shelves, and that these The decision was a form of constitutionally protected governmental speech, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit ruled in June that nine of the books could be removed but eight must remain at the county’s request. A retrial before the collegiate bench has been granted.
• The Arkansas secretary of state rejected an abortion rights initiative Arkansas limited government filed last week. The group said it submitted 101,525 signatures, well above the 90,704 signature threshold needed to get on the ballot in the state. But the group failed to provide required pamphlets to some paid lobbyists and failed to submit documentation regarding their identities, resulting in the 14,143 signatures collected being deemed invalid, according to Secretary of State John Thurston.
Today’s pictures
