As a mother of three and a family law attorney, I spend a great deal of time thinking about how to keep children safe — in their homes, in their relationships, and increasingly, online. The digital world is no longer separate from childhood; it is part of it. While we all agree that protecting our keiki in that space is essential, we must be thoughtful about how we do so.

Teenagers today connect, learn, organize, and build community through screens in ways that simply did not exist a generation ago. None of us were given a roadmap for parenting in this environment, and policymakers are navigating it in real time as well. That makes it all the more important that we do not rush into solutions that may feel decisive but ultimately cause more harm than good.

I have previously advocated for an approach that preserves parental choice by placing parents in the loop at the app store level — requiring parental approval before minors can download apps. This keeps parents as the first line of defense without cutting teenagers off from the digital world entirely.

Ideas showcases stories, opinion and analysis about Hawaiʻi, from the state’s sharpest thinkers, to stretch our collective thinking about a problem or an issue. Email news@civilbeat.org to submit an idea or an essay.

Read More

So when I learned that the Legislature was advancing Senate Bill 2761, a bill that would prohibit anyone under 16 from using social media, I became deeply concerned. While the intent is understandable, the bill could produce unintended consequences for the very youth it seeks to protect.

SB 2761 would prohibit social media platforms from allowing anyone under 16 to create or maintain an account. At first glance, this sounds straightforward. But the bill explicitly exempts gaming platforms, videoconferencing services, cloud storage, and educational tools.

In practice, this means that platforms such as Roblox — where documented cases of predators targeting minors have occurred — would remain unaffected. Other widely used platforms may also fall outside the bill depending on how they are classified.

The result could be a law that bars teens from communicating with friends on moderated platforms while leaving them free to interact with strangers in far less regulated online spaces.

We have seen similar approaches elsewhere. Australia enacted a sweeping social media ban for minors last year and initially celebrated widespread account deletions. What followed, however, was a migration of young users to less regulated corners of the internet with fewer safety protections. If our goal is to create a safer digital environment for Hawaiʻi’s youth, pushing them toward platforms with minimal oversight is not the answer.

For some young people, online access is more than entertainment — it is a lifeline. Children living in homes affected by family violence often rely on digital communication as their only safe connection to the outside world.

Social media and messaging platforms can provide access to trusted adults, extended family, school personnel, crisis support, and community resources when physical access is limited or monitored. Cutting off those connections risks further isolating children who are already among the most vulnerable.

I also think of children who are in the foster care system, among missing children reports, and who experience high rates of suicidal ideation. For many of them, online communication may be the only consistent way to maintain contact with siblings, relatives, or supportive networks when placements change or family connections are disrupted. Removing that avenue without providing a viable alternative could unintentionally sever critical lifelines.

Social media can also play a meaningful role in cultural connection across our islands. Many young people use these platforms to learn ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi, engage with cultural practitioners, and connect with traditions that earlier generations fought hard to preserve. These digital spaces have become powerful tools for cultural transmission and revitalization.

None of this suggests that we should ignore the very real risks children face online, but solutions must be both effective and balanced. A more workable approach would focus on age verification and parental consent at the app store level.

Rather than banning minors outright, app stores could verify users’ ages and require parental approval before downloads. This creates a single, manageable point of control for families, reduces the need to share sensitive information across multiple platforms, and preserves access to beneficial online communities.

Such an approach respects parents’ ability to make decisions for their own children while still establishing meaningful safeguards. It strengthens protection without imposing a one-size-fits-all prohibition.

SB 2761 may be well-intentioned. However, the bill risks restricting youth expression, isolating vulnerable populations, limiting access to cultural and educational resources, and driving children toward less safe online environments — all while leaving some of the most concerning spaces largely untouched.