Mother who loses son to suicide responds to amendments of Social Media Safety Act
FAYETTEVILLE (KNWA/FOX24) — The impact of the amendments of the 2023 Social Media Safety Act is already being felt despite not even being signed yet by Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Senate Bills 611 and 612 are partner bills that are meant to protect minors from the harm that can be caused by social media platforms. SB612 also lays the framework for parents or guardians to take legal action against social media companies if their child is a victim of self-harm due to content they consume.
For one Centerton mother, these amendments are welcomed. Jennie DeSerio's 16-year-old son, Mason, took his own life, and she believes the content he consumed on TikTok had a direct effect on his decision that night.
Roughly a year since his passing, Deserio is determined to be a rock for other parents who may be experiencing similar situations.
SNAP Changes: What foods could be excluded in Arkansas?
'I really thought that my purpose as his mother died that night with him. And, when I found out what TikTok had been sending him, I realized that my purpose as a mom didn't die. It just transformed. So now my purpose as Mason's mom is to make sure no other parent suffers the loss that I have,' DeSerio said.
Senator Tyler Dees is the sponsor of these bills, and he said lawmakers are doing what they can to stop social media platforms from targeting the youth.
'We want to tell you we're listening. Your legislature is listening. We're trying to make a difference. We want to bring your stories. As awful as they are, we want them to be the last stories we hear about. We want to make sure that these social media companies are being held accountable,' Dees said.
For more information on the legislation changes, click here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Republicans' mega-bill could make Americans hungry again
This is a large country, and people in different states embrace different customs, cultural preferences and political beliefs. But for all our diversity, every person in every state needs to eat. In recognition of this, America has long treated hunger as a national concern. Unfortunately, a little-understood provision in the budget reconciliation legislation speeding through Congress would change that. Within a few years of its passage, we would likely see a significant number of states with no family food assistance program at all for Americans unable to buy enough food. In the middle of the 20th century, the U.S. Department of Agriculture purchased surplus commodities from farms and distributed them to people in need, wherever they were. When this became unworkable, Congress began converting commodity distributions into food stamps that low-income households could spend in regular supermarkets to buy food for their families. President Richard Nixon saw the benefits of this program and pushed through legislation that made the Food Stamp Program nationwide. In the following decades, the Food Stamp Program was expanded to help more of the working poor and reduced when Congress was trying to cut the deficit. Some of its biggest supporters were Republicans like Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) as well as Rep. Bill Emerson (R-Mo.). As technology advanced, electronic debit cards replaced the old paper food stamps and the program changed its name to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. But even when Congress has felt the need to cut back on food stamps, it has never departed from the principle that hunger is a national concern. Budget cuts that took effect in New York also took effect in Arkansas. The pending reconciliation bill, however, would change that, making it likely that some of the states that most need food assistance would drop out completely. Both the House-passed bill and the one pending in the Senate would, for the first time, require states to contribute to the cost of food assistance benefits. The percentages in the two versions vary, but the hit would be large. If the final legislation requires states to pay 10 percent, the 10-year cost to states would be almost $90 billion. Poorer states would be especially hard-hit: Alabama would have to pay $1.64 billion, Arkansas would need to come up with $521 million and West Virginia would have to find $536 million in its budget. Because the provision prohibits the federal government from paying its share unless the state pays the required amount, states that are unwilling or unable to produce the required match would have to drop out of SNAP altogether. This is a real possibility. The Federal Reserve and many private forecasters are seeing signs that economic growth is slowing, with a full recession a distinct possibility. Even if we avoid a recession, a slowing economy will reduce states' revenues and drive up the number of people losing their jobs and needing food assistance. At a time when states will be cutting important programs and contemplating unwelcome tax increases just to keep their heads above water, few will have room to absorb tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of new costs to maintain existing food assistance programs. Once food assistance ceases to be available in some states for families regardless of need, we will have lost something important about what makes us a country. The consequences will be severe indeed. Copious research shows that children growing up with inadequate diets do worse in school and have lower lifetime earnings. As some states terminate federal food assistance, voices in neighboring states will advocate for dropping the program as well. Members of Congress from states lacking federal family food assistance will have little reason to support funding for a program operating only in other states. The effects will extend well beyond food assistance. SNAP, along with unemployment insurance, is one of our most important 'automatic stabilizers' that puts more money into the economy as the nation tips into a recession. This is crucial because Congress often takes months to enact stimulus legislation — or fails altogether. A shrunken SNAP will mean less effective stimulus to pull the country out of a downturn, and a SNAP that operates only in some states could contribute to an uneven recovery across the country. Indeed, because all states must balance their budgets even in recessions, declining revenues may force some states to drop out of SNAP at the very moment when families most need help and when the economy most needs a boost. No good reason exists for shifting the costs of SNAP benefits to states. States already spend large amounts to meet human needs ignored by the federal government and even more matching federal contributions for efforts such as Medicaid and child care subsidies. States' revenue streams are less efficient and far more vulnerable to regional and national economic downturns. Suddenly increasing states' costs in federal-state programs is precisely the kind of 'unfunded mandate' that prompted congressional Republicans to enact the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995 and that led Republicans to criticize the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion. Dumping federal fiscal shortfalls on the states is antithetical to the values of federalism. It is a shameful practice contemplated by policymakers lacking the courage to get the federal government's own fiscal house in order. Congress should drop this cost-shifting provision altogether. At a very minimum, it should ensure that the federal share of food assistance benefits remain available even in states that are unwilling or unable to put up hundreds of millions of dollars of their own. David A. Super teaches at Georgetown Law.
12 hours ago
Tech industry group sues Arkansas over new social media laws
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- A tech industry trade group sued Arkansas Friday over two new laws that would place limits on content on social media platforms and would allow parents of children who killed themselves to sue over content on the platforms. The lawsuit by NetChoice filed in federal court in Fayetteville, Arkansas, comes months after a federal judge struck down a state law requiring parental consent before minors can create new social media accounts. The new laws were signed by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders earlier this year. 'Despite the overwhelming consensus that laws like the Social Media Safety Act are unconstitutional, Arkansas elected to respond to this Court's decision not by repealing the provisions that it held unconstitutional but by instead doubling down on its overreach,' NetChoice said in its lawsuit. Arkansas is among several states that have been enacting restrictions on social media, prompted by concerns about the impact on children's mental health. NetChoice — whose members include TikTok, Facebook parent Meta, and the social platform X — challenged Arkansas' 2023 age-verification law for social media. A federal judge who initially blocked the law struck it down in March. Similar laws have been blocked by judges in Florida and Georgia. A spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office was reviewing the latest complaint and looked forward to defending the law. One of the new laws being challenged prohibits social media platforms from using a design, algorithm or feature it 'knows or should have known through the exercise of reasonable care' would cause a user to kill themself, purchase a controlled substance, develop an eating disorder, develop an addiction to the platform. The lawsuit said that provision is unconstitutionally vague and doesn't offer guidance on how to determine which content would violate those restrictions, and the suit notes it would restrict content for both adults and minors. The suit questions whether songs that mention drugs, such as Afroman's 'Because I Got High,' would be prohibited under the new law. The law being challenged also would allow parents whose children have died by suicide or attempted to take their lives to sue social media companies if they were exposed to content promoting or advancing self-harm and suicide. The companies could face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. NetChoice is also challenging another law that attempts to expand Arkansas' blocked restrictions on social media companies. That measure would require social media platforms to ensure minors don't receive notifications between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. The measure also would require social media companies to ensure their platform 'does not engage in practices to evoke any addiction or compulsive behavior.' The suit argues that the law doesn't explain how to comply with that restriction and is so broadly written that it's unclear what kind of posts or material would violate it. 'What is 'addictive' to some minors may not be addictive to others. Does allowing teens to share photos with each other evoke addiction?' the lawsuit said.
The Hill
13 hours ago
- The Hill
Senate Republicans' new SNAP proposal prompts GOP concern
A GOP-backed proposal that would shift some of the cost of food assistance to states for the first time is drawing renewed concern in the party, as critics argue the effort could lead to states cutting benefits on their own. Republicans are pushing to pass the proposal — which could see states with higher payment error rates covering a greater share of benefit costs — as a part of the broader spending cuts and tax package in the coming days. But that doesn't mean some Republicans aren't concerned about the measure. 'Our big thing is the data to be used, the data to be used on the error rate,' Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska.) told The Hill on Friday. 'So, that's important to make sure that the data is as accurate and reflective of the year you're judging as possible.' Numbers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed Alaska's payment error rate — which factors in overpayment and underpayment error rates — hit above 60 percent in fiscal year 2023. The national average hit at 11.68 percent. Sullivan noted the state has seen much lower payment error rates prior to the pandemic and is on a path to improving those figures, noting new numbers are expected soon. But he added, 'It's still higher than our traditional error rate, and as you know, the cost share is based in part on that.' According to the Alaska Beacon, the state's error rate hiked after state officials said they violated federal rules in order to continue feeding people amid a significant backlog in applications. Under the initial plan crafted by the Senate Agriculture Committee, Republicans sought to require states to cover some of the cost of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent beginning in fiscal 2028. The proposal in the megabill would also allow states with rates below that level to continue paying zero percent. It also proposes states with higher payment error rates cover a greater share of benefit costs. If the error rate is 6 percent or higher, states would be subject to a sliding scale that could see their share of allotments rise to a range of between 5 percent and 15 percent. However, Senate Republicans tweaked the plan after facing a setback when their 'state cost-share' proposal was rejected by the chamber's rules referee as part of a megabill the party hopes to pass in the coming days. A release from the agriculture committee said the updated plan would allow states to choose the payment error either fiscal year 2025 or 2026 to 'calculate their state match requirement that begins in Fiscal Year 2028.' For the following fiscal year, the 'state match will be calculated using the payment error rate from three fiscal years prior,' the committee said, adding a 'state must contribute a set percentage of the cost of its SNAP benefits if its payment error rate exceeds six percent.' Asked about further potential changes to the plan, Agriculture chairman Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) said Friday that negotiators 'worked really hard to try and get a situation that worked for as many people as we could, and I think we've achieved that.' 'Alaska is a unique state, unique situation, so I know that everybody's trying to work hard to accommodate situations that don't fit,' Boozman said Friday afternoon. 'So, I haven't heard of any changes, and I'm sure that, you know, [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune [(R-S.D.)] will grab me if that comes about.' Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) also expressed concerns about the proposal, telling reporters earlier on Friday that she's raised them with others in the party, according to Politico. Asked briefly about the party's SNAP proposal later, Murkowski told The Hill, 'We're still in trouble on SNAP.' 'The implementation is still next to impossible for us,' she said. Republicans say the states' cost-share proposal would incentivize states to improve their error rates. But Sullivan and Murkowski aren't the only Republicans who have voiced concerns about the effort in recent weeks. Originally, the House plan called for all states to cover 5 percent of the cost of allotments in its initial version of Trump's megabill, with states that had higher payment error rates having to pay anywhere between 15 percent and 25 percent. However, the proposal was dialed back after concerns from other Republicans, including Sens. Tommy Tuberville (Ala.) and Jim Justice (W. Va.) over the measure. Asked if he's meeting with Boozman or Thune on the matter, Sullivan also told The Hill on Friday evening that he's 'meeting with everybody.' 'For me, it's just important to get the data as close to the date that you're judging,' Sullivan said, adding that he expects Alaska to see a notable drop in its error rate in a coming report.
