A coalition of dozens of groups and academics from around the world are calling on Facebook to scrap plans to launch a version of Instagram for children. Facebook is countering that it continues to explore the option, which it said will be age appropriate and managed by parents. 

The coalition signaled that stance in a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

The groups, led by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, cited a BuzzFeed report that Facebook plans to build a version of the social media site that "allows people under the age of 13 to safely use Instagram for the first time.”

Also Read: Hill Dems Says Instagram for Kids May Do More Harm Than Good

While they said they agree the current version of the site is not safe for the millions of kids who have lied about their age to create accounts, they argued launching a version for kids is not the right remedy, and would instead put users at "great risk" by "exploiting their fears of missing ou[t] or the desire for peer approval," leading them to constantly check their devices and share photos. "A growing body of research demonstrates that excessive use of digital devices and social media is harmful to adolescents," they write, including contributing to obesity, lower psychological wellbeing, decreased happiness, and decreased quality of sleep. "Instagram’s focus on photo sharing and appearance makes the platform particularly unsuitable for children who are in the midst of crucial stages of developing their sense of self," they said.

Also Read: Hill Continues Big Tech CEO Punishment

Besides, they argued, creating a new site for kids does not eliminate the problem of underagers on the current site. For example, they argued, "children between the ages of 10 and 12 who have existing Instagram accounts are unlikely to migrate to a “babyish” version of the platform after they have experienced the real thing."

Finally, they argued that Facebook has a track record of exploiting young people that makes it particularly unsuitable to be "the custodian of a photo sharing and social messaging site for children."

Among the other groups signing on to the letter are the Center for Digital Democracy, the Consumer Federation of America, the Parents Television and Media Center, Child Online Africa, and Global Action Plan UK.

"We’ve just started exploring a version of Instagram for younger teens," said a Facebook spokesperson. "We agree that any experience we develop must prioritize their safety and privacy, and we will consult with experts in child development, child safety and mental health, and privacy advocates to inform it. In addition, we will not show ads in any Instagram experience we develop for people under the age of 13.”

They also pointed out that "the reality is that kids are online. They want to connect with their family and friends, have fun, and learn, and we want to help them do that in a way that is safe and age-appropriate. We also want to find practical solutions to the ongoing industry problem of kids lying about their age to access apps."

Facebook is working on new age verification methods to get the under-13s off the site while "exploring an Instagram experience for kids that is age-appropriate and managed by parents."

Privacy and civil rights groups want the Congress to keep its hands off state privacy efforts in the search for federal privacy legislation, which has bipartisan support in the broad strokes but remains a challenge in the details.

In a "dear congress" letter, over two dozen privacy and civil rights groups said that while they favor baseline federal privacy legislation, they will oppose any bill that preempts stronger state laws. "Not only will preemption leave consumers with inadequate privacy protections, it will likely result in their being worse off than they would be in the absence of federal legislation."

Among the strong laws they want protected are the California Consumer Privacy Act, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, the Vermont Data Broker Act, and the veritable host of others that they say "specifically protect the privacy of schoolchildren and prevent the commercial use of their educational information."

As to federal legislation, they said that they are concerned a bill that broadly defines covered entities and allows for preemption could "inadvertently dismantle state civil rights protections and put already marginalized groups in greater danger."

Related: California Slams Privacy Bill

By contrast, big computer companies and edge providers are in general agreement that federal privacy legislation currently being contemplated by the White House and Congress should preempt state efforts to regulate privacy.

"A national privacy framework should be consistent throughout all states, preempting state consumer privacy and data security laws," the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) has told the Trump Administration, which is also looking to come up with baseline privacy rules of the road.

Groups signing on to the "dear Congress" include Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Center for Digital Democracy, Center for Media Justice, Color of Change, Common Sense Kids Action, and the Consumer Federation of America.

Input continued to pour in following President Donald Trump's signing Monday (April 4) of a resolution nullifying the FCC's broadband privacy rules after Hill Republicans approved it on close, politically divided, votes in both Houses of Congress.

Privacy groups promised to fight on while advertisers said the fight was over "innocuous" info that didn't warrant "barrage" of opt-in notices.

"By vetoing the repeal of the broadband privacy rules President Trump could have sent a powerful message that he heard Americans' demands to have a real say over how their personal information is used and shared for commercial proses, and was willing to stand up for them," said the Consumer Federation of America.

But given that the President added his imprimatur, what now? "This fight is not over," vowed CFA. "The Consumer Federation of America and the other organizations with which we work will continue to push for real privacy protections for Americans."

The National Hispanic Media Coalition was similarly displeased and similarly ready to continue the fight.

"With the stroke of his pen, President Trump quietly sealed the fate of FCC regulations aimed to protect the private information and web browsing histories of Americans across the country," said Carmen Scurato, director of policy and legal affairs. "Latinos value their private information and will not soon forget a President who failed them, especially in light of all the public concerns he has for his own privacy. The act was a clear gift to Internet Service Providers at the expense of the American people. But the American people were not quiet during this process and left one resounding message: we will continue to stand together to preserve and protect the open internet."

Michael Copps, former FCC chairman and now a special adviser to Common Cause, saw it as a handover of consumer rights to big business by the President.

"Privacy goes the way of populism as Trump rolls over again for big business," he said. "Despite a campaign filled with rhetoric about the plight of forgotten Americans, Trump has once again come down on the side of corporate profiteering at the expense of Americans who don't sit on corporate boards and can't afford a $200,000 membership at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach. Trump has flip-flipped on his own campaign promises and handed over Americans' right to privacy to those with the deepest pockets."

Looking at it from an entirely different angle was the Association of National Advertisers, which had pushed the FCC to reconsider the rules and Congress to repeal them.

“This rule would have required vast amounts of innocuous information to be treated suddenly as highly sensitive and needing opt-in consent from consumers," ANA said in a statement. "This is an important major step to help assure a level playing field for privacy regulation for all businesses, and to see to it that consumers will not be bombarded with incessant opt-in notices. ANA also is pleased that the leadership of the FCC and FTC have committed to working cooperatively to return primary regulatory authority over privacy issues to the Federal Trade Commission, which is where we think it should rightfully belong due to the FTC’s long history of oversight and expertise in the privacy arena.”

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), a longtime advocate for privacy online, particularly of children, and a frequent critic of media companies, said the rule rollback "will give giant internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T an open invitation to more easily collect, share, and sell your personal information without your consent."

“All Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, and I believe that right extends to the internet,” said Franken, ranking member of the Senate Privacy Subcommittee. “Your digital footprint—the sites you browse, the apps you use, and the sensitive data you provide to websites—deserves to be protected. President Trump has made a grave mistake by signing this disastrous legislation, which will deepen the pockets of big internet conglomerates like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T by allowing them to more easily broker your private information. This law is as anti-consumer as it gets—it gives broadband providers free rein to collect, share, and auction off your data to the highest bidder without your consent. Your privacy is under threat, and I plan to fight back. We cannot allow corporate profits to outweigh consumer privacy rights.”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will join various groups pushing new broadband privacy regs Thursday (Oct. 20) to urge the FCC to vote on them at the Oct. 27 meeting as planned.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has put that vote on the agenda, but the set-top item was on the agenda for last month's meeting before being pulled at the last minute, so clearly the groups don't want a repeat of that. Thursday is the day the FCC releases the agenda for the meeting and the sunshine period prohibition on contacting the FCC decisionmakers about the privacy item begins.

The groups include Public Knowledge, the Open Technology Institute, and the Consumer Federation of America, and say the FCC "must act" to protect what they call the "growing" threat online of ISP data collection.

Related: Pallone Pushes for Broadband Privacy Vote

Wheeler's privacy proposal would make web site visits, app use histories and geolocation all sensitive data that requires ISP subs to opt in to their collection and use by third parties. ISPs point out that edge providers like Google and Facebook have no such restrictions, but Wheeler has said that IPSs have a unique window on everywhere their subs are going online.

In announcing a Thursday press conference, the groups echoed the chairman's argument, and argued that ISPs are collecting and monetizing more data on mobile use and Web histories and tracking them on the move (geolocation).