Those of us at Open Research Institute think the answer is overwhelmingly yes. Amateur radio occupies a legally and structurally distinct space that makes it essentially immune to age verification laws as currently written, while providing exactly the kind of meaningful social and technical connection these laws threaten to eliminate.
The age verification laws sweeping across the US and globally are remarkably consistent in what they purport to target. Florida’s HB 3 defines social media platforms as online forums, websites or applications where users can upload or view content from other users, at least 10% of daily active users under 16 spend two or more hours daily on the platform, the platform employs algorithms to select content for users, and the platform has “addictive features” like infinite scrolling or push notifications. (https://www.hunton.com/privacy-and-information-security-law/florida-enacts-legislation-restriction-social-media-accounts-for-minors) The law explicitly exempts platforms limited to email or direct messaging.
Alabama’s proposed bill targets any online service that both allows users to upload or view other users’ content and employs algorithms that analyze user data to present content. Both criteria must be met. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_age_verification_laws_in_the_United_States)
These definitions consistently hinge on several key elements. Algorithmic content curation, addictive design features, commercial operation, and the scale or size of the service. Some laws like the earlier Florida SB 7072 targeted platforms with 100 million or more monthly users. This limits the services affected to a relatively small number. Multiple state laws explicitly exclude services where interaction is limited to direct messaging, educational resources, and non-commercial communications. (https://www.informationpolicycentre.com/uploads/5/7/1/0/57104281/cipl_age_assurance_in_the_us_sept24.pdf)
Amateur radio, regulated under 47 CFR Part 97, exists in an entirely different regulatory universe. The FCC defines the amateur and amateur-satellite services as being “for qualified persons of any age who are interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest,” presenting “an opportunity for self-training, intercommunication, and technical investigations.” (https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/amateur-radio-service)
The five statutory purposes of amateur radio under Part 97.1 are recognition of its value as a voluntary noncommercial communication service. They are, in order: For the advancement of radio art, for the expansion of the trained operator pool, to develop the amateur’s ability to provide emergency communications, and for international goodwill.
This is not a technicality or simply fluff. It’s a fundamental jurisdictional distinction. Amateur radio is a federally licensed radio service, not a commercial internet platform. The FCC, not state legislatures regulating commercial internet companies, has the primary jurisdiction.
Youth participation is a proud tradition, and not an afterthought or inconvenience. There is no minimum age for amateur radio licensing. Applicants as young as five years old have passed examinations and were granted licenses. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio_licensing_in_the_United_States)
Amateur radio is a merit-based system. If you can demonstrate the knowledge then you earn the privilege, regardless of age. You need not be a US citizen, though you must have valid photo identification, be able to get mail at a US address, and there is no lower or upper age limit.
The community actively encourages youth participation. The ARRL Youth Licensing Grant Program covers the one-time $35 FCC application fee for new license candidates younger than 18, and candidates under 18 pay only $5 for the exam itself (https://www.arrl.org/youth-licensing-grant-program) rather than the standard $15. This isn’t grudging compliance with some inclusion mandate. This is the community investing in its future by removing financial barriers for young people.
Let’s take a specific amateur radio application and compare it to social media. Sometimes we hear “amateur radio is the original social media”. But, is amateur radio simply an early version of social media? Or is amateur radio something distinctive? Let’s compare Opulent Voice and Interlocutor vs. the social media platforms targeted by age verification laws.
What is triggering age verification laws? Let’s go through the list.
Algorithmic content curation designed to maximize engagement. Opulent Voice and Interlocutor has none of this. Content is delivered based on who’s transmitting, not algorithmic selection.
Addictive design features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, and engagement metrics. Opulent Voice and Interlocutor has none of this. Opulent Voice is a communications system, not an engagement-maximization engine.
Commercial operation with data monetization. Opulent Voice and Interlocutor are non-commercial by both design and legal requirement under Part 97.
Targeted advertising. Opulent Voice and Interlocutor? Targeted advertising is prohibited under amateur radio regulations. You cannot conduct commercial activity on amateur frequencies.
Collection and exploitation of minor user data. Opulent Voice and Interlocutor has no data harvesting model. This is an open-source infrastructure with no business incentive to collect personal data.
What does Opulent Voice and Interlocutor provide that maps to beneficial social media functions? We’ve listed things that are big differences, but what does social media and a modern amateur radio protocol and product have in common?
Text communication (like messaging), voice communication (like voice/video calls), data exchange, social activities (the dice roller, game commands), conference capabilities (group interaction), community building around shared interests.
The critical distinction is that OVP and Interlocutor freely and openly provide the communications substrate, the part of social media that actually benefits people, without the engagement manipulation layer that these laws are targeting. The dice roller functions and game commands we recently built into Interlocutor are particularly important because they demonstrate that social interaction and fun are possible without commercial algorithmic manipulation.
Does Amateur Radio Fall Under Age Verification Laws? Based on Open Research Institute’s analysis of the statutory language across multiple states, no, for several reasons.
First, a federal preemption. Amateur radio is a federally regulated service under FCC jurisdiction. State laws regulating “social media platforms” and “commercial entities” don’t reach into FCC-regulated radio services. The Supremacy Clause creates a strong argument that states cannot impose additional restrictions on participation in a federal radio service that the FCC has deliberately made open to all ages.
Second, a clear definitional exclusion. The statutory definitions consistently require combinations of the following. Commercial operation, algorithmic content curation, addictive design features, and scale or size thresholds. An amateur radio system fails every single one of these criteria. Even the broadest definitions we’ve found at ORI wouldn’t capture a non-commercial, non-algorithmic, licensed radio communication system.
Third, we have licensing as our gatekeeper. Amateur radio already has a long history of a highly functional knowledge-based qualification system. A young person who passes a Technician exam has demonstrated competency in RF safety, regulations, and operating practices. This is arguably a more meaningful form of “age-appropriate access” than any ID-checking scheme. It verifies capability rather than just birthday.
Finally, the Part 97 non-commercial requirement. The amateur service’s prohibition on pecuniary interest means it structurally cannot become the kind of data-exploiting, attention-harvesting platform these laws target.
We come to a clear and probing question. Can we market this? When we say “we”, then we have to be very clear. We are talking about considering many different categories of people and power. Can ARRL market this? Can individual clubs market this? Can open source authors and organizations like ORI market this? Can the amateur community in general better market this? Can amateur equipment companies market this? Can amateur radio lobbyists market this?
This is where we need some nuance and some caution. There are at least two approaches, and they’re not mutually exclusive:
The direct approach would be positioning protocols and products like Opulent Voice and Interlocutor explicitly as a youth-accessible alternative to restricted social media. This has appeal. It’s a genuine differentiator and a compelling narrative. But it carries risks. It could attract regulatory attention from legislators who might try to expand definitions, and it could attract users who are not genuinely interested in radio technique. This could create Part 97 compliance issues if usage drifts away from the amateur service’s purposes.
Then there is a more subtle approach. Organizations like Open Research Institute could position work (like Opulent Voice and Interlocutor) as what it actually is. An educational and technical communications platform built on open-source principles within a federally licensed radio service. We don’t need to say “unlike social media, kids can use this.” We could frame it as “Amateur radio has always welcomed young people who demonstrate technical curiosity and competency. Opulent Voice provides modern digital communications capabilities, such as text, voice, data, and social interaction, within this tradition.”
The narrative practically writes itself. While commercial platforms are being restricted because their business models depend on manipulating users (including children), amateur radio has always operated on a fundamentally different model. The “restriction” is that you have to learn something first. The “verification” is demonstrating knowledge, not surrendering your identity documents to a commercial entity.
Age verification laws, if they had been in effect when I was young, would have fundamentally altered my journey, experience, and wellbeing. I found people that were like me, I made very meaningful and positive connections, and I learned things that my parents had no idea were important to me. It’s not that my parents and teachers didn’t want me to learn, but the internet removed the solid barriers of geography and reduced some of the barriers of sexism and agism. It didn’t primarily matter that I was a girl in Arkansas that wanted to learn more about telephone hardware, how to build and play guitars, and how internal combustion engines worked. For the most part, with some exceptions, I was able to learn about these things, and a whole lot more beyond that. If I had not had positive reinforcement, access to a diverse set of “others” that spoke to me like I was a person and not a silly little girl, the excellent recommendations for what to master and what to skip, time-saving advice (some of it bluntly given, some of it without any tact, sure), along with the congratulations, compliments, and celebration, then I would absolutely not be where I am today. Not anywhere close.
This loss is part of what the EFF and other civil liberties organizations are warning about. The EFF has characterized these laws as creating “a sprawling surveillance regime that would reshape how people of all ages use the internet.” The EFF has said that “age verification mandates are spreading rapidly, despite clear evidence that they don’t work and actively harm the people they claim to protect.” (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/year-states-chose-surveillance-over-safety-2025-review)
Research has repeatedly shown for decades that these sort of laws don’t reduce access to restricted content. They just change how people access it. Florida saw a 1,150% increase in VPN demand after its law took effect (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/12/year-states-chose-surveillance-over-safety-2025-review). So the kids who are technically savvy enough to find workarounds will do so, while the ones who most need connection, the isolated, the curious, the ones in unsupportive environments, will get cut off.
Amateur radio can legally provide something commercial social media cannot. A federally protected, non-commercial communications service with no age minimum, no algorithmic manipulation, no data harvesting, and a built-in community of mentors. People who have always been part of ham radio culture. A young person who gets their Technician license and connects through something like Opulent Voice and talking to others on a conference server or a satellite or a terrestrial groundsat (repeater) isn’t consuming algorithmically-curated content designed to maximize a corporation’s ad revenue. They’re participating in a technical community that the federal government has recognized for nearly a century as serving the public interest.
The strongest position for those of us that care about this is probably to document this regulatory distinction clearly whenever we can, as soon as we can, and as firmly as we can, while creating protocols and products that are delightful and easy for amateur operators to use.
Perhaps we need more formal white papers or FCC/TAC filings. And, we should make the case not as “we’re a social media alternative” but as “the amateur radio service has always provided youth with meaningful technical and social engagement, and modern digital amateur radio protocols and products continue this tradition in a way that is structurally incompatible with the harms these laws address.” That framing is both legally sound and genuinely true.