I agree that this is a very blunt instrument rife with terrible potential, but I don't know what could be done in its stead. The EFF makes excellent points, but in my view the social media algorithms do way more harm than good, especially for minors. What would be the more ideal solution here? Clearly we can't do nothing, and time is of the essence for the current generation.

This sounds like a pretty reasonable bill to me. I like the implementation, I think it preserves privacy adequately.

I understand that someday (probably someday soon) some actors will try to ask for a worse version of this, one that doesn't respect privacy. And I remain ready to push back on that. This, though, I think is an adequate compromise.

>cuts young people off from essential information and experiences, particularly harming vulnerable youth and marginalized groups who often find safety in supportive online communities they can't access offline.

>Far from protecting children

so both sides on this are framing that their positions protects children while framing that the opposing side harms children.

All the things this article objects to in banning for children are things I find myself wanting removed from my own experience in social networks in order to make me want to use them at all.

I get people want to protect their kids. But I don't agree with age verification.

If people can't figure out parental controls, maybe they can buy a phone plan that has it already set up in advance. We don't need laws for this.

Gavin Newsom the governor who signed the original OS level age-verification law?

The argument is equally strong on the social media is incredibly toxic and damaging to young kids side. We made it all the way to 2011ish without social media. I find the essential access arguments to be very weak. I don't like age restrictions because it can be abused in other ways, but there is absolutely a good reason to kill social media for kids.

I'm afraid this reads like "we've not 100% proved that smoking causes cancer, so ..."

Is the science 100% settled? No. Is this the best possible way to regulate this? No. But it's sure better than the current state of things.

"laws such as A.B. 1709, as passed by the legislature, function as a ban on social media use for people under the age of 16"

That's not my reading of the bill, specifically 22683. (a) (2) on https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

"This subdivision does not prohibit a covered platform from permitting a user who is under 16 years of age to create or maintain an account on the covered platform if that user is not provided with any addictive feature"

They just need to take out the endless autoplaying shorts and other features that are, honestly, annoying in the first place. The main thing I would change here is that even adults must be provided with a setting to opt out of addictive features.

Would it destroy TikTok's business model? Maybe; maybe that's even a good thing.

No smart phones for kids under 16. Problem solved.

>particularly harming vulnerable youth and marginalized groups who often find safety in supportive online communities

This is debatable and may actually have a net negative effect on those groups. Not to say that this bill is desirable. Shouldn't they push for stronger/better/flexible parental controls in devices instead? Perhaps offering to set them up in OOTB experiences?

> These so-called "addictive features," are in reality the basic tools that online services use to identify what other user-generated content a particular user might want to see.

Are they for real?

Maybe underage kids can use, I dunno, a search box. Looks hard I know, but maybe it will help grow one or two neurons in their head

> This well-intentioned, but deeply flawed piece of legislation, cuts young people off from essential information and experiences, particularly harming vulnerable youth and marginalized groups who often find safety in supportive online communities they can't access offline

How is this precluded by this bill? My understanding is that youth can still have social media accounts. The sites just have to not use autoplay on those accounts and not show them "addictive feeds". Here's how the bill defines "addictive feed":

> Addictive feed means an internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users are, either concurrently or sequentially, recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information provided by the user, or otherwise associated with the user or the users device, unless any of the following conditions are met: met, alone or in combination with one another:

> (1)The information is not persistently associated with the user or users device and does not concern the users previous interactions with media generated or shared by others.

> (2)The information consists of search terms that are not persistently associated with the user or users device.

> (3)The information consists of user-selected privacy or accessibility settings, technical information concerning the users device, or device communications or signals concerning whether the user is a minor.

> (4)The user expressly and unambiguously requested the specific media or media by the author, creator, or poster of the media, or the blocking, prioritization, or deprioritization of that media, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized for display based, in whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the users device, except as otherwise permitted by this chapter and, if the media is in the case of audio or video content, is not automatically played.

> (5)The media consists of direct, private communications between users.

> (6)The media recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively the next media in a preexisting sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source and, if the media is audio or video content, is not automatically played.

> (7)The recommendation, selection, or prioritization of the media is necessary to comply with state or federal law. this chapter or any regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter.

Chronological feeds are OK. Feeds showing the posts of people or organizations you are following are OK. This seems like everything needed for building a fine online support community.

Good to see the Social media companies eating feces instead of forcing everyone else to.

It's bad legislation that appears to have been drafted in bad faith, with no expectation that if should survive legal challenge.

This whole argument makes me feel old.

This smacks of "satanic messages in metal made my kids kill themselves" and of the PMRC. Of a trailer getting burned down cause kids watched Bevis yell "fire" one too many times.

Our modern society has fucked up kids, and I wont argue that tech isnt an enabler. But the fact that kids ONLY lens into the world independent of their parents is their digital life is PART OF THE PROBLEM.

https://abcnews.com/GMA/Family/mom-arrested-after-son-report...

Go back to the 80's and 90's we had to tell parents to do their job: "I learned it by watching you dad" and "its 10pm do you know where your kids are" ads probably need a modern refresh.

"You have been scrolling for 30 minutes... Do you know what your kids are doing on line" PSA's should probably be a thing. I say this as a parent whos kids were raised with devices, and despise social media, and only use it begrudgingly.

it seems like this whole discussion, both the proposed law and EFFs full throated support for social media giants is getting lost in the weeds.

we used to have a small number of media outlets for structural reasons. and we were concerned enough about their ability to filter what everyone saw that we tried to pass some laws that's weren't very useful or effective

now that the structural barriers are gone, do we see a greater diversity of editorial decision making, a greater number of channels in which to learn about the world. we could easily have a world where every single person could parameterize their own agents or choose from sets of parameters to present customized views on the sea of information available.

instead we see a massive concentration of control. instead of trying to legislate the behavior of a company whose entire profit is based on manipulating the narrative we all see, shouldn't we be promoting alternatives? if we are going to legislate meta instead of picking one little aspect maybe demand instead that some of of the core functions like data and identity be open access?

[dead]

[flagged]

[flagged]

Lost a bit of respect for the EFF with this. I can understand their dogmatism around not wanting to limit anyone’s electronic freedoms, but these are social media companies we are talking about. They aren’t there to provide a public service, but to , sell and serve ads, command attention, and create addiction to their service. Meta just agreed to pay $18 billion because it was harming its young users. It’s wild that the EFF who works very hard to defend the privacy of the users of the same corporations, is against a bill benefiting the same corporations.

It’s certainly more nuanced, but it’s like if children could smoke cigarettes being against laws to raise the smoking age. The arguments boil down to right of these kids to engage in practices they don’t understand the ramifications of, or putting it on the parents. I get there’s a libertarian argument that the government shouldn’t be limiting their citizens freedoms period, but this is California ffs, it’s probably the last state in the list for libertarian morals.

The EFF, just like social media, does more harm than good, and lacks imagination. It is possible to protect kids from social media and preserve our freedoms and privacy. The EFF is just too full of chicken-little boomers to see it. FOAD, EFF.

“nearly every major service relies on automated feeds, the ultimate result is that young people under 16 will still be locked out of major digital services as they currently exist.”

What an absurd stance. Carry water for big tech’s negligent, anti-consumer behavior in the name of… freedom? Sad times for the EFF.