4 ms·
"Child" is defined as under 18 here, not 13. It's a way to retroactively punish social media companies with 100s of billions in civil liability. Really nothing
by tyrfing 5y ago
"Child" is defined as under 18 here, not 13.
It's a way to retroactively punish social media companies with 100s of billions in civil liability. Really nothing else, there's an absurdly easy way given to avoid future liability.
"Social media company" is also defined so broadly that SMS has to be specifically exempted, iMessage and Roblox probably fall under the law.
- eterevsky 5y agoI don't see any specific age given in the article. If they actually want to make things like YouTube inaccessible to teenagers, they are freaking nuts. And yes, if they make YouTube liable for some vaguely defined harm towards teenagers, the only reasonable course of action for Google would be to completely ban teenagers from the platform.
- johnnyanmac 5y agoI grepped through the PDF of the bill and found this: >“Child user” means a person who uses a social media platform and is not older than 17 years of age. I was already wary of the bill in general, but thinking about parents suing Snapchat or Instagram over some high school drama (that would happen anyway, social media or not) seems to be almost dystopic from a technical point of view. Literally shooting the messenger. ---- Not sure if HN allows links to PDF's, but the first link of [this news article](https://dot.la/social-media-addiction-california-bill-2656981477.html https://dot.la/social-media-addiction-california-bill-265698...) will get you to the bill I found.