4 ms·

Here is the text of the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2273 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bil

Here is the text of the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2273 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... Section 1-5: (5) Children should be afforded protections not only by online products and services specifically directed at them, but by all online products and services they are likely to access. In order to help support the design of online products, services, and features, businesses should take into account the unique needs of different age ranges, including the following developmental stages: 0 to 5 years of age or “preliterate and early literacy”; 6 to 9 years of age or “core primary school years”; 10 to 12 years of age or “transition years”; 13 to 15 years of age or “early teens”; and 16 to 17 years of age or “approaching adulthood”. adulthood.” I don't know if I fully agree with it being required on every website but the arguments claiming that typically seem to say: Who gets to define "likely access"? If a website link gets posted on a kids forum or social media does that not mean the site will likely be accessed by children?

saurik 4y ago
The bill (now) has a section defining "likely to be accessed by children" that provides 5 ways for that to be satisfied: 1) it is directed at children as defined by some other law (which I haven't looked up but I believe is why YouTube now asks you constantly if your content is directed at children and then limits certain player features if it is), 2) someone does research showing it to be true (which is probably the most important one as it isn't clear how this state gets tripped in a way which notifies the business), 3) there are ads on the site clearly marketing towards children (which might be weird if you are an ad marketplace), 4) your website is similar in scope to a website someone already did the research for (in #2) to show that it is being used by children, or 5) if the company internally keeps statistics and realizes "oh no it is being accessed by children" (which to me is an argument to not keep statistics). I don't like this bill and think it is at best an example of the politicians' syllogism and at worst a trash fire of regulatory inefficiency, but it would be good to analyze and complain about the actual indicators mentioned in the bill now that they exist as otherwise the people working on this bill can (and in my experience will) discount your complaint as "we already fixed that".

saurik 4y ago

The bill (now) has a section defining "likely to be accessed by children" that provides 5 ways for that to be satisfied: 1) it is directed at children as defined by some other law (which I haven't looked up but I believe is why YouTube now asks you constantly if your content is directed at children and then limits certain player features if it is), 2) someone does research showing it to be true (which is probably the most important one as it isn't clear how this state gets tripped in a way which notifies the business), 3) there are ads on the site clearly marketing towards children (which might be weird if you are an ad marketplace), 4) your website is similar in scope to a website someone already did the research for (in #2) to show that it is being used by children, or 5) if the company internally keeps statistics and realizes "oh no it is being accessed by children" (which to me is an argument to not keep statistics). I don't like this bill and think it is at best an example of the politicians' syllogism and at worst a trash fire of regulatory inefficiency, but it would be good to analyze and complain about the actual indicators mentioned in the bill now that they exist as otherwise the people working on this bill can (and in my experience will) discount your complaint as "we already fixed that".