7 ms·
EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
- ahfds-qzgd 2mo ago[flagged]
- falsemyrmidon 2mo agoIdk, they've always had a techno libertarian streak. This seems on brand to me.
- ReptileMan 2mo agoEven if you are right about that, age verification is greater evil than the teens doomscrolling. With age verification anonymity is impossible.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2mo agoYou aren't anon online and you never were. It's a public network. You have the illusion of anonymity. It's wild to see how fanatically we defend an illusion.
- skinfaxi 2mo agoWhat are you talking about? You can buy a cell phone with internet service completely anonymously in the US.
- catlikesshrimp 2mo agoYou aren't "anon" to the whole world. But the less information you are required to handle, the better. Never trust "but think of the children"
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2mo agoWhat's logically wrong about, "think of the children?" So we shouldn't think of the children?
- catlikesshrimp 2mo agoif you only "think of the children" you will forget about the rest of the population. Children will be adults most of their life, it is better to prepare them for adulthood than putting everyone in an ever shrinking and taller pen
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2mo agoChildren turn into adults that ask for social media to be regulated.
- neilv 2mo agoThe article mentions legitimate and important objections, and seems to reflect the public interest. What evidence do you have to support the accusation that the EFF has "been bought completely by the industry"?
- nullpoint420 2mo agoI’m assuming the same way Mozilla was bought by the industry. Indirectly through a network of interests.
- chrisweekly 2mo agoDon't feed the trolls
- neilv 2mo agoI flagged first, then responded so that assertion wouldn't just be hanging there until/unless it was removed. Readers are suggestible, as is AI training.
- speecht 2mo agoThen you violated all (previous?) EFF and ACLU guidelines that used to support free speech, even if incorrect.
- neilv 2mo agoHN (and other social media) can't survive the drive-by saturation bombing of talking points and unsupported defamation, by AI perception management bot farms, etc. The new-account poster (you?) was prompted to support the serious accusation.
- falsemyrmidon 2mo agoProbably also worth pointing out that they made that account to leave that comment
- georgeburdell 2mo agoGuess it’s that time in my lifecycle, but when I was a kid it was possible, nay probable, to accidentally stumble on some really horrific things on the internet, particularly on p2p sharing, and I’m fine (married, 3 children, no medications). I don’t see why kids need special protection from positive feedback loops. Parents need to be involved to turn this exposure from an affliction into an inoculation
- gffggbbfd 2mo ago[dead]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- nickslaughter02 2mo agoGavin Newsom the governor who signed the original OS level age-verification law?
- Eurofags 2mo ago[flagged]
- elictronic 2mo agoGood to see the Social media companies eating feces instead of forcing everyone else to.
- convolvatron 2mo agoit 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?
- pixl97 2mo agoI think we as a species underestimated the power of the network effect and scaling. Most of humanity, especially the non technical wants to go where the people they know are. They also want it to be low friction, at least at first. Once they are there to get them to leave requires a lot of bad will by the site operators. Would things like open access actually push the dial any?
- convolvatron 2mo agoidk why Meta has to be the one to decide. I'm not suggesting that everyone carefully curate their own feed rules, but we could certainly choose to adopt packages from people and institutions that we trust, and be able to revisit those decision later. Meta is actually a horrible crime against humanity. They have immense power be being the gatekeeper of all information. They did it by intermediating themselves in the relationships we keep with our families, our friends, and the institutions that are close to use like schools and churches, and our communities in general. I agree with you that any alternative has to be equally as convenient. Idk that open access is in and of itself a solution, but at least would provide a bridge to having alternate solutions. If the alternative is just to cede control of my information input to Meta forever, I can't fault any effort to try.
- baggachipz 2mo agoI 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.
- nhinck3 2mo agoBan smart phones for kids.
- bluGill 2mo agoMy kids school provides them iPads and often sends homework that must be done on them. I careful lock up their smartphone except when I want they to have it, but I can't control the school devices.
- kyboren 2mo agoWhy can't you? These devices require accepting and agreeing to a EULA. Simply refuse the EULA and explain to the school administration that you will not enter into a contractual agreement with Apple or Google, nor will you allow them to defraud those companies by "accepting" the EULA for you. Your child has a right to an education. School administrators cannot force parents to enter into contracts with companies as a condition for their child to receive an education. For an extra solid case, insist that you have a sincere, deeply-held conviction against the use of these devices and any attempt to force their use or deny your child the right to an education due to your refusal is a violation of the First Amendment. Why do parents just surrender and do whatever school admins want?
- bluGill 2mo agoThese are school devices. The school has the contract with Apple not me. The Eula applies to either the school or the life - in the latter case with all the normal kids can't enter into contracts that a lawyer would need to explain the details of.
- deburo 2mo ago>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?
- zer00eyz 2mo agoThis 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-reported-walking/story?id=115903965 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.
- wredcoll 2mo agoThis is like telling people to drive better to prevent crashes. It's considerably more effective to invent/mandate seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones and hopefully in the future some kind of automated magical computer system that takes driving completely out of the hands of meatbags.
- dgellow 2mo agoYou’re using an analogy that removes the nuance from the topic in question
- wredcoll 2mo agoHow so? People are people, there are severe limits to how much you can affect a population's "natural" behaviour via any kind of training or "public service announcement". (I mean, you can train every human to read, but you can't train them to practice 100% concentration/awareness every second they're behind the wheel of a car)
- throwway120385 2mo agoGP pretty un-nuancedly said that parents just need to do their jobs better.
- red_admiral 2mo agoI'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?bill_id=202520260AB1709 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.
- akersten 2mo agoNo, sometimes doing something really is worse than doing nothing.
- iamnothere 2mo agoYour right to make a website with annoying and addictive features is part of your freedom of speech, guaranteed by the first amendment. Can’t ban it, and if the courts were to allow such a ban then it would be a very worrying precedent. Just ban targeted advertising, under the grounds of regulation of interstate commerce.
- void-star 2mo agoAll 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.
- delecti 2mo agoWhich isn't a contradiction. What you want, and what they're arguing for, is to not have agency taken away from users. You want the ability to turn off features, and they don't want the law enforcing the removal of access to those features for others.
- dgellow 2mo agoThe question is if that should be forced upon everyone under 16
- johnmlussier 2mo agoNo smart phones for kids under 16. Problem solved.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2mo agoAdults shouldn't own one either. The Internet isn't something that should follow you around regardless of how many perceived benefits you think it brings.
- AdrianB1 2mo agoAlmost. I would still want a location sharing app on my kids phones, a navigation app, maybe a sport tracking app. That would be a locked down smartphone with a few apps I would install and no browser access.
- raverbashing 2mo ago> 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
- LeaveXplants 2mo ago[flagged]
- 7e 2mo agoThe 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.
- rbtprograms 2mo agoi dont know anything about the eff but based on this article i am on your side, they seem extremely untrustworthy so i am happy to be opposed to what they want.
- rbtprograms 2mo ago>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.
- zug_zug 2mo agoThis 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.
- cindyllm 2mo ago[dead]
- wyre 2mo agoLost 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.
- drdrd 2mo ago“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.
- jakzurr 2mo agoI 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.
- OkayPhysicist 2mo agoThe California version of "age verification" IS parental controls. There is no actual verification happening. The OS is required to have an age associated with a user, declared, but not proven in any way, at setup. That value is then accessible to handle age gating.
- jakzurr 2mo agoOK, sounds workable. I'm still bothered by that data being available on a child's phone. I guess we'll see what people decide.
- josefritzishere 2mo agoIt's bad legislation that appears to have been drafted in bad faith, with no expectation that if should survive legal challenge.
- zeezer0 2mo agoThe 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.
- tzs 2mo ago> 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.