EFF Urges Newsom to Veto California's Sweeping Social Media Ban for Teens
EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
California's legislature passed AB 1709, a bill that would effectively ban social media for under-16s by stripping out recommendation algorithms and basic input like follows and likes. The EFF calls it a 'massive privacy and free speech nightmare,' arguing it cuts off vulnerable youth from essential online communities, forces invasive age verification like government IDs or biometric scans, and conflicts with existing state laws. The EFF urges Governor Newsom to veto the measure, citing research that such bans are ineffective and harmful.
Denying young people access to digital forums (or stripping out the basic tools needed to navigate them) does nothing to make young people safer or healthier.
- baggachipz
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.
- zug_zug
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.
- rbtprograms
>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.
- red_admiral
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.
- void-star
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.
- nickslaughter02
Gavin Newsom the governor who signed the original OS level age-verification law?
- jakzurr
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.
- zeezer0
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.