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.
Why is that so clear? I can think of hundreds of real daily problems I'd rather my legislators be focused on than deciding how old my kids have to be before they're allowed on some website.
I would like affordable groceries and public transport, not whatever this is.
If they really want to "do something" then require an 18+ ID at a cell phone points of sale. That'll be something that won't affect me and actually will temper a ton of underage Internet use. Then they can study the actual effect of that and whether the harms were exaggerated after all.
And, reminder, so no one here loses the plot: this is a backdoor feel good measure lobbied for by big tech to push us into a world with mandatory device attestation so their ad impressions are worth more. They could care less about your kids.
Nothing is not politically viable for the parents who want controls to limit their children's access. It's funny watching HN constantly berate parents for not parenting while parents' material conditions don't change. Same environment, same result, and frankly there's more of them and they're better organized. All it takes is parents to win once. You have to not lose every time.
The controls I'm referring to limit all kids access simultaneously. Turning off just my kid's access doesn't change the social conditions under which kids interact. It just cuts off them from their friend groups while nothing else changes.
Where in the settings do I go to turn off every kid's access at once? As far as I know, that setting is only accessible through my legislative representative.
Agreed entirely. They're really glossing over the harm parts. The vibe in this article feels like someone who used the internet in the 90s and 2000s when community was actually a thing. Maybe even early Facebook days when it was college level and newly released to the general public.
What was once genuinely helpful for society is, by and large, now doing more harm than good. So, unless these multibillion dollar companies seriously reform (which would hurt their bottom lines), I don't know what you'd do other than banning the product, much like what we did for cigarettes.
I don't think that would solve the issue. The algorithms exist to keep users engaged and looking at ads; turning the ads from targeted to generic still wouldn't change the end goal of these companies. They want to keep people scrolling and feeling inadequate so that they see and click ads.
Tell the big for profit social media companies to require id and leave it at that.
Why complicate things? Republicans had no problems forcing adult sites to require id.
If the for profit crap all needs id verification, people have the chance to opt out by avoiding those services. Stop acting like we need to be "fair" to social media companies just so they can steal more of our data.
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.
Which 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.
> 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
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?
I 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?
idk why Meta has to be 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 immersive 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.
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.
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.
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.
This 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.
I 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.
What legitimate objections? Why do platforms need addictive methods for people to be able to publish their thoughts? Do blogging platforms not provide direct evidence right in front of everyone that they're not needed?
I may be misinterpreting their wording, but they appear to me to just be lying:
> platforms would be prohibited from offering virtually every functional recommendation algorithm and basic input, such as who a user follows or what posts they like, to anyone under 16.
Are they saying the bill bans subscriptions? Because it explicitly says that that's not considered an "addictive feature".
Characterizing these sites as forming some kind of "community" and like they're some sort of mecca of for people to "develop their own voices and perspectives, whether that means sharing art, practicing religion, or engaging in politics" is frankly insulting to the reader.
If you're going to bat for these companies, just say we think we should draw a libertarian line in the sand and not cross it. Fair enough. Same as if you think people should be free to do drugs. But let's not pretend that the crack-den is actually a classical forum where philosophers come for debate.
Guess 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
>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?
"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.
Why is that so clear? I can think of hundreds of real daily problems I'd rather my legislators be focused on than deciding how old my kids have to be before they're allowed on some website.
I would like affordable groceries and public transport, not whatever this is.
If they really want to "do something" then require an 18+ ID at a cell phone points of sale. That'll be something that won't affect me and actually will temper a ton of underage Internet use. Then they can study the actual effect of that and whether the harms were exaggerated after all.
And, reminder, so no one here loses the plot: this is a backdoor feel good measure lobbied for by big tech to push us into a world with mandatory device attestation so their ad impressions are worth more. They could care less about your kids.
Where in the settings do I go to turn off every kid's access at once? As far as I know, that setting is only accessible through my legislative representative.
What was once genuinely helpful for society is, by and large, now doing more harm than good. So, unless these multibillion dollar companies seriously reform (which would hurt their bottom lines), I don't know what you'd do other than banning the product, much like what we did for cigarettes.
Yeah, it's weird - the first couple of paragraphs feel a lot like, "... but FOMO!" is their argument against it.
Why complicate things? Republicans had no problems forcing adult sites to require id.
If the for profit crap all needs id verification, people have the chance to opt out by avoiding those services. Stop acting like we need to be "fair" to social media companies just so they can steal more of our data.
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
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?
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?
Meta is actually a horrible crime against humanity. They have immersive 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.
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.
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'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.
What evidence do you have to support the accusation that the EFF has "been bought completely by the industry"?
I may be misinterpreting their wording, but they appear to me to just be lying:
> platforms would be prohibited from offering virtually every functional recommendation algorithm and basic input, such as who a user follows or what posts they like, to anyone under 16.
Are they saying the bill bans subscriptions? Because it explicitly says that that's not considered an "addictive feature".
Characterizing these sites as forming some kind of "community" and like they're some sort of mecca of for people to "develop their own voices and perspectives, whether that means sharing art, practicing religion, or engaging in politics" is frankly insulting to the reader.
If you're going to bat for these companies, just say we think we should draw a libertarian line in the sand and not cross it. Fair enough. Same as if you think people should be free to do drugs. But let's not pretend that the crack-den is actually a classical forum where philosophers come for debate.
It's wild to see how fanatically we defend an illusion.
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?
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.