[flagged]
EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
11–20 of 163 posts
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#12Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 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"?
Don't feed the trolls
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#14we 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?
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#15Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#16This 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?
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#17[flagged]
The 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"?
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 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, and that we'd be somehow excluding kids from some important part of society.
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if you are right about that, age verification is greater evil than the teens doomscrolling. With age verification anonymity is impossible.
You 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.
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#19[flagged]
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
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#20This 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.