Live data from Hacker News

EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

eff.org

31–40 of 163 posts

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#31

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.

> Clearly we can't do nothing,

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.

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#32

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.

Ban targeted advertising

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.

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#34

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.

> Clearly we can't do nothing, 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 wo…

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.

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#35

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.

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#36

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…

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?

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#37

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.

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.

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clearly we can't do nothing, 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 wo…

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.

What control is missing from parent who want to control their children? From what I see they can already set strict parental controls

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#39
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't feed the trolls

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.

Then you violated all (previous?) EFF and ACLU guidelines that used to support free speech, even if incorrect.

Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

#40
post #6

Earlier 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"?

Probably also worth pointing out that they made that account to leave that comment

The EFF used to support anonymous speech.
Post reply on HN