Live data from Hacker News

EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

eff.org

51–60 of 163 posts

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

#51
post #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?

idk 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.

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

#52
post #42
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That would do nothing to help with the pressure kids will feel if others are on social media.

Why is resisting peer pressure during childhood bad?

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

#53
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Why are you allowed to dictate how others raise their children?

They don’t get a say in your kids diet or religion or choice of sport.

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

#55
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

> Where in the settings do I go to turn off every kid's access at once?

It might be worth re-reading this particular sentence again, out loud, and really consider what you're asking for here. And why stop at internet access once you're starting to think like this?

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

#56

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.

Keep the parents in control. The nanny state isn’t a substitute for good parenting.

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

#58
The 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.

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

#59
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

>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.

If you don't teach them to resist peer pressure when they're younger then they won't know how to when they turn 16 or 18 either, and they'll end up as losers with an external locus of control who blame other people and apps for their own failures of willpower.

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

#60
>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.

Post reply on HN