Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 163 posts

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

#61

Post by ndriscoll »

embedding-shape wrote: post #55
kelseyfrog wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The above poster isn't saying Internet access; they're saying access to the ad-filled Skinner boxes that are trying to position themselves as necessary for communication through network effects.

Incidentally, the bill doesn't even say they can't use them; it just says the platform has to tone down the Skinner box part for children.

> 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.

So it's not a social media ban. It's an addictive features for children ban. And it seems kind of obvious that running an optimization algorithm with engagement/attention as the objective is going to be bad? If that optimization works, you would almost necessarily have to be detracting from other parts of the person's life (interfering with study, exercise, socialization, etc.), which seems to be exactly what we see in aggregate (lowering test scores, increased isolation, etc.).

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

#62

Post by saghm »

baggachipz wrote: post #15

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.

I don't agree with your framing at all that we need to do something and it because to be done immediately, so it seems basically impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion if things seem so dire to you that this seems self-evident rather than needing some further justification. In general I feel like any assertions about the need for something immediately like this should have a fairly high bar for justifying them.

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

#63

Post by rbtprograms »

7e wrote: post #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.

i dont know anything about the eff but based on this article i am on your side, they seem extremely untrustworthy so i am happy to be opposed to what they want.

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

#64

Post by kelseyfrog »

alex43578 wrote: post #53
kelseyfrog wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are limits to laws and limiting social media companies' ability to have child users is well within those.

If you don't like it, contact your representative instead of spinning your wheels on HN.

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

#65

Post by saghm »

akersten wrote: post #31
baggachipz wrote: post #15

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…

Right? If I had to come to with like, five problems that I felt like they were both urgent enough and and significant enough that we should literally implement the least bad policy immediately rather than do nothing until we come up with something better, I don't think this would be on my list, and it definitely wouldn't be the top of my list if it was. There are things I think that are more harmful and have been going on a lot longer where people don't seem to have any desire to push back as hard against letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, so it's hard for me to take legislation like this at face value rather than suspecting that there's something less direct that the government is getting out of it (and I say this as someone who is pretty much invariably very far to the left and often in favor of heavier government involvement in various areas).

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

#66

Post by 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.

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

#67

Post by annoyingnoob »

cm2187 wrote: post #56
baggachipz wrote: post #15

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.

Products designed to be addictive are not a parenting issue. This is a product liability issue with a product designed to drive engagement. Products should be safe to use.

Parents cannot, and in some cases should not, prevent all harms. Learning to assess and deal with risk is part of growing up. No one wants a helicopter parent constantly trying to protect you from everything. You are calling for a nanny, just arguing about where it should be.

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

#68

Post by bluGill »

dgellow wrote: post #38
kelseyfrog wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem is strict controls is not helpful. My kids teachers often assign homework which is watch some YouTube video - which means I have to give my kids access to all of YouTube including channels i don't approve of. In turn i have to stare at my kids screen - a very creepy move - instead of working on whatever my own project is when they are doing homework.

I constantly find something as a parent where I can block way too much, or nothing at all. There is no middle ground. Mind you a middle ground for something the size of YouTube is probably impossible just because of the quantity of things there that I might or might not want my kids to see - but the current situation is not working.

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

#70

Post by zug_zug »

dgellow wrote: post #41
baggachipz wrote: post #15

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.

Studies I read on the topic don’t demonstrate harm, what are you relying upon? Hopefully not Haidt’s book

Well, once a state passes a law we'll have plenty of data to actually conduct a meaningful measurement on the topic. We'll see how things change for these teens once the law goes into effect - do they report being happier? do they get better grades? etc.
Post reply on HN