The argument is equally strong on the social media is incredibly toxic and damaging to young kids side. We made it all the way to 2011ish without social media. I find the essential access arguments to be very weak.
I don't like age restrictions because it can be abused in other ways, but there is absolutely a good reason to kill social media for kids.
EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
101–110 of 163 posts
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
You aren't "anon" to the whole world. But the less information you are required to handle, the better. Never trust "but think of the children"
What's logically wrong about, "think of the children?" So we shouldn't think of the children?
if you only "think of the children" you will forget about the rest of the population. Children will be adults most of their life, it is better to prepare them for adulthood than putting everyone in an ever shrinking and taller pen
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
My kids school provides them iPads and often sends homework that must be done on them. I careful lock up their smartphone except when I want they to have it, but I can't control the school devices.
Why can't you? These devices require accepting and agreeing to a EULA. Simply refuse the EULA and explain to the school administration that you will not enter into a contractual agreement with Apple or Google, nor will you allow them to defraud those companies by "accepting" the EULA for you. Your child has a right to an education. School administrators cannot force parents to enter into contracts with companies as a…
These are school devices. The school has the contract with Apple not me. The Eula applies to either the school or the life - in the latter case with all the normal kids can't enter into contracts that a lawyer would need to explain the details of.
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have teenage kids? It feels highly urgent to me because the generation of kids aged 12-21 are severely impacted by the harms and cultural distortion these services cause. I think it would be hard to imagine their hold on this generation and the impact without first hand observation.
I'd argue that any teenagers who go from having access today to not having it tomorrow are probably not going to magically become different in the ways you desire; it seems a lot more likely to have effects on kids who are younger and haven't already been influenced by it, but at that point we're actually talking about trying to make a structural changes to make things different in the long term. That type of thing s…
Think of it like current kids being bombarded by cancer-causing radiation. The sooner you get them out of it the better. Yes, it is better still to never have been exposed, but the second best time to stop it is now.
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
That's not the entirety of the objection. There are paragraphs after that with concerns about how this would be implemented, and it being used as pretext for some awful moves.
Shouldn't those concerns be directed at the companies? The law makes it perfectly clear that age restrictions are only needed for addictive features. They could age gate just the addictive features if a user wants to turn them on. e.g. have a settings page to enable spying, autoplay, infinite scroll, etc. that requires age verification, but otherwise by default anyone can use the platform.
This is like when companies pretend the EU made them make cookie banners; no, you could just not track and sell user data.
It specifically says platforms are allowed to have users under 16. They need only "implement reasonable measures to ensure that users under 16 years of age are not provided any addictive feature on the covered platform."
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#106This whole argument makes me feel old. 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 PROBL…
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.
We're talking about raising kids.
At the end of the day, you're now telling someone else how to raise their kids. Because you know better? Because it has been determined that some kids are harmed by tech?
Let's just put flock cameras every where and send kids outside again. They will be safe under the constant observation of the state? Right?
Parents, Tech, Society (kids just cant really go outside unattended any more) have equal responsibility in all this. The compromise solution is NOT more tech, it's better warning labels on the device. It's telling the adults that they have a problem too...
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can't you? These devices require accepting and agreeing to a EULA. Simply refuse the EULA and explain to the school administration that you will not enter into a contractual agreement with Apple or Google, nor will you allow them to defraud those companies by "accepting" the EULA for you. Your child has a right to an education. School administrators cannot force parents to enter into contracts with companies as a…
These are school devices. The school has the contract with Apple not me. The Eula applies to either the school or the life - in the latter case with all the normal kids can't enter into contracts that a lawyer would need to explain the details of.
Then refuse on First Amendment grounds. Your child has a right to an education and if you truly, sincerely believe those devices must not be used, the school must offer an accommodation.
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#108I 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
On the other hand, let's not fall into the common political trap of: We must do something. X is something. Therefore we must do X.
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#109Earlier 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 do you think you need to take action on how other people raise their children?
Why do you think you can limit what relationship I have with my legislative representative? If you don't like it, out spend me in political donations.
Re: EFF to Governor Newsom: Veto California's AB 1709
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It seems like this EFF article is suggesting that sort of political action and attempting to coordinate it. Why exactly are you “spinning your wheels” here on HN?