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

141–150 of 163 posts

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

#141

Post by bogdanoff_2 »

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.

So the issue really isn't "social media", it's the blackbox personalized algorithmic feed.

So that is what we should be addressing.

Things like -> no personalized algorithmic feed for minors. The ability to disable algorithmic feed and revert to historical feed from contacts. Giving the user control over suggestions and feed via the requirement that it should be possible to switch to a "third party algorithm provider" or self-host, while still being able to have full access to the contents and social features of the platform.

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

#142

Post by tzs »

> This well-intentioned, but deeply flawed piece of legislation, 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

How is this precluded by this bill? My understanding is that youth can still have social media accounts. The sites just have to not use autoplay on those accounts and not show them "addictive feeds". Here's how the bill defines "addictive feed":

> Addictive feed means an internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users are, either concurrently or sequentially, recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information provided by the user, or otherwise associated with the user or the users device, unless any of the following conditions are met: met, alone or in combination with one another:

> (1)The information is not persistently associated with the user or users device and does not concern the users previous interactions with media generated or shared by others.

> (2)The information consists of search terms that are not persistently associated with the user or users device.

> (3)The information consists of user-selected privacy or accessibility settings, technical information concerning the users device, or device communications or signals concerning whether the user is a minor.

> (4)The user expressly and unambiguously requested the specific media or media by the author, creator, or poster of the media, or the blocking, prioritization, or deprioritization of that media, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized for display based, in whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the users device, except as otherwise permitted by this chapter and, if the media is in the case of audio or video content, is not automatically played.

> (5)The media consists of direct, private communications between users.

> (6)The media recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively the next media in a preexisting sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source and, if the media is audio or video content, is not automatically played.

> (7)The recommendation, selection, or prioritization of the media is necessary to comply with state or federal law. this chapter or any regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter.

Chronological feeds are OK. Feeds showing the posts of people or organizations you are following are OK. This seems like everything needed for building a fine online support community.

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

#143

Post by tzs »

bogdanoff_2 wrote: post #141
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.

So the issue really isn't "social media", it's the blackbox personalized algorithmic feed. So that is what we should be addressing. Things like -> no personalized algorithmic feed for minors. The ability to disable algorithmic feed and revert to historical feed from contacts. Giving the user control over suggestions and feed via the requirement that it should be possible to switch to a "third party algorithm provider…

> So the issue really isn't "social media", it's the blackbox personalized algorithmic feed.

> So that is what we should be addressing.

That is what the bill addresses. It bans providing an "addictive feature" to users under 16. It says it does not prohibit letting under 16 users use the service as long as it does not provide addictive features on those accounts.

It says addictive features are autoplay and addictive feeds.

Most of the bill is then defining what those mean. There's plenty to argue over in that, but the core is just what you've said is what we should do.

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

#144

Post by jakzurr »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #139
jakzurr wrote: post #95

I get people want to protect their kids. But I don't agree with age verification. If people can't figure out parental controls, maybe they can buy a phone plan that has it already set up in advance. We don't need laws for this.

The California version of "age verification" IS parental controls. There is no actual verification happening. The OS is required to have an age associated with a user, declared, but not proven in any way, at setup. That value is then accessible to handle age gating.

OK, sounds workable.

I'm still bothered by that data being available on a child's phone. I guess we'll see what people decide.

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

#145

Post by zug_zug »

frumper wrote: post #118
iamnothere wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and let’s take away your internet access next and see if it improves the state of politics in this country. We’ll find out after the fact, but until then I’m sure you won’t mind.

Sugar and alcohol are very clearly negatives for a lot of people, I vote them next.

Well we tried it for alcohol and it didn’t go well, but enforcing the FDA limit on sugar would be a worthy experiment for a state that voted for it.

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

#146

Post by ethbr1 »

frumper wrote: post #78
bluGill wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 blo…

When my kids got to an age they started asking for YouTube videos, I found it entirely frustrating that Youtube Kids was just not feasible to setup like you describe. It was a choice between 3 things, everything, the "kids" section whatever that meant for YouTube, and just tell them sorry, not happening. Within the kids section there seemed to be some controls to help, but I found they did not work well at all and I…

This is why blunt legislation is needed.

The existing parental control features are deliberately mis-designed, because there's a lot of money at stake and Meta / Google aren't stupid.

Does anyone really think they didn't run uptake and engagement impact tests on various proposed parental control options... and then ship the one that impacted their revenue least?

The only reason there are controls, in any sense, is as a fig leaf when the lawsuits inevitably started flying (read: now), so they can say 'See, we take this very seriously...'

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

#147

Post by ethbr1 »

saghm wrote: post #65
akersten wrote: post #31

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…

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 goi…

Functioning democracy seems pretty important, and a healthy shared reality and news is a key component of that.

Social media, as currently implemented, directly harms that.

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

#148

Post by ethbr1 »

dgellow wrote: post #125
spwa4 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You cannot regulate peer pressure, even with the complete ban you would still have kids using other platforms for social interaction and have peer pressure, like on roblox or whatever

There's always going to be 'the actual Internet' accessible by kids, as in non-corporate, non-walled gardens social forums. Chans, IRC, etc.

What this effectively does is disadvantage large corporate social media companies to the benefit of smaller, more decentralized alternatives.

To which the anarchist in me says: fuck yes.

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

#149

Post by joquarky »

dgellow wrote: post #121
bluGill wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 blo…

Thanks, that’s the type of details I was looking for, as I’m not a parent myself. That does sound like a bad situation, indeed. Though it’s also a bit strange that watching a YouTube video is a homework. I would have assumed that schools have their own platform

This is the source of the problem.

It's not that different from a school telling kids to smoke a cigarette as a homework assignment.

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

#150

Post by naishoya »

bigfudge wrote: post #83
logicchains wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Peer pressure is one thing. The entire commercial might of the US tech and cultural industry is harder to resist. It’s not fair to put responsibility on children to have willpower in their use of SM when thousands of PHds are actively researching how to make the services more addictive and increase their network effects.

It would appear that is exactly what is being proposed : to not place that responsibility on the children, but for the parents and other adults to shoulder that burden by not allowing the children to become victims of the addictive Social Media empire.
Post reply on HN