Every Time A State Tries To 'Protect The Children' Online, It Makes Things Worse

from the bad-ideas dept

A few weeks ago, California Senate Bill 568 was signed into law, creating a whole host of “protect the children online” provisions — almost all of which seem short-sighted to ambiguously dangerous. The part that has received the most attention is the “online eraser.” While folks like Eric Schmidt have championed the idea of being able to have teenagers erase the past upon becoming an adult, the first attempt to turn that into a law appears to be a massive failure. Law professor Eric Goldman walked through many of the problems with the law — much of which is focused on the vagueness of the bill:

the removal right doesn’t apply if the kids were paid or received “other consideration” for their content. What does “other consideration” mean in this context? If the marketing and distribution inherently provided by a user-generated content (UGC) website is enough, the law will almost never apply. Perhaps we’ll see websites/apps offering nominal compensation to users to bypass the law.

And then there’s the reality that this won’t actually do much to stop any harassment, since it only lets you erase the initial posting of content, but not further copies:

The law only allows minors to remove their content from the site where they posted it; and the removal right doesn’t apply where someone else has copied or reposted the content on that site. Removing the original copy typically accomplishes the minor’s apparent goal only when it’s the only copy online; otherwise, the content will live on and remain discoverable. Given how often publicly available content gets copied elsewhere on the Internet–especially when it’s edgy or controversial–minors’ purported control over the content they post will be illusory in most circumstances.

In fact, as the folks at New Media Rights point out, this means that the bill will be particularly useless:

… odds are that the more embarrassing the post is, the more likely it was shared. The law does not require that these shared posts be hidden, which the law should not. It would be unfair to give websites the impossible task of tracking down and hiding each iteration of a post on their site or on the entire internet. However, it’s unclear if hiding the original post will make much of a difference in cases where teen’s photos are shared and used against them. For example, in New York an Ex-NFL player created a website where he shared photos teens publicly posted on social media of themselves trashing and partying in a home he had up for sale. The teens in this case were able to delete their photos, but only from the original source.

Goldman, in his piece, also highlights the First Amendment problems:

Example 1: A newspaper prepares a collection of stories, written by teens, about their first-hand experiences with cyber-bullying. These stories are combined with other content on the topic: articles by experts on cyberbullying, screenshots of cyberbullying activity online, and photos of victims and perpetrators. After the newspaper publishes the collection, one of the teenagers changes his/her mind and demands that the newspaper never reprint the collection, and seeks a court order blocking republication. Does the newspaper have a potential First Amendment defense to the court order? Yes, and I don’t think the question is even close.

Example 2: a UGC website creates a topical area on cyberbullying and asks its registered users, including teens, to submit their stories, photos, screenshots and videos on the topic. The website “glues” the materials together with several articles written by its employees. Does the website have a First Amendment interest in continuing to publish the entire collection? Yes, and like the newspaper example, I don’t think it’s close.

And the law doesn’t stop there, either. In another post, Goldman also rips apart a part in the bill that tries to block advertising “bad things” to kids online. It’s one of those things that sounds good, and which politicians love because it makes it look like they’re “protecting the children.” But as per usual, the reality is a lot more messy.

First, the law protects minors’ “personal information” but doesn’t define the term. Without a definition, the term is meaningless. We know that just about any data can be combined with other data to personally identify individuals.

Second, the law doesn’t define who is an “advertising service.” Surely it covers ad networks like Google AdSense, but do the obligations extend to other players in the online ad industry: ad serving technology providers, ad agencies, buyers of remnant ad inventory, etc.?

Third, the law restricts “specifically directing” an ad to a minor, but I have no idea what that means. The law suggests that “run of site” ads should be OK, but I’m not sure when other targeting efforts trigger the restriction.

Finally, like its online eraser counterpart, the law establishes a potentially illusory distinction between teen-oriented websites and adult websites.

Furthermore, he notes that the law itself is almost certainly unconstitutional and violates certain federal laws.

So why is it always this way? It seems that certain politicians just can’t avoid trying to “protect the children online,” and yet every single time they try to do so, the end result is a mess: poorly drafted laws that don’t actually do anything to protect children — and which often just create opportunities for lawsuits over perfectly reasonable activities, creating a massive waste. This knee-jerk reaction to try to regulate the internet to “protect the children” is something that really needs to stop.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Every Time A State Tries To 'Protect The Children' Online, It Makes Things Worse”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You’re right. The [apparent] protection afforded by avoidance is illusionary. Real protection comes from controled exposure, just as immunity comes from exposure.
Unless, of course, you want to “hold their hands” their entire life because they never learned to deal with the threats that simply living always encompasses.

Richard (profile) says:

"So why..."

Here we see the danger of the rhetorical question; it invites wise-ass reply.

“So why is it always this way?”

1) ‘Cuz our legislators are mostly (at least honorary) Amish when it comes to modern science and technology?

2) Due to our legislators’ (pick one or more) [high-gullability / low-intelligence / laziness]?

3) Due to our legislators’ beliefs in the (pick one or more) [high-gullability / low-intelligence / laziness] of their constituents, a.k.a., us?

4) Because they’re legislators, and it’s a weekday (or Saturday or Sunday)?

Anonymous Coward says:

“protect the children online”

■ Don’t let kids on the internet unsupervised.

■ Don’t let kids freely communicate with potentially billions of strangers while unsupervised.

How long will it take these fools to figure out that the internet at large is not a good playing ground for their kids?

Meanwhile in real life… Parents allow kids to show pictures of themselves to strangers, chat with strangers and do whatever they want because they think of the internet as Ebay and Disney.com. Not the billions of people behind every node.

Anonymous Coward says:


Third, the law restricts ?specifically directing? an ad to a minor, but I have no idea what that means. The law suggests that ?run of site? ads should be OK, but I?m not sure when other targeting efforts trigger the restriction.

Maybe if people show to whomever wrote those laws a 3D rendering of a webpage they understand how complex any webpage today is?

For the children well, I do feel sorry for those that get it wrong and make mistakes, but real life is not theater you don’t get another chance to do it over if you screw up, that is specially true in a place where replication of information is endless and without borders.

Of all the places to baby proof the internet is the most unforgiven environment of all for such endeavors.

Unless of course this is some kind of feel good law only.

Anonymous Coward says:

So why is it always this way?

“I protected children with the laws I wrote this year, and I’ll protect them again with the laws I write next year! Vote for me!”

And since the laws don’t actually fix the problem, you can keep rehashing them each election. Kids don’t get help they need, but who cares? The important thing is tricking chumps into voting for you.

CK20XX (profile) says:


Green card for a minor dispute with a classmate
Go sit in the corner for five minutes
Yellow card for not understanding why you got the green card
Go sit in the adjacent classroom by yourself
Red card for not bringing your homework to the other classroom
Go directly to the principal’s office
Suspension for flailing in defense when someone tried to beat you up
You were both part of the fight, so you’re both guilty
They say it takes two people to start a fight
It actually only takes one person
It takes two people to make it a fair fight
But we have zero tolerance here
Salt the earth, scorch the ground
All in the name of keeping order
Keep your head low if you know what’s good for you
Low enough so that even when someone kind appears
You won’t notice them
Hide in the rushes
Make not a sound
Don’t even call for help
Lest the predators find you

Anonymous Coward says:

there is so much truth in these type of statements. the biggest problem being, those that normally want to introduce these ‘rules’ have an ulterior motive that is nothing to do with protecting the children at all. the end result being not just a fuck up but a total and complete fuck up that normally exposes those who are supposedly going to be better protected, more open to exploitation than before they started interfering! if it goes ahead, this will be the exact situation in the UK, caused by Cameron and Perry, neither of whom have a bloody clue what they are talking about, the problems that will be caused or the end result!!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...