California Legislators Introduce Bill To Blame Internet Companies For Kids Liking Their Products
from the think-this-through-a-bit dept
Ridiculous, unhinged, anti-internet legislation is a bipartisan affair. The latest such examples is California’s new (awkwardly named) Social Media Platform Duty to Children Act. As you can likely tell from the name, this is yet another moral panic “think of the children!” bill. It argues that social media is addictive and that we need to “hold companies responsible” for that so-called addiction. It kicks off by quoting some research — but cherry picking which research and taking some of the findings out of context — to insist that social media is unquestionably bad for kids.
The reality is that this is very much in dispute. What does seem clear is for some kids, social media impacts them negatively, while for some kids, it impacts them positively. Indeed, a huge comprehensive study recently found that there was no evidence to support the idea that social media made kids unhappy. In fact, a pretty thorough “study of studies” found that the claim that social media leads to depression and anxiety is lacking any evidentiary support.
That’s not to say that some kids get sucked in to social media disputes or otherwise get too wrapped up in social media, but the idea that there’s some massive systemic problem that is wiping out kids left and right and needs legislation right now is not actually supported by the data.
It’s kind of like… almost anything that involves kids. Young adult fiction. School dances. The difficulties of being a teenager. All of those things can lead to depression and anxiety. It’s called being a teenager. But all of those things — including social media — can also lead to more and better social connections for many kids as well. Indeed, while the bill itself cites some of the data released by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, it’s important to remember that Haugen and the WSJ claimed that internal research on Instagram showed that Facebook “knew” that Instagram made teens feel bad about themselves… but they totally misrepresented the actual study which (1) showed that it was a very small sample size, and (2) that with US kids a much larger percentage said that Instagram made them feel better about themselves:
So, why, again, is this bill starting off with the premise that it’s unquestionable that social media is somehow all bad for kids?
If the bill were to conduct a more thorough study on this issue, that might be useful! If the bill were to explore suggestions for how to help the (apparently very small) percentage of teens who feel bad because of social media, that might be good.
But that’s not what this bill does. It assumes — falsely and against all evidence (even the evidence the bill itself cites) — that social media is inherently addictive and bad for kids.
Anyway, the bill says that social media sites will have “a duty not to addict child users.” I mean, what the fuck does that even mean? My kids play Wordle every day. Does the NY Times have a duty to get my kid to stop playing Wordle? The definition of “addiction” in the bill is incredibly, ridiculously, unworkably broad:
“Addiction” means use of one or more social media platforms that does both of the following:
(A)Indicates preoccupation or obsession with, or withdrawal or difficulty to cease or reduce use of, a social media platform despite the user’s desire to cease or reduce that use.
(B) Causes or contributes to physical, mental, emotional, developmental, or material harms to the user.
This is going to lead to so many frivolous lawsuits when parents of teenagers get upset that their kids don’t want to talk to them any more, insisting that it must be social media’s fault. “My kid likes watching TikTok videos more than talking to her uncool parents, so let’s sue!”
And, yes, the bill’s enforcement mechanism is that the parents of children can sue the website seeking $25,000 per violation, as well as “actual damages” (which are unlikely to be findable in the vast majority of cases), and “punitive damages.” Oh, and also get their legal fees paid for by the company.
Think of just how much frivolous litigation this is going to bring. You’ve basically handed every parent in California a high-likelihood payout lottery ticket to try to force every major social media company to hand over thousands of dollars.
So, among other things, it seems pretty likely that much of this bill, if not all of it, would be preempted by Section 230, but the authors of the bill — Republican Jordan Cunningham and Democrat Buffy Wicks — put in a random line to pretend otherwise, saying that “this section shall not be construed to impose liability for a social media platform for content that is generated by a users of the service…”
Which, of course, is nonsensical. If there’s anything that “addicts” people to social media, it’s the content which is provided by users of the service.
The whole thing is a morally repugnant attempt at a moral panic “for the children” that shows absolutely no recognition that sometimes teenagers are unhappy just because, and we don’t need to blame it on anything other than them being a teen. Forcing social media companies to shell out money isn’t going to make kids happy. Though, I guess it will make some parents happy.
Please, California, don’t keep electing politicians who fall for moral panics.
Filed Under: buffy wicks, california, content moderation, duty of care, for the children, jordan cunningham, lawsuits, moral panic, social media, social media platform duty to children act
Comments on “California Legislators Introduce Bill To Blame Internet Companies For Kids Liking Their Products”
That is one way to increase sales of torches and pitchforks
Let’s see, have every single under-18 user act as a $25,000 ticking time-bomb that can go off at any point, or ban any user under 18 and living in california from using your service, what to choose what to choose…
If they think the kids are bad now just wait until they’re booted en-mass from every online social media platform, all the more so if the platforms are smart enough to tell the kids why they’re being shown the door.
Re:
Both, in reality. You can have whatever age limit policy you want on your platform, but you’ll still have underage users who you just don’t know about. Would such lack of knowledge really offer you any liability protection?
Even back when the only major “age limit” online I knew of was COPPA’s indirect 13+ requirement, I thought of that limit as nothing more than a stepping stone to an indirect 18+ requirement, and then to mandatory legal identity verification. I guess assuming the worst does have the slight benefit of constantly being proven right.
Re: Re:
Both, in reality. You can have whatever age limit policy you want on your platform, but you’ll still have underage users who you just don’t know about. Would such lack of knowledge really offer you any liability protection?
In a sane legal system ‘We made it crystal clear during signup that if you’re not older than 18 you can’t use our service, they lied to sign up, therefore the blame is entirely on them’ would seem to be a slam-dunk legal defense, but in the legal system we actually have perhaps not so much as I’ve no doubt you’d still have parents and prosecutors arguing that the platform ‘should have known that the user was lying about their age’.
Re: Re: Re:
“Knew or should’ve known” is the legal phrase, first raised by predatory attorneys, and not long after, it was codified by legislatures en masse.
That is such an insult to common decency that…. oh, wait…. this is America we’re talking about right? Ah well, the words ‘decency’ and ‘lawyers’ are not permitted to be used in the same sentence, so I guess I just fouled out, didn’t I.
Sorry, Mike. That’s the Meta now.
…
I’ll see myself out.
“Social Media Platform Duty to Children Act”
We’ll pass stupid laws so you can keep pretending you haven’t failed to raise your children & prepare them for real life.
I mean we have laws that allow drug dealers to be tried when an addict buys from them and OD’s, why the fsck isn’t there one to hold parents responsible for putting the phone in a childs hand, paying the bill, & refusing to actually parent??
I’d go into a bit about how this is repeating the same fucking moral panics over and over and over but my FSM humans are to fucking stupid to understand.
You’ve done this before, you’ve blamed all sorts of outside forces, maybe just maybe look at what a shitty job parents are doing being parents.
That platform isn’t the problem, the platform just helps expose the issues from parents failing their children & give them an easy target to blame because they can never accept that the reason their kid is unhappy is because their parenting skills suck… if they were parenting their kids why would anyone try to pass laws to make corporations responsible for kids??
Sometimes Mommy & Daddy are shitty people, stop giving them a pass.
Re:
I mean we have laws that allow drug dealers to be tried when an addict buys from them and OD’s, why the fsck isn’t there one to hold parents responsible for putting the phone in a childs hand, paying the bill, & refusing to actually parent??
Even if you agree that social media is addictive and always bad that would still be the sticking point.
Okay, it’s addictive, why are the parents given a pass for granting them access then? Take the phones away and replace them with ones that can only be used for calls, cut off or severely restrict internet access and stop letting them feed their addiction.
Blaming social media for messing your kid up if you think it’s addictive and bad is like driving your kid to their favorite drug dealer and handing them the money needed and then flipping out when the kid gets high.
Re: Re:
We did that, back in the days before cell phones. They were still “addicted”, as it were… We eventually had to shorten the phone cord and hide the wireless remotes.
… of course, we also had to regularly RETRIEVE the wireless remotes from her room, but that’s beside the point.
Re: Re:
“like driving your kid to their favorite drug dealer and handing them the money needed and then flipping out when the kid gets high.”
(This was an awesome episode of Dr Phil where the parents still were clueless & blaming everyone but themselves.)
McDonalds made my baby fat!!!!!!
Its not my fault I drove them there, ordered it, paid for it, gave it to them!!
Its the companies fault for putting toys in their kids meal.
Because I can’t tell my child no, no one can have toys in kids meals anymore.
A baby can’t eat steak without choking, WHY THE HELL DO THEY STILL SELL STEAKS!!!!!!!!
I swear to the FSM y’all surviving is the ultimate mystery of the universe.
And let me guess, the “desire” in question will be ascribed to minors by their parents who have zero intention to let their children decide what they want for themselves?
Wasn’t there a similar moral panics back in the dawn of printed books, radio and television?
Laws that enable and encourage citizens to sue have a hidden agenda, encourage concerned citizens to destroy target companies and organization , bleeding them dry by 1,000 cuts.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Root Of The Problem
I’m in favor of this legislation. If it succeeds in limiting social media exposure, and kids still turn out to be dysfunctional snot-nosed narcissists, then the parents won’t have someone else to blame for their own bad parenting.
Re:
Surprising absolutely no one, the contrarian is in favor of a shitty law.
Re:
Let me unpack this, you think it’s the parents fault that kids are “dysfunctional snot-nosed narcissists” and yet you support a law that punishes a third party for the parents failings??
What’s next? Punishing the shops because kids shoplift there?
Re: Re:
Nah, he’ll be in favor of punishing the companies that make the things that kids shoplift.
Re: You can make it stop by answering one question dawg
Bravely bold Sir Koby
Rode forth from the internet.
He was not afraid to die,
Oh brave Sir Koby.
He was not at all afraid
To be killed in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Koby.
He was not in the least bit scared
To be mashed into a pulp.
Or to have his eyes gouged out,
And his elbows broken.
To have his kneecaps split
And his body burned away,
And his limbs all hacked and mangled
Brave Sir Koby.
His head smashed in
And his heart cut out
And his liver removed
And his bowls unplugged
And his nostrils raped
And his bottom burnt off
And his penis
Re:
“If it succeeds in limiting social media exposure”
It won’t, but when have pesky things like facts ever got in the way of your bad takes?
“If it succeeds in limiting social media exposure, and kids still turn out to be dysfunctional snot-nosed narcissists, then the parents won’t have someone else to blame for their own bad parenting.”
No, they’d blame something else, as they always did before social media existed, but thanks for admitting that this is mere scapegoating for the results of bad parenting.
The real punch line here....
… is that no social media can depend on truthfulness when a potential user is signing up for a new account. Hence, I’d hazard a guess that a large number, perhaps the majority, of kids are posing as adults on these sites.
Coupled with the only method of location detection in a stationary location being an IP address assignment (or when phone location services are turned off), social media outfits will have only one tool to assure themselves of a free-from-BS-lawsuits existence – cut off all of California, period. Of course, the shit will really hit the fan when VPN’s are suddenly popping up like 7-Eleven stores on every other block. A new law, or a mod to this bill, will have to made to take care of that ‘loophole’.
Of course, the unforeseen circumstance here is that in order to effect the above, nearly the entire tech sector will have to move out of the state. And with them will go jobs, gentrified property values, tax revenue, campaign donations, and most importantly, votes. Lots of votes. Not just those who move with their jobs, but the people still in the state who are now out of a job (directly in tech, or in some kind of support/service field), not to mention those who lose property value because of the mass exodus, landlords who can longer rent to salary levels impossible to obtain outside of the tech industry, and so on and so forth.
Seems to me that some legislators don’t think through the ramifications of what they’re trying to impose upon their constituents. But I’m supposing that when the legislators themselves no longer have access to any social media, things will revert back to “the dangerous to children” ways in double-time. Either that, or the threat of recall elections, behind-closed-doors promises of no more support for re-election, law suits to enjoin the implementation of this law, or even outright midnight vigilantism against them, one or more of these things will probably kill the bill before it actually does become law.
One can hope.
Cunningham and Buffy Wicks
Both Cunninham and Wicks are up for election in 2022 – needs some splashy publicity I suppose.
Re:
Any comedians available to stand against them, as they seem to become good politicians.
School, sports, and just being around other kids in the neighborhood are venues which also “cause depression and anxiety”. So, the fuck?
Let’s see how Californians feel about people posting full movies on YouTube with the disclaimer “This upload shall not be construed as an infringement of the film’s owner’s copyright.”
In the end, those kinds of “copyright disclaimers” are about as effective against the DMCA as that little blurb is effective against section 230. In other words, it’s effectively useless!
It seems every republican politican has decided big tech is responsible for bad parenting or any other problem kids have so let’s enable people to sue Facebook or any social media service also are parents not responsible for allowing kids to sign up for services designed for adults over 18
Suddenly big tech is now reponsible for all the problems that teens have. Not pollution, climate crisis, war, poverty, lack of social welfare health services in many areas etc
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Really?
You do know that California is a Democrat Stronghold. That Republicans have no power in California. The state going into the dumps can 100% all be blamed on Democrats.
Everything being done in California has been done by DEMOCRATS!!!!
Re: Re:
So, among other things, it seems pretty likely that much of this bill, if not all of it, would be preempted by Section 230, but the authors of the bill — Republican Jordan Cunningham and Democrat Buffy Wicks
Cunningham is probably going to be surprised to learn that he’s a democrat, has anyone told him?
Re: Re:
… said nobody capable of rational independent thought, ever.
The media
well lets ask about the ‘Media’.
Which one?
TV?
News?
News papers.
So much of this is just The world trying to invade your space, When you arnt ready for all the crap.
An open forum and Chat Can be a great thing, but would love a Few Psychologists to help monitor some of it.
When Stuff is going down at home and you JUST need abit of help. When you are having problems at School, it would be nice to have someone investigate, talk to the kid and understand the problem.
Work has taken over the lives of to many families. Not to forget that the parents can sometimes be as programmed as the TV.
Not that this is a good law, but the “despite the user’s desire to cease or reduce that use” part of it will at least get such a case kicked out quickly.
Re:
But it is so trendy to complain that humans are powerless against bigtech & claim addiction to every little thing making actual addicts look like they are faking too.
Parents these days are addicted to not being parents.
They find everything else to blame always claiming they had no idea, no control, and some corporation should have been the parent and told their kids to stop.
Kids need guidance and they find it online because its not at home. And we wonder how all these kids end up on talk shows talking about how they didn’t know they could get pregnant the first time.