The EFF says the law is additionally too broad and based on uncertain science, too:
With social networks tracking every single motion of our scrolling fingers and now the advent of data-hoovering AI models, it's easy to argue that staying anonymous online has never been harder. If you're a Californian, though, it will soon become harder still. Bill A.B. 1709, effectively requiring age checks on social networks, is set to become law unless Gavin Newsom vetoes it — a measure the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is requesting in an open letter to the governor.
A.B. 1709 doesn't explicitly require an actual online physical ID check, but given the way it's written, companies are free to use any means they see fit to fulfill that requirement. In turn, this leads the EFF to remark that the most likely choice for networks would be invasive checks like requiring the uploading of government IDs and/or biometric checks. The Foundation says that this would concentrate even more power in social media companies' hands, with a Californian's personal ID adding to their datasets.
The EFF also argues that A.B. 1709 wouldn't help teenagers and could do more harm than good by keeping them out of "supportive online communities," as well as "deny [them] opportunities to develop their own voices and perspectives." The letter mentions that research on whether social networks are good or bad for teens is inconclusive, and that teens could have their First Amendment rights infringed as a result.
There's also a technical angle to the complaint, as the text for A.B. 1709 includes provisions that target algorithmic feeds, autoplay, endless scroll, and push notifications for users under 16. The EFF claims the bill's wording is vague enough to be interpreted as banning key standard features of social networks. Furthermore, the bill's text seems to imply that the Attorney General could be empowered to adopt more regulations in a bid to curb those "addictive" features.
Last but by no means least, the EFF notes that A.B. 1709 is "bound to be tied up in court" regardless, as already-enacted legislation from bills A.B. 1043 (pushing age verification to the device level, revealing an age bracket) and S.B. 976 (parental consent for enabling of social media features) is likely to conflict rather than complement the new bill's requirements. The bill's arguable step on First Amendment rights would likely see challenges, too. Should Governor Newsom let A.B. 1709 through, it will take effect on January 1, 2027, precisely four months from now.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday September 09, @01:27PM (1 child)
When I ask my dog politely not to eat the steak dropped on the floor.
Of course he's still going to eat it, he's got every incentive in the world to, and only cares what I think if there's any consequences for him.
EFF is never going to bribe the California governor with more than he gets from silicon valley scumbags, and they've already got the paper thin moral excuse they need.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 09, @02:43PM
Let's hope Newsom doesn't "eat the steak". But don't ask politely, just have the rolled up newspaper ready.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday September 09, @07:57PM (1 child)
Very unlikely. They make a lot of money serving ads to bots and generally encouraging bot farms. If they demand every fake account supposedly in CA upload a government issued ID, their business model will implode.
My guess is something like "credit card is proof of over 18" so add a valid credit card to your account, they bill like $1 and call it good. "Of course" it'll be allowed for multiple accounts to use one CC because look at my family. "Of course" they won't enforce reasonable limits so bot farmers will end up with 5000 "family members" on one credit card number. They can just increase their charge for fake followers, it'll be fine.
Or, to keep the advertising fraud engine churning they'll figure out some process where you don't have to add the charge until the acct is over x months old and all the bot accounts will now be under x months old.
If you're dealing with crooks ya gotta think like a crook. This "think like a human privacy activist" stuff the EFF does is not going to help them think like a social media exec, obviously.
Another one is they make serious financial $$$ off dead accounts. Most of my high school class is "on facebook" in some abstract sense but they don't log in. I just did for the first time in 3 months and apparently about a month ago my class started planning a reunion, about 10% of my class is still "active" on FB. If they require old / dead accounts to perform some effort or get deleted... 90% of my HS class will end up deleted, with staggering financial impacts to FB. So whatever procedure they create, it won't delete unused accounts because those are money in the bank for social media. My guess is you'll need to register at the next login, not delete every acct that doesn't have ID.
There's WAY too much corruption and money involved for real solutions.
(Score: 2) by Bentonite on Thursday September 10, @05:02AM
Criminals already have access to full scans, including UV scans, of massive collections of government issued ID's, due to past ID collection schemes, so any business model involving bot accounts will carry on unimpeded regardless of ID requirements.
ID requirements will only stop non-criminals from having an account (although I guess it's not a bad thing if less people are afflicted by proprietary software and SaaSS).
Advertisers don't even bot accounts, to charge huge amounts to businesses for advertising (as well if a business stops paying google, down the search results it goes - maybe even to the second page).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 11, @09:42PM
Sure hope the dems don't try to run him for president. I, for one, will campaign and vote against him.