SoylentNews

Arthur T Knackerbracket [soylentnews.org] writes:

EDITORS: THIS HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY SOFTWARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT - THE CONTENT MAY REQUIRE EXTENSIVE EDITING

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/eff-asks-california-governor-to-veto-bill-that-would-require-online-age-verification-electronic-frontier-foundation-argues-bill-would-result-in-privacy-invasive-checks-and-step-on-first-amendment [tomshardware.com]

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 [nih.gov], 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.

Original Submission