Did California just pass a ban social media for teens?
 |
| California's new child safety laws are official, mandating tech companies build for teens. Credit: Sean Rayford / Stringer / Getty Images News via Getty Images |
California governor Gavin Newsom's signature is now on a slew of new tech laws, including a dozen new state bills that target social media and AI giants.
In addition to strengthening existing child safety laws, the state's latest efforts to regulate products from players like Meta and OpenAI include provisions that could effectively ban social media for children under 16.
SEE ALSO:Avian flu, drone swarms, and mass surveillance included in Anthropic's safety report
The policy move would place California on par with national governments like Australia, which was the first to bar young users from accessing social media. In practice, the law has proven to be difficult to enforce.
The highly anticipated child online safety legislation comes as the industry faces mounting pressure to curb Big Tech's influence on young minds, including social media algorithms, AI chatbots, and educational technologies found in the classrooms.
"Our children’s safety deserves to be at the center of every conversation about technology. As innovation moves faster our protections must keep pace," Newsom said in a press release.
California cracks down on "addictive" social media
The headlining bills, AB 1709 and AB 2, place stronger restrictions on the ways teens can interact with social media. Under AB 1709, social media platforms cannot permit children under the age of 16 from accessing social media with harmful features. The bill specifically singles out "addictive" elements like personalized feeds and video autoplay.
Platforms must confirm users' ages before offering such features, a move that could galvanize calls for stronger age-assurance tools.
With AB 2 on the books, platforms can also be held financially liable for child harm, ranging from $5,000 to $1 million per child.
Child safety nonprofit and bill sponsors Common Sense Media applauded Newsom's decision in a statement to the press. "Today is a huge victory for kids and parents across California," the organization wrote. "The momentum in this fight has shifted, and it shifted here, in the tech companies' home state."
Parents of children who died by suicide following extensive social media and chatbot use have rallied behind the legislation, including Julianna Arnold, executive director of Parents RISE. "We are grateful to Assemblymember Lowenthal not only for listening, but for taking our lived experience seriously and letting it shape the legislation," said Arnold in a statement to the press.
Platforms may lean more heavily on age-gated teen accounts in light of the new regulation. Studies have shown, however, that teens often find ways to defy age restrictions.
"For years, the tech industry has told parents that the answer is to monitor more closely, set more parental controls, and somehow keep up with products that are constantly changing," said Shelby Knox, Director of Online Safety Campaigns at ParentsTogether Action. "But parents cannot parental-control their way out of platform designs engineered to keep kids engaged."
Newsom takes aim at AI companies, backed by AI companies?
AI developers have lobbied California leadership over the last several years in an effort to tamp down its proposed regulation efforts. They have had some success, including Newsom's veto of a similar child online safety bill last year.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman appealed directly to Newsom about the new legislation package last week, according to insiders, after industry leaders pushed for an increasingly narrower scope.
But in recent months, more companies have signaled they're less adamantly opposed to child safety laws than they once were, especially as most now face increasingly arduous court battles and steep financial penalties. A Meta official recently alluded to passing the Kids Online Safety Act to avert ongoing litigation. And OpenAI later came out in favor of California's proposed AI legislation.
Amid this debate, Newsom signed into law SB 1179, also known as Adam's Law, which attempts to enforce stronger safety requirements for AI companies. The legislation was named for Adam Raine, a young teen who died by suicide after consulting with ChatGPT. Raine's parents filed the first wrongful death lawsuit against an AI company for alleged harmful chatbot behavior.
Adam's Law requires developers of companion chatbots to conduct and publish annual child safety risk assessments and to submit their products to independent audits. Developers must create crisis response processes for chatbots, as well. Many companies already have safety measures in place, but guardrails have consistently failed to fully prevent chatbot behavior harmful to teens.
"We still have not adjusted to life without Adam, but we are pleased that an element of his legacy is to help make AI chatbots safer for minors," said Raine's parents, Matt and Maria Raine, in a press statement. "We believe the risks of unregulated AI companionship rank right up there with other more discussed AI risks, and we are confident Adam’s Law will save lives and prevent other harms."
Another bill expands the state's definition of "child sexual exploitation" to include "any digitally altered or AI-generated matter that depicts a person under 18 engaged in an act of sexual conduct."
Children's toys with built-in companion chatbots, which have prompted concern from safety advocates, are now prohibited in California under SB 867.
New privacy regulations will add greater restrictions on the use of student data in AI systems deployed in K-12 schools. Some cities are moving to ban AI in K-12 classrooms outright.
SEE ALSO:Is Meta finally backing a federal kids safety bill, or is it all PR?
Privacy groups are still concerned about downstream effects
While child safety organizations celebrate a victory in a years-long effort to enact bills like AB 1709, civil society groups remain concerned about their implication on free speech.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation called AB 1709 a "well-intentioned, but deeply flawed piece of legislation," and a "massive privacy and free speech nightmare." Last month, the organization urged Newsom to veto the measure until concerns about censorship were properly addressed.
Instead of focusing on bans, the organization wrote in a Sept. 10 press release, "we should redouble our efforts to get technology laws right — and support the passage of new robust privacy laws that target surveillance business models. That’s how we protect everyone in the AI age."
California's new laws are set to go into effect next year.
Logically if they're too heavy handed with these rules kids are just going to find ways around it or go to sites that don't care about these laws and they're going to do a lot more harm than good. I was a kid in the internet age and when I was in middle school we all knew how to get around the school web filters.
ReplyDeleteThey know now.
DeleteBecause drugs being illegal stopped everyone that wanted some, so this will work too right?
ReplyDeleteHow naive people are and can be.
They are not. Both are by design. This one is simply yo force everyone else to use ID on the internet so they can identify you, target you if needed and control you.
DeleteGoodluck with the enforcement. The intentions are good, but the enforcement usually always goes wrong
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThere was no mention of ID tracking, so I assume this is something targeted at the actual social media companies? Which sounds actually reasonable?
California‘s version, known as Assembly Bill 1709, prohibits children under age 16 from exposure to a number of “psychologically exploitative features intended to maximize engagement that foreseeably lead to compulsive use.”
Those include infinite-scroll feeds, algorithmic autoplay and other features to be defined in future regulations.
This is like banning loot-boxes, addressing specific dark patterns, which sounds positive.
A separate measure bans, for the next four years, the manufacture and sale of toys that incorporate a companion chatbot. A related measure requires parental controls on chatbot programs, along with other safety and risk assessments.
I hadn't even thought of this, but nothing of value is lost here. The idea of children growing up with some ChatGPT teddy bear is quite creepy.
"funny" that they don't do the same with social media, where teens are on most of their time, and that are as addictive to them if not more... TikTok, for example, or Facebook... teens and adults going crazy for posting even how many times they go to the bathroom every single day, almost
ReplyDeleteActually, the legislative package California just passed covers exactly that.
DeleteThe headline of the article itself is literally: 'California enacts laws restricting chatbots and banning teens from addictive social media.'
Alongside the AI regulations, the state passed sweeping laws targeting social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram, specifically to ban addictive feeds and restrict notifications for minors.
Regulators aren't singling out AI while ignoring social media; they are enforcing baseline child safety standards across the entire tech ecosystem. Furthermore, these laws do not restrict access for adults. It is quite telling to see an adult user become so defensive over the implementation of basic age-gates that simply prevent children from accessing unmoderated, NSFW AI companions.
actually,as far as I know, at least AIs that are designed to be companions already allow access to people of age only, so that is not a problem there; thank you for specifying about the social media
DeleteIt is a common misconception that these apps actually restrict access to minors. While their Terms of Service might claim they are for adults only, the actual app store ratings (which are the only things that trigger parental controls and block children from downloading them), tell a very different story.
DeleteFor example, here is a recent tracking of major AI companion apps on Google Play (Australia, but also India, etc.). While some developers have correctly age-gated their apps at 18+, Nomi has actively maintained a '12+ / Parental Guidance' rating on the storefront in major regions.
https://i.imgur.com/RGO4tfM.png
A 12+ rating means that a middle-schooler can download an unmoderated, NSFW chatbot without triggering any parental approval blocks.
This exact loophole, companies claiming to be 18+ on paper while maintaining a 12+ rating on the app store to maximize their reach or whatever reason they have for doing this, is precisely why legislators are stepping in. The problem isn't fixed.
Personally, I (and many others) happen to believe that children shouldn't have unfettered access to platforms facilitating explicit adult or extreme roleplay. But hey, maybe expecting companies to actually prevent that makes me an extremist.
Fascism.
ReplyDeleteGood except this will force age verification/facial scan databases to go mainstream. Once everyone's face is in db every government will be signing up for Flock/Palantir/etc. Would have just been better to make Social Media companies liable for the content they promote.
ReplyDeleteyeah the age verification data itself becomes the bigger privacy problem honestly
Deletethis law might force ai companion apps to add strict age checks that end up hurting adult users too, wonder how roleplay chats will change.
ReplyDeleteKiss your privacy good-bye!
ReplyDeleteI’m fine with stronger protections for kids, but the details matter a lot
ReplyDeleteGood!
ReplyDeleteI demand a reserved bit in my IP address declaring me single with no children in the home. Thus I can go anyplace on the web and families can go do their thing.
ReplyDeleteI'm for restricting kids from harmful internet activity, but does this require adults to upload our ID's to every website we wish to use, potentially opening us up to so much more identity theft?
ReplyDeleteI don’t see how else it could work.
DeleteJust like in every other instance of this type of legislation going into effect. Damn. I don't want a plethora of "third-party" companies storing my data to verify my data and leaving it vulnerable to data breaches.
DeleteTired of flock cameras on the streets?
DeleteTurn your own devices into flock cameras… “for the children”tm
I wouldn’t be surprised if this legislation is partially or entirely Israel’s response to the deflock movement.
DeleteFor the children
DeleteI mean..parental controls have existed for a while and for good reason. Expand on that instead of this shit.
DeleteMy guess is that this is the point.
DeleteFollow the money, and it probably dead ends with Palantir or some other group wanting to get paid for AI-assisted mass surveillance.
Age is set at the device/OS level into "buckets". There is no photo ID required. Age is broadcast via API if there is a need for third parties to verify age.
DeleteNote that open source OS like Linux are exempt.
To actually try and answer this question. I looked it up and apparently no ID upload is required under the bill.
DeleteNow social media companies might do their own thing but yeah it’s not a requirement under this bill.
AB 1709 (this bill) relies on California’s other existing “Digital Age Assurance Act”.
So when you set up your device/account, your age is asked/provided at the operating system level. Apps can then receive an age range like “under 13,” or “18+” or something without getting your actual birthdate or ID.
So adults aren’t required to upload an ID to every website. The very obvious loophole, though is that a kid could potentially just lie about their age if they set up the device initially, I guess.
Will this all work like this in actuality I have no clue. But that’s how the bill was structured from what I read.
Gives tools to their responsible parents to be able to manage it better at the very least.
DeleteYes this is possible, although age is set at device/OS set up. It's not like the websites that just ask "click here if you are 18+". Typically, adults/parents are the ones who set up a device.
DeleteOf course it's possible to lie, but the intent of the law is to balance these protections vs. privacy.
The fact that it gives parents a tool that they didn't have before to limit what their kids are exposed to on the internet is probably a good thing.
This is a good compromise. These laws should never act as a replacement for good parenting. If a child is able to set up the phone that is on the parent not the government.
Delete"if they set up the device initially, I guess."
DeleteObvious counter to this is that if you're a parent and you buy your kid a device, set it up for them.
The best outcome would be they just get rid of the addictive infinite scrolling and autoplay features for everyone.
DeleteYa know I was renting something from Home Depot and they wanted ID uploaded to Clear. One fine day Clear is going to get hacked and a lot of people are gonna get hosed. Maybe those guys are already selling ID info.
DeleteI hope we move toward virtual ID systems soon. Lifetime having a single Social or Driving license is no longer viable. Pretty sure all our social security numbers are available on dark web.
DeleteOh yes, that already happened.
Deletehttps://heimdalsecurity.com/blog/social-security-breach-billions-accounts-exposed/
Device level verification is the solution here. You don’t prove your age to the website, you prove it to your device, which tells the websites you’re cleared. It’s very doable, and would work most of the time
DeleteCool, and the device proves it by???? And the websites just take the devices word for it???
Delete“Very doable and would work most of the time” is an absolutely abysmal quality to expect.
There are certainly privacy implications and I am not downplaying them here. There are answers to your questions though.
Delete• The device can scan your ID locally and privately to verify it’s yours. In theory a parent could do it on their child’s device and that would bypass this.
• The websites don’t have to “take the devices’ word for it”, we can use the same cryptography methods we use for password login where the site never sees the plaintext data but is still able to verify it’s validity.
I am not advocating for these systems but the issues with them are not the ones you mention here.
The device doesn’t need to scan your id. You, the owner of the device, can just set your own age to 18+. Parents can set their kids devices up and set the age to <18.
DeleteThat seems much more logical.
DeleteFuck it, let's just get rid of social media
DeleteOk, good talk! Bye! But now what do I do? Reddit, Blog is the only social app I use.
DeleteI think the only way this could work well is if CA creates an age verification service that sites can integrate with and sandboxes your personal info from the site owner.
DeleteOf course that's never going to happen
Is correct that the California Digital Age Assurance Act doesn't require ID.
DeleteHowever, this is a fragile situation. New York's version of the DAAA, A8893 / S8102, requires "commercially reasonable" age assurance and explicitly bans self attestation. The federal version, HR 8250, would probably require age verification for the adult https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/8250/text#HC127CA413E1542D19E5A6C84F7917F63
who sets up a child's device. All of this would lead to invasive checks like face scans or showing ID. (These laws haven't passed yet).
So when Apple, Microsoft, Google et al go to implement this, they're going to have a patchwork of laws to cover. Some, like New York's, will be more strict than others, like California. Rather than make a special version of their OS for Californians, OS makers will probably go with the strictest method that can cover all bases. That is, Californians might have to show ID to their iPad/iPhone even if the DAAA doesn't require it.
Additionally, if these laws survive the courts, then lawmakers could easily ratchet up the age verification strictness in the future. Getting the infrastructure in place is the hardest part which is why IMO the best time to stop these laws is right now, not when they start asking for ID.
It's also worth noting that only California and Colorado have carveouts for open source.
https://chrisfun.xyz/daaa
Then be for educating parents on how to properly manage their children’s devices. Shit has been available for years.
DeleteThe government shouldn’t be making laws around this. Dumbest shit ever keeps getting passed.
The government shouldn’t make a law because parents lack basic reading comprehension required to keep their children from seeing tits on the internet.
Who wouldn't be for parents educating their children on this? I shouldn't have to say it because one, it's obvious, and two that isn't the subject of the topic. The topic was the potential law, not "How do we as a society protect children from harm on the Internet?" That's another entire discussion. How would anyone be against parents protecting their children and how could you imply I wasn't? Focus on the point.
DeleteThe point is this doesn’t need to be a fuckin law. The law shouldn’t be compensating for parents failing to properly control their children’s devices.
DeleteYour children’s accounts and devices all have a concept of “parental controls” it is up to you to use them.
Sorry. I absolutely agree with you, 100%! The onus should be on parents.
DeleteFirst sentence of my first reply was about the “I’m for restricting kids from harmful internet activity” part specifically, I should have clarified that better in my response.
DeleteMost of it was just venting because I am so tired of these performative “for the kids” laws.
No worries, rocky start but we met in the middle. I feel the same as you as someone over 50 with no kids by choice. I'm not without understanding for parents but a lot seem to cede responsibility to screens right when their procesing needs to be focused outward.
Delete“The law on addictive social media may be the most controversial. It will require social media companies to either stop offering “addictive” tools like infinite scroll and autoplay to users under 16 or to keep those users off their platforms entirely. “
ReplyDeleteIt started with Australia....and now us...I do not believe we use data responsibly
DeleteI believe the UK has implemented some form of this as well, or are they just kicking around the law?
DeleteI swore it was UK, then Australia and now us...
DeleteThats it. You're right.
DeleteOther states hsve done it too. We're just the next lucky one's to have this.
DeleteBluesky already voluntarily implemented mandatory age verification worldwide so they didn’t have to comply with these laws. That’s probably what everyone else is gonna do, either that or just not operate in California at all.
DeleteCalifornia is one of the most populous states in the country and a cultural center. I don’t think not doing business in California is an option. As it is we currently have privacy notifications that are built around our regulations so it’s not a far cry to imagine that compliance can be localized. I guess we’ll see.
DeleteThat seems limited in scope, so far.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis is fucked up. What if I'm enacting a NSFW fantasy with my chatbot that can be potentially embarassing. Now that gets leaked to the public because Chatbot XYZ's developers didn't have good security? Before it was anonymous. Now they can tie it to a person
ReplyDeleteGotta laugh at how this is the scenario he jumped to. Gooners these days…
DeletePah online, not with my real identity
DeleteYou can probably just run a model locally if you really wanted to participate in a NSFW chat with an AI. Then you're in control of what happens to your information, including chat history.
DeleteI suppose that is the way
DeleteComment deleted by user
DeleteThis is also how you avoid digital genital hyper warts.
DeleteBe safe everyone
Okay but where can teens go offline? Where's the actual equality here? We don't allow them to roam freely outside anymore and now they can't go online because none of these sites offer true safe spaces for children.
ReplyDeleteSo now what? Any what about children in abusive households? Like this whole thing is such a frustrating and unnecessary censorship for the masses that fixes absolutely
Black Mirror's Arkangel episode was quite prophetic here.
DeleteWe can.. allow them to go outside?
DeleteChildren need public spaces and the opportunity to roam freely. Preschool teachers as well as Early childhood professional bring this up all the time.
DeleteBut then the United States is one of like two countries that don't believe in the human rights of children and gave yet actually implement the Conventional Rights of Children. CRC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child
I think we’re really lacking in child-oriented apps and websites that are reliable, forcing kids to access the websites intended for adults. Which makes the internet a worse experience for everyone. Not sure how to effectively keep kids from accessing social media without giving up everyone’s internet privacy. It’s all been enshittified
ReplyDeleteI'd like this if it was just AI. Social media is so vague it's just begging for the government to ban kids from internet access entirely. Kids in abusive households will be completely unable to access resources and people who can help them. Restricting access creates more victims, it does not prevent them.
ReplyDeleteThis is just leveraging the public's fear for power and political gain.
ReplyDeleteWhat is "social media"? Is TikTok social media? You don't follow your friends like old school Facebook. You're watching stuff from random creators -- no different than Youtube. YouTube Shorts and Instagram Reels are the same products. So is YouTube "social media"?
Banning autoplay is just silly. So we're now banning random tech features? Which ones do we ban? How about push notifications? How about the follow button? Which features get banned and which don't? Which ones are "addictive"? Maybe high-resolution videos is addictive. Maybe we start banning content -- no more sexy women for young men. Let's fight biology!
And banning recommendation algorithms? Ok, let's start showing people irrelevant content. It doesn't matter that they like sports, let's show them cooking shows. It doesn't matter that they like crafts and feel-good videos, let's show them ragebait.
And what about Netflix or Apple TV? They use recommendation algorithms to show me what matches my tastes. Is that banned too?
The law is named after a teen who took his own life talking to a chatbot -- basically not social media at all. So this is just a play to punish tech companies. It's the same fear that made lawmakers blame video games for school shootings and rap music for crime back in the 90s.
This is just performative political behavior for Newsom that he can use when he runs for president. And the silly public is just falling for it.
All of the above is social media. That’s been well established. You’re the only one who didn’t know that yet.
DeleteThere are already many Federal and State laws that help outline what social media is.
How is TikTok and YouTube shorts “social media”? This is a term made up by boomers who don’t understand technology.
DeleteBecause it’s media created and published by the public.
DeleteMore boomer talk -- clearly you don't know who are the most popular creators of content on these platforms.
DeleteYou have traditional media and social media. This is a simple concept. Spend some time learning about what traditional media meant and how it worked.
DeleteSpoken like a true brainwashed segment of the public. You still can't even define what "social media" is yourself. You might as well be a parrot.
DeleteGood luck with that.
ReplyDeleteThe balance between protecting minors and avoiding unnecessary surveillance is probably going to be the hardest part
ReplyDeletewhat if the parents are ok with their kids using social media? How does that work?
ReplyDeleteThere are already parental controls available! These id verification laws are unnecessary and will be a complete invasion of privacy to everyone online!
ReplyDeleteYa'll please look out for a vote meeting on congress for KOSA and the KIDS Act.
I'm not super sure if the vote happens this week, but the last update I saw was them talking about it on the 14th.
Such invasive laws
ReplyDeleteSo how can we get these laws removed?
ReplyDeleteYou might as well ban minors from playing violent video games or watching violent or sexual movies
ReplyDeleteVideo game bans are 100% the next step here. There’s a pretty clear path here, eventually they’ll go to what they’re (in my opinion) really after: Wikipedia
DeleteWikipedia is social media so they're pretty much already there
DeleteI figure it’s gonna get specifically targeted whenever Congress finally passes KOSA. They’ve been trying to take out Wikipedia for about 15 years now, Wikipedia is really the grand prize in the whole thing, not big tech as a whole.
Delete
ReplyDeleteBurn it down, we have too many laws now and are looking for any little thing to make it look like something is happening.
The fact that any comments here are positive on age verification show how little any of you think or value your privacy. Just because you don’t, doesn’t mean I should have to compromise mine.