CA lawmakers want to make social media safer for the people. Can they succeed? | Hacker News Reader

CA lawmakers want to make social media safer for the people. Can they succeed?

latimes.com

8 pointsPaulHoule18 comments

I don't think the day can come too soon where people start voting out anyone who is naive enough to make a "think of the children" argument to get their bill passed. The government has been "thinking of the children" for decades to save them from drugs, using your tax money heavily and failing us every step of the way. The US government has proven themselves incompetent at solving the drug issue and they don't even have to change their playbook to get re-elected.

That day is never coming. Think of the children works and they will keep using it as long as there are agendas they want to push without actual, logical reasons. Which will be longer than the time taken for the heat death of the universe...

The dirty secret of elected officials is that they know the government can’t fix a lot of these problems, but pandering to issues like this gets them votes from key demographics and gives elites more power.

We have lots of laws on the books already covering drugs, guns, human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, etc., but to truly fix many of these problems we need increased investment in children’s lives by the parents, coaches, teachers, and other community leaders in their lives.

I think only people can fix this by their own choices. No one is forced to consume it, though it is like a drug. Alcohol prohibition failed, but most people drink in moderation. Perhaps people need education more than laws.

These days, people are forced to consume social media.

For instance, our local fire department uses twitter for emergency broadcasts, and our school has integrated social networks like Scratch into their 1st grade curriculum.

CA lawmakers can only make things worse. They will succeed.

Daily reminder that whenever a politician speaks of doing something for "the people", or "the children", your BS detector should on high alert.

You know its funny. California lawmakers want to "make social media saferx, sounds good. Texas lawmakers want to protect children from pornography, oh no they're burning books!

To be clear, I think any and all government and corporate restrictions on the free flow of information should not happen. I'm opposed to both. Just pointing out the double standard.

Considering how they outlawed lucrative software contracts with AB5 and didn’t reach the rideshare drivers they were targeting—I have little faith.

Here's the meat of the article.

> Senate Bill 680 would allow the government to prosecute platforms for promoting harmful content about eating disorders, self-harm, illegal firearms and drugs like fentanyl. Lawmakers are trying to combat online child sex abuse material too, but they’re bracing for the possibility that tech companies will attempt to block new online safety laws like they have in the past.

So it's another attempt to try and regulate "harmful" content and "misinformation" this time, by tying it to the fact teens use social media to score drugs.

>eating disorders, self-harm, illegal firearms and drugs like fentanyl. Lawmakers are trying to combat online child sex abuse material too

Eating disorders: No. It's not illegal.

Self-harm: No. It's not illegal.

Illegal firearms: Ok.

Fentanyl: Ok if it's illegally produced.

Child sex abuse: Ok.

Just follow existing laws.

I’m not sure the social media companies are liable for promoting the above. They’re not liable for publishing it (which is reasonable, since otherwise they would need to approve every post).

Ultimately, the law needs to figure out who is liable for actions taken by machine learning algorithms.

I'm not saying social media companies are liable.

Someone needs to be liable for any illegal activities. Most likely it's the user.

So, an anonymous user from overseas produces a bleach cleanse video, and then YouTube displays it on the home screen feed of 100,000,000 users, and 100 people try it and die.

Surely, Google should share some of the liability.

Should it? Such liability inevitably results in only "verified" content getting "promoted" - an extremely vague term. First it's the home screen, then related videos, then 1st page results for searching "cleanse", etc.

Soon any kind of user content hosting becomes legally impossible without acceding to some kind of government-approved (it will be private, but require "good standing") censorship agency.

Pornhub now only allow verified users. It no longer allows any revenge porn, or porn uploaded without permission. In other words, it no longer allows illegal porn activities.

Payment processors and governments forced them.

Why not Youtube, Google, Facebook, IG, etc? Is one illegal activity more illegal than others?

Betteridge's Law. First!

The big social media depend on free speech and publisher immunity, change that and you change what social media is at a fundamental level.

The nanny-state of California should focus on reducing the exodus of its state population.

To CA government: focus on enforcing the laws you have on the books.

perhaps things like addressing homelessness, police fatigue, actually prosecuting theft & drug dealing, etc.

To Californians: Stay in the Californian Containment Zone. Live with the mess you voted for.

Please-- don't leave your failed state and enact the failure policies to other states. Some of us actually appreciate the United States and don't want to see it turned into California.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com