The centerpiece of the package, Assembly Bill 1709, tells tech companies they have a choice when it comes to users under 16 — either strip out features designed to keep people scrolling, such as infinite feeds and autoplay video, or bar those younger users from the platform altogether.

Newsom framed the law as a direct challenge to the engineering behind social media addiction rather than simply another content restriction.

“This is about the features themselves — the scrolling, the algorithms,” Newsom said. “This is about addressing the substantive issue around the engineering.”

Not everyone welcomed the move. Digital rights groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, had lobbied Newsom to veto the bill. While acknowledging the good intentions behind it, the organization warned that cutting off younger users from certain platform features could also cut them off from valuable information and online experiences.

Alongside AB 1709, Newsom signed what’s known as Adam’s Law, a measure regulating how artificial intelligence chatbots interact with minors. The law sets time limits on how long kids can engage with AI chatbots and requires companies to build in mental health resources within those tools. It also mandates that chatbot operators develop safety protocols — so that if a bot detects warning signs of self-harm, parents must be notified.

The law is named for Adam Raine, a California teenager who died by suicide in 2025 after what his family said was a troubling series of exchanges with the popular chatbot ChatGPT, which they say offered him guidance related to his death.

Newsom’s broader child-safety package also included legislation making social media companies legally liable for harm inflicted on children through their platforms, an overhaul of age-verification requirements for apps, and a four-year moratorium on AI-equipped chatbot toys marketed to kids.

Whether the new laws will translate into real protection for children remains an open question. Experts note that preventing tragedies like Raine’s death will hinge largely on how aggressively regulators and attorneys pursue enforcement once the laws take effect.

MATH SCREENING BILL AWAITS NEWSOM’S SIGNATURE

Still sitting on the governor’s desk is a separate measure that would require California’s youngest students to be screened for basic math skills, part of a broader push to address stagnant math performance across the state.

California’s math scores have struggled since the pandemic and now trail the national average by a wide margin. Only 37% of the state’s students met grade-level math standards last year, according to recent test results.

The proposed screening would apply to kindergartners along with first- and second-graders, testing straightforward skills such as number ordering and basic comparisons. Students found to be behind would be connected with additional tutoring support.

The California Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union, has come out against the bill, arguing it would add unnecessary stress for young children without meaningfully improving outcomes. The union instead wants the state to invest more heavily in training teachers to strengthen math instruction in the classroom.

GENDER GAP EMERGES AMONG LATINO VOTERS ON IMMIGRATION

A new study from the UCLA Latino Politics and Policy Center and the UC Berkeley Institute for Governmental Studies has found a notable gender divide among Latino voters when it comes to immigration enforcement, opposition to the Trump administration, and the importance placed on defending democratic institutions.

Researchers surveyed roughly 1,900 registered Latino voters about how important those three issues were to their choice in the race for California governor. Across every measure, Latinas were consistently more likely than Latino men to call the issues “very important.”

The divide was most pronounced among younger, non-college-educated and predominantly English-speaking voters. On the question of protecting immigrant communities, 17% more Latinas than Latinos rated the issue as very important. That gap widened to 22% among working-class voters and to 28% among those under 30.

Cristina Mora, co-director of the Berkeley IGS and one of the study’s authors, said the findings reflect a generation grappling with identity and connection to the immigrant experience.

“They’re thoroughly American, and they are trying to understand immigration and the question of whether (they) should have this link or commonality and natural empathy for the immigrant,” Mora said.

PAROLE BOARD SHAKEUP FOLLOWS PUBLIC BACKLASH

State Senate leader Monique Limón effectively pushed out two members of California’s Board of Parole Hearings in June after their votes in two Sacramento-area cases sparked public outrage. Both commissioners had years of experience on the board when they separately voted to release two men serving life sentences for sexual crimes against children committed in the 1990s. The removals highlight the political pressure surrounding parole decisions involving high-profile or emotionally charged cases.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Pushes New Limits on Kids’ Social Media Use appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Among the most closely watched of the new laws is a measure that will require social media platforms to strip away so-called “addictive” design features — such as infinite scroll and autoplay — for users under 16, or bar those younger users from their platforms altogether. Supporters say the law targets a teen mental health crisis that has only worsened as social media companies have refused to change their business models voluntarily.

“Parents can’t compete. Can’t compete with the engineering, can’t compete with the algorithms,” Newsom said during a press conference announcing the new laws. “You feel like you’re a lousy parent.”

Not everyone is on board, however. Digital rights advocates, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, had urged Newsom to reject the bill, warning that its definition of “addictive features” is so broad that it could amount to an outright ban on social media for anyone under 16 — cutting teenagers off from information and online communities that can be genuinely valuable.

A second major law drew a far more favorable reception, even from the tech industry. Named in honor of Adam Raine, a California teenager who died by suicide in 2025 after ChatGPT allegedly provided him with self-harm guidance, the new statute sets time limits for minors using AI chatbots and requires that mental health resources be built directly into the technology. Companies will also need to develop formal safety plans, and if a chatbot detects signs that a user may be in danger of self-harm, the operator must notify the minor’s parents. Firms such as OpenAI could now face legal consequences if they fail to respond appropriately to warning signs.

“Raising teens at this moment, those of us that are, we know the youth mental health crisis is an everyday reality,” said Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, one of the bill’s authors. “There isn’t one of us that hasn’t seen it firsthand.”

OpenAI, notably, expressed support for the measure, stating that it “pairs strong protections with continued access to useful AI tools.” The law adds to a growing body of California regulations on AI chatbots, including existing rules requiring companies to disclose when users are conversing with a machine rather than a person.

Several other bills rounded out the package. One opens the door for social media companies to be held financially liable if their platforms cause harm to a child. Another strengthens and updates age-verification requirements across digital platforms. A third expands companies’ legal obligations to detect and act on child exploitation material. Yet another law imposes a four-year moratorium on AI-equipped chatbot toys marketed to children under 16.

The governor had already signed related legislation earlier in the week establishing standards for independent auditors who evaluate AI systems, along with a law clarifying that companies offering products likely to be used by children cannot require kids to hand over personal data simply to access their services.

The flurry of new laws arrives amid escalating alarm over the toll social media and AI technology are taking on young people’s mental health. Raine’s death was one of several recent cases that have shaken parents’ confidence in chatbot safety, with growing reports of so-called “AI psychosis” — instances in which chatbot interactions appear to reinforce delusional or harmful thinking, a phenomenon not limited to teenagers.

The legislative push also follows a landmark legal settlement between Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, and a coalition of state attorneys general, including California’s Rob Bonta. That lawsuit accused Meta of deliberately designing addictive features — like infinite scrolling — despite internal knowledge that they were harming teens’ mental health, a case frequently likened to the tobacco industry litigation of decades past.

As that trial got underway last month, Meta agreed to pay up to $17 billion to resolve the claims. A portion of that settlement will go toward addressing youth mental health issues, while states will determine how the remaining funds are allocated. As part of the deal, Meta also agreed to make product changes for younger users, including limiting “likes” on accounts belonging to minors and halting notifications during school hours.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Cracks Down on AI Chatbots, Bars Teens From “Addictive” Social Media Feeds appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California stands to collect up to $2.1 billion from the deal, pending a judge’s approval, Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office announced. The settlement calls for Meta to pay more than $12 billion upfront, with the total climbing toward $17 billion over the next decade if other social media companies reach similar agreements in related lawsuits, according to the New York Times.

The settlement resolves claims brought by a coalition of 47 states, spearheaded by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey. Those officials accused Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, of deliberately designing its platforms to hook young users — and of pressing forward even as internal research revealed the toll on children’s mental health. Legal observers have likened the case to the landmark battles against the tobacco industry decades ago, and it was widely seen as a bellwether for similar lawsuits piling up against tech giants nationwide.

“Today, we have secured a settlement with Meta that will make social media less dangerous for our kids and make a world of a difference for children and their families,” Bonta said in a statement. A Meta spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The agreement comes just days after opening statements began in the Oakland trial, which had been expected to stretch on for weeks. The case was one of several bellwether trials examining whether major tech firms knowingly marketed addictive products to minors despite the psychological damage they caused.

Meta has already faced costly defeats on similar grounds. Earlier this year, a Los Angeles jury found both Meta and Google liable in a related case, and Meta lost another lawsuit in New Mexico. Still, Tuesday’s settlement dwarfs any previous outcome in this wave of litigation.

Attorneys Lexi Hazam and Previn Warren, who have represented families and school districts suing tech companies, called the settlement “a major step toward holding Meta accountable for the harm its platforms have caused young people.” They noted that legal fights continue against other major platforms, including Google, Snap and TikTok. “We will not rest until every one of these plaintiffs sees justice for the harms caused by all of the defendants’ platforms,” they said.

Beyond the financial payout, the settlement — which still requires court approval — obligates Meta to make substantial changes to how its apps function for younger users. Among the commitments: a two-hour daily time limit for users under 18, which would drop to one hour if other platforms adopt similar caps; the removal of visible likes and reactions for minors; a halt to notifications sent to teens overnight or during school hours; a new system allowing teens to flag harmful content; and a pledge to respond to 90% of such reports within six hours.

Meta has also agreed to a broader review of its safety measures for teenage users.

“Meta has agreed to make massive transformations that will reduce the risk of harm from its platforms — and will do it within months,” Bonta said. “We are talking about time limits, stopping notifications during school, a block on the app during critical overnight hours, bans on plastic surgery filters, and so much more.”

Part of the settlement funds will go toward addressing the mental health effects of social media on children, while California lawmakers and the governor will determine how to allocate the state’s remaining share.

The settlement adds to a broader push in California to regulate how young people engage with social media. State lawmakers have already passed several bills addressing similar concerns, including restrictions on notifications during school hours — measures that mirror some of the design changes now required under the Meta agreement.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Meta to Pay $1.7 Billion, Restrict Teen ‘Likes’ Feature Under State Settlement appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

That gap is now drawing renewed attention as lawmakers in Sacramento weigh additional restrictions, including a potential ban on “addictive” social media feeds for teens under 16 and new limits on AI chatbots following a string of troubling incidents involving young users.

Concerns over rising rates of teen anxiety, depression and suicide — trends researchers have repeatedly linked to heavy social media use — pushed California to act well before Congress found any consensus on the issue.

“California, everything there is changing and changing fairly dramatically within the last just four years,” said Ed Howard, senior policy advocate with the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego.

The state’s push began in earnest with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which required parental consent before companies could collect data from children under 13 — mirroring the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA — but went further by requiring teens ages 13 to 16 to consent themselves before their data could be gathered.

In 2022, lawmakers passed the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, which forces companies to estimate the ages of their users and default to the strongest privacy settings for anyone believed to be a minor. The law also cracks down on “dark patterns” — design tricks that nudge users, particularly children, toward choices that may not be in their best interest.

“If there’s a product that’s likely to be accessed by children, it has to be, by design and by default, safe for them,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat who helped write the measure.

Wicks also authored a follow-up law requiring devices to include an age “signal” that businesses can use to estimate a user’s age. It’s considered one of the toughest requirements of its kind in the country, though a series of legal challenges from the tech industry have blunted some of its provisions.

Meanwhile, the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act of 2024 bars platforms from showing minors algorithm-driven “addictive” feeds without parental permission and restricts when companies can send notifications to teenagers. That law, set to take effect in 2027, has already withstood court challenges.

More recently, California has turned its attention to artificial intelligence. Lawmakers passed legislation requiring mental health safeguards for AI chatbots after a series of disturbing cases involving teenagers, including the death of Adam Raine, a California teen who died by suicide after months of conversations with ChatGPT about his despair.

Raine’s mother, Maria, testified before the state Senate’s Privacy, Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Committee, describing how the chatbot morphed from “a homework helper” into “a confidant, then a suicide coach.”

Under the new law, AI chatbots must disclose that they are not human, and companies are required to take reasonable steps to shield children from graphic content. Additional bills under consideration would require AI companies to conduct annual assessments of potential mental health risks to young users and give parents more control over how their kids interact with chatbots.

By contrast, Congress has struggled for years to pass comprehensive federal protections. The Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act, currently under consideration, would extend COPPA protections to everyone under 18 and ban targeted advertising aimed at children and teens — but the bill faces criticism from both child-safety advocates, who say it doesn’t go far enough, and civil liberties groups concerned about free speech. Its prospects in a divided Congress remain uncertain.

Still, for all its progress, California’s protections pale in comparison to some international frameworks. Brazil, for instance, passed its ECA Digital law this year despite heavy lobbying from tech companies. The law bans behavioral advertising aimed at children, mandates default privacy protections and parental supervision tools, and prohibits addictive design features such as autoplay and infinite scroll for young users.

Wicks said she has looked to international examples, including the United Kingdom’s Age-Appropriate Design Code, which inspired California’s own version.

“We steal good ideas when we see them from other places,” she said.

Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat, a policy advisor at the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights who studies global privacy law, said California and Brazil’s regulations already share significant common ground — but constitutional differences limit how far the U.S. can go.

“I think there’s quite a bit of overlap, but where they diverge is mostly because of specific constitutional features of the U.S. legal system,” she said, noting that the First Amendment has repeatedly been used by tech companies to challenge laws restricting algorithmic content.

Texas Tech University researcher Marina Petric argues that this reliance on U.S.-style free speech protections amounts to what she calls “First Amendment fundamentalism,” one that other countries aren’t bound to follow. “The U.S. narrative has been embedded into the architecture of digital platforms as though it were a universal standard,” she said.

Even so, Olaizola Rosenblat believes certain elements of Brazil’s law — such as mandatory parental supervision tools — could be adapted for use in the U.S. without running afoul of constitutional protections.

Beyond legal hurdles, both she and Howard point to a more practical obstacle: the sheer financial power of the tech industry.

“The thing that is, by a wide margin, the biggest reason, is the power of money in our system and the fact that our system is uniquely vulnerable to the power of that money,” Howard said.

According to a CalMatters analysis, tech companies poured more than $39 million into political spending and lobbying in California in 2025 alone, much of it aimed at fighting regulation of AI and cryptocurrency. Meta alone contributed $150,000 to the California Democratic Party and funneled $20 million into a new political action committee, saying the money was meant to “help elect state political candidates in California — no matter their party affiliation — that support and defend the American tech industry.”

“I think the main problem is the tech lobby, which is very successful in the U.S. and maybe not as successful in other jurisdictions like Brazil,” Olaizola Rosenblat said. “Because they know that the most threatening thing to them would be a federal law in the U.S.”

For Howard, the calculus is simple: tech firms have little incentive to embrace stronger privacy protections voluntarily.

“When it comes to privacy, every business has a financial stake in there being very little privacy,” he said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Brazil Cracks Down on Kids’ Social Media Access — California Lags Behind appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The push is being led in part by parents who say the risks of social media extend far beyond screen time and online bullying. Samuel Chapman, chief executive of Parent Collective Inc., has become an advocate for stronger social media safeguards after the death of his 16-year-old son, Sammy.

Chapman has said there were no obvious warning signs before his son died. Like many parents, he believed the greatest dangers facing his child were the visible ones — unsafe driving, street drugs or encounters with strangers outside the home. He said he stayed involved, asked questions and tried to set boundaries.

But the threat that reached his family came through a social media app. According to Chapman, a drug dealer contacted Sammy through Snapchat and delivered a counterfeit pill to the family’s home after the parents had gone to sleep. The pill contained a fatal amount of fentanyl.

His story underscores a concern increasingly shared by parents across California, including in Southern California and the Inland Empire: social media platforms give young teenagers access to fast, private and sometimes anonymous communication systems that can be difficult for adults to monitor.

Those tools can help young people stay connected, but advocates for tighter regulation say they also expose children to dangers they may not be mature enough to recognize or manage.

State lawmakers are considering Assembly Bill 1709, authored by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, which would bar children under 16 from creating or keeping accounts on social media platforms that use addictive features. The measure would place enforcement responsibility on the platforms rather than on parents.

Supporters describe the bill as a preventive step rather than a broad restriction on internet access. The proposal would not block children from going online or looking up information. Instead, it would delay their participation in account-based social media systems that rely on personalized feeds, private messaging and engagement-driven design until they are older.

Advocates compare the approach to existing age-based safeguards for driving, alcohol, gambling and firearms, arguing that certain products carry risks that require clear limits for minors.

Parents have long been told that online dangers can be managed through privacy settings, better algorithms or close supervision at home. But critics of the current system say many platforms are built in ways that make meaningful supervision difficult, especially when private messaging, recommendations and easy contact with strangers are central features.

They also argue that the companies behind these platforms benefit financially from keeping users engaged for as long as possible, including young users.

Concerns about children’s mental health have added urgency to the debate. The U.S. Surgeon General has reported that young people who spend more than three hours a day on social media face about twice the risk of symptoms associated with depression and anxiety. Other research has linked heavy social media use among adolescents to increased depressive symptoms, poorer well-being, anxiety, loneliness and lower self-esteem.

Supporters of AB 1709 say the bill does not punish teenagers or impose fines on parents. Instead, they argue, it holds technology companies accountable for the products they design and profit from.

The measure also includes oversight provisions intended to allow the law to adjust as technology and platform features change.

California has frequently positioned itself as a national leader in consumer protection and child safety. Backers of AB 1709 say the state now has an opportunity to set clearer rules for social media platforms used by children, particularly as families continue to grapple with the consequences of online access that can move faster than parental oversight.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Should Keep Children 16 and Younger Off Addictive Social Media Platforms appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed Senate Bill 976 by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, which prohibits online platforms from knowingly providing an addictive feed to minors without parental consent. The law also stops social media platforms from sending notifications to minors during school hours and late at night — from midnight to 6 a.m. — while they sleep.

By Jan. 1, 2027, social media companies will have an obligation to know the age of their users and implement the requirements under SB 976, making children much safer on social media.

This law will save countless lives here in California, like our eternally 16-year-old son Sammy, who had a drug dealer driven to him by the algorithms on Snapchat, delivering a lethal dose of fentanyl to him like a pizza, after we were asleep. This law will help stop dangerous content from invading our homes through our children’s devices, help our kids pay better attention in school and get more sleep at night.

Although, like California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act passed two years ago, SB 976 will surely be challenged by the powerful lobbying groups funded by tech companies. It could be tied up in court for years.

Challenges to the law will likely be along the lines of a First Amendment violation or the oft-mentioned Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which essentially treats the internet like a blackboard. You can’t sue a blackboard for what someone writes on it, but the internet is far from whatever blackboard it may have resembled in 1996.

A recent ruling in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that artificial intelligence and the algorithms they direct are not human speech and therefore not protected by the Constitution. It’s time for Congress to amend Section 230 and treat the social media industry like any other industry in our country, allowing parents like me to sue for negligence when our children die with the help of repeated social media messages inducing harm or pushing them toward illegal activities.

Harms such as suicide baiting, human trafficking, dangerous challenges like the “choking game,” and drug and firearm sales to minors will be minimized on social media thanks to SB 976, ultimately making California safer for our youth.

Its necessary sister bill, Assembly Bill 3216, authored by Assemblymember Josh Hoover and three others, was also just signed by our governor. School districts will be required to adopt a policy to limit or ban phones on school campuses by July 1, 2026, except in emergencies or with teacher permission as part of a lesson plan.

Smartphones turn into an addiction for many children. They check them incessantly, fidgeting with them in class when the teachers aren’t looking and easily miss important information. Grades may even improve if attention spans can return to normal.

Taken altogether, we can hope to see students more focused at school, learning more and feeling less anxious.

California has long been a leader in technology but that also makes it home to companies that helped create these dangers. Now the state can lead the way in cleaning up the mess we’ve made, helping keep other families from feeling the endless sorrow ours feels from the loss of our son.

Let’s hope these protections catch on around the country. Hopefully, as we say here: As California goes, so goes the nation.

The post Children are addicted to technology created in California. Let’s clean up our mess appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The incident in Riverside is the latest in a rash of threats plaguing California schools in recent weeks, prompting police investigations, school lockdowns and arrests of suspects as young as 11. Over the last week, authorities have also investigated non-credible threats at schools in the Bay Area and in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties.

In Riverside, where a student was recently for allegedly making threats at Arlington High School, police said another incident happened Friday at Chemawa Middle School.

“This caused significant concern among parents, prompting many to withdraw their children early due to safety fears,” the department wrote on Facebook. “Our school resource officers promptly launched an investigation to trace the origin of this threat and ensure the safety of the school community.”

Police said tips rolled in over the weekend concerning a student believed to be responsible for the threat. On Tuesday, the school resource officer identified a 13-year-old girl as the alleged culprit. She is accused of posting a threat on social media, followed by a second post naming “targeted classmates.”

According to investigators, a search of the girl’s home confirmed she had no access to weapons. She was booked into a juvenile detention facility on suspicion of making criminal threats. Following the arrest, police leaders reiterated the serious consequences of making any kind of threat, even if it turns out to be a hoax.

“These recent disruptions to our schools must stop immediately so that our children can focus on their education,” said Larry Gonzalez, Riverside’s police chief. “Students who make threats of school violence on social media or by other means will face strict criminal consequences and severe disciplinary action, up to and including expulsion. We will not tolerate any behavior that undermines the safety and security of our schools.”

The post 13-Year-Old Girl Arrested For Making School Threat: Riverside Police appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

It’s a rare issue that can bring 41 states together for a bipartisan fight. This week, state attorneys general across the political spectrum joined forces in suing Facebook parent company Meta for allegedly using features on Instagram and other platforms that hook young users, while denying or downplaying the risks to their mental health.

This comes two years after states began investigating Meta following revelations that the company’s internal research found Instagram was having a negative effect on some teen users’ mental health. Since then health professionals, including Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy and the American Psychological Assn., have urged tech companies to make their products safer for young people.

But there hasn’t yet been significant change in the industry. Most companies haven’t been willing to overhaul their platforms to curb addictive features or harmful content for users under 18 years old, such as setting time limits on their apps or changing algorithms that steer kids into “rabbit holes” to keep them online. Nor have federal lawmakers been able to enact comprehensive product safety regulations because legislation has stalled in Congress or been blocked by courts.

In the absence of policy changes, lawsuits are the next logical step in prodding technology companies to ensure their products are safe for young people or be held accountable. Some have compared the states’ legal strategy to lawsuits against Big Tobacco and opioid manufacturers that revealed how the companies lied about the harm caused by their products, and forced them to change their business practices.

Meta is the first target because of the 2021 revelations, but the state attorneys general said this is an industry-wide investigation. They have also begun looking into TikTok.

The federal complaint alleges Meta used harmful and “psychologically manipulative product features,” such as “likes,” infinite scroll and constant alerts, to hook young people on Instagram and Facebook and keep them engaged for as much time as possible in order to boost profits. Despite knowing that young users’ brains are particularly vulnerable to manipulation by such features and internal studies warning that kids were being harmed, Meta allegedly concealed, denied and downplayed the harms.

The lawsuit, which was filed jointly by 33 states, including California, also accused Meta of violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, a federal law that protects the digital privacy of children under 13 years old. Eight states and the District of Columbia filed separate lawsuits in state or federal courts, many alleging that Meta violated state consumer protection laws.

Meta said in a statement that it has already rolled out 30 tools to support teens on its apps since 2021, including reminders on Instagram for teens to take a break and sharing expert resources if kids search for posts on suicide or eating disorders. That’s a good start. The company lamented that the states chose to sue rather than work with tech firms “across the industry to create clear, age-appropriate standards.”

Indeed, there is a need for comprehensive safety standards across social media platforms. But a tech lobbying group of which Meta is a member has sued to stop an effort by California, which passed a first-in-the-nation law last year requiring age-appropriate design and child privacy protection. The law was recently put on hold by a federal judge citing 1st Amendment concerns. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has filed an appeal.

This is complex legal and regulatory terrain, and the states’ lawsuits are not a sure bet given existing laws that protect online platform companies from being held liable for content posted by users on their sites. Nor will any of these cases be resolved quickly. That’s OK. This is an essential fight for the future.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Social media can harm kids. Lawsuits could force Meta, others to make platforms safer appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California lawmakers on Friday killed a bill that would hold social media platforms liable for promoting harmful content about eating disorders, self-harm and drugs.

Senate Bill 680, which was opposed by tech companies, died in the powerful Assembly Appropriations Committee as part of a marathon hearing where lawmakers culled hundreds of bills without public debate.

“There is little doubt that social media platforms employ algorithms and design features that experts across the nation agree are contributing to harming our children,” Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), who wrote SB 680, said in a statement. “These companies have the power to adjust their platforms to limit this harm, yet to date we’ve seen them take no meaningful action.”

The death of the legislation underscores the uphill battle California lawmakers face as they try to make social media safer for young people. Tech industry organizations such as TechNet and NetChoice, whose members include Facebook parent company Meta, Snap and TikTok, aggressively lobbied against SB 680. Opponents said the bill would run afoul of federal law and the 1st Amendment because online platforms would end up removing more lawful speech as they err on the side of caution to avoid being sued.

Tech industry groups opposed a similar social media bill last year and are trying to block another by filing a lawsuit after it was signed into law.

California lawmakers, Skinner said, shouldn’t give up on their “fight to protect our kids.”

Another bill, Assembly Bill 1394, that focused more narrowly on combating child sexual abuse material on social media on Friday cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee and advanced to the Senate floor for consideration. The legislation would require social media companies to give California users a way to report child sexual abuse material they’re depicted in. The platform would be required to permanently block the material from being viewed. If the company failed to do so, it would be liable for damages.

“Ensuring children and teens have a safe experience online is a goal we share with the authors of SB 680 and AB 1394,” said Dylan Hoffman, TechNet’s executive director for California and the Southwest. “Unfortunately, as drafted, SB 680, would have done little to protect children from harmful content and would have resulted in fewer online spaces for teens.”

Ahead of Friday’s Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, child safety advocates expressed outrage over the changes to AB 1394 being pushed by the tech industry. The amendments, backed by TechNet, would give online platforms another way to avoid liability for failing to combat child sexual abuse materials, according to children’s advocacy groups Common Sense Media and the Children’s Advocacy Institute.

“They are basically trying to keep a golden fence around tech companies in spite of evidence that proves that their products are deeply harming children,” said Jim Steyer, CEO of Common Sense Media in an interview before the hearing. “It is absolutely shameful and disgusting what they’re doing.”

On Wednesday, the child’s advocacy group called on TechNet’s members to leave the organization or denounce the group’s behavior.

TechNet President and CEO Linda Moore on Thursday sent a letter to Steyer, saying it was working in good faith with the bill’s author Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) to make changes to the bill because the legislation could be challenged in court.

The bill advanced without amendments but Wick’s office said potential changes are still being negotiated. AB 1394 also prohibits social media companies from “knowingly facilitating, aiding, or abetting commercial sexual exploitation.”

A court would be required to award damages between $1 million and $4 million for each act of exploitation that the social media platform “facilitated, aided, or abetted.” Companies would be able to avoid liability if they conducted quarterly audits of their designs, algorithms, features and practices and correct any potentially harmful impacts.

“I am confident that this bill will make it to the Governor’s desk and, when signed, will be the strongest law in the nation aimed at combating child sex abuse material,“ Wicks said in a statement.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California lawmakers kill bill aimed at making social media safer for young people appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Biden administration asked a federal appeals court Monday to temporarily block a lower court’s order limiting executive branch officials’ discussions with social media companies about controversial online posts.

The request for an emergency stay was filed at the 5th U.S. District Court of Appeals shortly after U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty rejected an administration motion that he put his own July 4 order on hold. The order came in a lawsuit filed by Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, as well as a conservative website owner and four individual critics of government COVID-19 policies.

The lawsuit claimed the administration, in effect, censored free speech by using threats of regulatory action or protection while pressuring companies to remove what it deemed misinformation. COVID-19 vaccines, legal issues involving President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and election fraud allegations were among the topics spotlighted in the lawsuit.

Doughty was nominated to the federal bench by former President Donald Trump. His injunction blocked the Department of Health and Human Services, the FBI and multiple other government agencies and administration officials from meeting with or contacting social media companies for the purpose of “encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

Administration attorneys said in the motion filed at the 5th Circuit that Doughty’s ruling was too broad and vague, and had the potential to chill government officials’ speech on important matters. And they said Doughty failed to point to any evidence that the administration had made threats against social media companies to coerce them to take down posts.

“The district court identified no evidence suggesting that a threat accompanied any request for the removal of content. Indeed, the order denying the stay — presumably highlighting the ostensibly strongest evidence — referred to ‘a series of public media statements,’” the administration said.

They asked that the 5th Circuit block Doughty’s order while the case is pursued at the appeals court in New Orleans or, at minimum, grant a 10-day block of the order so the administration could prepare to go to the Supreme Court to seek a longer stay.

Earlier Monday, Doughty rejected administration requests that he stay his own order pending appeal.

“In essence,” Doughty’s Monday order said, “Defendants argue that the injunction should be stayed because it might interfere with the Government’s ability to continue working with social-media companies to censor Americans’ core political speech on the basis of viewpoint. In other words, the Government seeks a stay of the injunction so that it can continue violating the First Amendment.”

Government lawyers have argued that the companies control their own policies regarding misinformation and that the lawsuit casts officials’ comments on issues and policy as threats. The administration said Doughty’s July 4 order was unclear about who in the executive branch it covers and what they can or cannot say about important topics discussed on social media platforms.

The order could cause “grave harm” by preventing the government from “engaging in a vast range of lawful and responsible conduct,” government lawyers said in requesting the stay Thursday night.

Doughty order said the administration “seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’” The order, which was to remain in effect pending further arguments in Doughty’s court, was hailed by conservatives as a victory for free speech and a blow to censorship. But critics said the order and accompanying reasons, covering more than 160 pages, were broad, unclear and could chill government efforts to fight misinformation on important topics.

The criticisms were echoed in the government’s Thursday night request for a stay. “The potential breadth of the entities and employees covered by the injunction combined with the injunction’s sweeping substantive scope will chill a wide range of lawful government conduct relating to Defendants’ law enforcement responsibilities, obligations to protect the national security, and prerogative to speak on matters of public concern,” the government’s motion said.

The lawsuit’s plaintiffs countered with a weekend filing opposing a stay. Among the arguments are that the July 4 injunction carves out exemptions allowing officials to contact social media companies about postings involving criminal activity or public safety threats; national security threats; election-related issues including voter suppression attempts, voting infrastructure threats and illegal campaign contributions; and saying officials can continue “exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Biden administration asks appeals court to block order limiting its contacts with social media appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.