If you live in California and care about small and non-profit social media, I encourage you to write your state reps and oppose this bill.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@eff/116494502695382081
If you live in California and care about small and non-profit social media, I encourage you to write your state reps and oppose this bill. The EFF form at the link below was good, but I've written my own response (next post) in light of the potential impacts on the Fediverse. #AB1709 #SFBA
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@eff/116494502695382081
If you live in California and care about small and non-profit social media, I encourage you to write your state reps and oppose this bill. The EFF form at the link below was good, but I've written my own response (next post) in light of the potential impacts on the Fediverse. #AB1709 #SFBA
Here's what I sent to my rep (1/2):
Dear Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan,
I am your constituent in Walnut Creek—a parent, attorney, and volunteer helping run two small nonprofit Bay Area social platforms (sfba.social, sfba.club). I share your concerns about predatory social media design, but AB 1709 is the wrong instrument.
The bill's definitions sweep in services it was not designed to regulate. "Addictive feature" (§ 22682(a)) covers "any feature that learns from user information or behavior in order to prolong engagement"—read literally, unread-post indicators, "new since last visit" markers, even anti-spam filtering. Our platforms run open-source software (Mastodon, BookWyrm) with no advertising, no engagement algorithm, and no corporate owner, yet appear covered.
Unlike COPPA or CCPA, AB 1709 has no revenue floor or de minimis carve-out. A volunteer-run nonprofit faces the same $25,000–$50,000 per-minor exposure as Meta. § 22687(c) lets courts consider size, but size is not a defense.
(cont.) -
Here's what I sent to my rep (1/2):
Dear Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan,
I am your constituent in Walnut Creek—a parent, attorney, and volunteer helping run two small nonprofit Bay Area social platforms (sfba.social, sfba.club). I share your concerns about predatory social media design, but AB 1709 is the wrong instrument.
The bill's definitions sweep in services it was not designed to regulate. "Addictive feature" (§ 22682(a)) covers "any feature that learns from user information or behavior in order to prolong engagement"—read literally, unread-post indicators, "new since last visit" markers, even anti-spam filtering. Our platforms run open-source software (Mastodon, BookWyrm) with no advertising, no engagement algorithm, and no corporate owner, yet appear covered.
Unlike COPPA or CCPA, AB 1709 has no revenue floor or de minimis carve-out. A volunteer-run nonprofit faces the same $25,000–$50,000 per-minor exposure as Meta. § 22687(c) lets courts consider size, but size is not a defense.
(cont.)(2/2)
The privacy costs are significant as well, and fall within your committee's portfolio. The Digital Age Assurance Act routes age signals through OS providers and app stores; web-based services accessed via browser have no compliant signal source, so § 22684(a) will push operators toward third-party ID or biometric verification, funneling millions more Californians' sensitive data into a vendor ecosystem with a poor breach record.
A blunt age cutoff also ignores variation in maturity and need across young people. For LGBTQ+, neurodivergent, and other youth who rely on online communities for support unavailable locally, blanket exclusion carries real costs to child mental health.
I would welcome a conversation about alternatives: targeted regulation of specific engagement-maximizing design features, stronger parental tools, or digital literacy investment. These address the harm without the collateral damage to small, privacy-respecting communities.
Thank you for your service to our district.
[Phil] -
(2/2)
The privacy costs are significant as well, and fall within your committee's portfolio. The Digital Age Assurance Act routes age signals through OS providers and app stores; web-based services accessed via browser have no compliant signal source, so § 22684(a) will push operators toward third-party ID or biometric verification, funneling millions more Californians' sensitive data into a vendor ecosystem with a poor breach record.
A blunt age cutoff also ignores variation in maturity and need across young people. For LGBTQ+, neurodivergent, and other youth who rely on online communities for support unavailable locally, blanket exclusion carries real costs to child mental health.
I would welcome a conversation about alternatives: targeted regulation of specific engagement-maximizing design features, stronger parental tools, or digital literacy investment. These address the harm without the collateral damage to small, privacy-respecting communities.
Thank you for your service to our district.
[Phil]@neuralgraffiti
Well done — thank you!
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@eff/116494502695382081
If you live in California and care about small and non-profit social media, I encourage you to write your state reps and oppose this bill. The EFF form at the link below was good, but I've written my own response (next post) in light of the potential impacts on the Fediverse. #AB1709 #SFBA
@neuralgraffiti
Done — Thanks for posting! -
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
