11
California’s “Addictive Feeds” Law Violates Teens’ First Amendment Rights (www.eff.org)
submitted 3 weeks ago by [M] to c/DeclineIntoCensorship@lemmy.dbzer0.com
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 3 weeks ago*

I read both. Cali needs more to time to cook.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    “SB 976 frustrates young people’s ability to use the internet to its full potential, prohibiting them from relying on tools that disseminate their speech and help them view and interact with other users’ speech,” the brief argues.

    Not being allowed to use a 250db megaphone thst would collapse buildings frustrates young people's ability to use the public square to its full potential.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    From the amicus brief:

    Social media platforms, just like bookstores, first perform the editorial function of deciding what content belongs on the platform and what content is eligible for promotion.

    They're fundamentally different. The social media platforms don't choose what they want users to see. They reccomend what they think the users want to see. This law would not prohibit the former, only targeting it to specific people based on what they've seen before.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    If SB 976 applied to booksellers from the earlier example, they would have to ignore a teen customer’s expressed interest in a recommendation based on her past preference unless a parent consented. Under SB 976, the bookseller could only recommend the newest books.

    Nope. Search functionality exists on social media websites too. The bookstore would just be banned from automatically accosting the person with reccomendations unless they say they want them

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent