California Governor Signs Ban On Social Media 'Aiding or Abetting' Child Abuse (theverge.com) 70
Adi Robertson reports via The Verge: California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed AB 1394, a law that would punish web services for "knowingly facilitating, aiding, or abetting commercial sexual exploitation" of children. It's one of several online regulations that California has passed in recent years, some of which have been challenged as unconstitutional. Newsom's office indicated in a press release yesterday that he had signed AB 1394, which passed California's legislature in late September.
The law is set to take effect on January 1, 2025. It adds new rules and liabilities aimed at making social media services crack down on child sexual abuse material, adding punishments for sites that "knowingly" leave reported material online. More broadly, it defines "aiding or abetting" to include "deploy[ing] a system, design, feature, or affordance that is a substantial factor in causing minor users to be victims of commercial sexual exploitation." Services can limit their risks by conducting regular audits of their systems. As motivation, the bill text cites whistleblower complaints that Facebook responded inadequately to child abuse on the platform and a 2022 Forbes article alleging that TikTok Live had become a haven for adults to prey on teenage users.
The law is set to take effect on January 1, 2025. It adds new rules and liabilities aimed at making social media services crack down on child sexual abuse material, adding punishments for sites that "knowingly" leave reported material online. More broadly, it defines "aiding or abetting" to include "deploy[ing] a system, design, feature, or affordance that is a substantial factor in causing minor users to be victims of commercial sexual exploitation." Services can limit their risks by conducting regular audits of their systems. As motivation, the bill text cites whistleblower complaints that Facebook responded inadequately to child abuse on the platform and a 2022 Forbes article alleging that TikTok Live had become a haven for adults to prey on teenage users.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be concerned it's too broad or will be abused, but at the same time we know that social media companies have a nasty habit of prioritizing engagement above all else, to the point where they've been caught knowing they were causing harm and doing it anyway repeatedly.
This is one of those cases where an industry was told "fix it or we'll fix it for you". Similar to the Video Game industry ratings in the
Re: (Score:2)
ok.
but.
what operating system did he use to sign the bill with
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Protect the children" is always a way to push a political agenda.
It's used to criminalize and force underground all kinds of sex-work related jobs, (do you really think a "massage parlor" is what it is?)
Children end up the victims more often than not when laws are written to protect children. A lot of examples with this are within the artwork, comics, webcomics, youtubers, and vtubers communities where adults are constantly interacting with children, knowingly or unknowingly, and adults are very quick to m
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You've got one set of circumstances on your mind, and I accept that they exist. But there are others that are quite possibly more important.
I am concerned about exactly what the law will cover, but the expressed intention appears valid.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Meanwhile, right-wing morons talk out both sides of their mouth about wanting to protect children, but do nothing to protect children from being forced into marrying adults.
It's not that they don't do anything to stop child marriage, they actively fight against anyone who tries! Some [rollingstone.com] examples [newsweek.com] for [nbcnews.com] you [katv.com]. Republicans love child marriage [businessinsider.com].
The love child labor as well [newrepublic.com].
As for wanting to protect children from perverts, you should know by now that every accusation is a confession. [slate.com] with these people. It's a very long list... [dailykos.com]
Re: Running for President (Score:1)
Are you suggesting that a significant number of Republicans agree with that?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like these Republican candidates are hiding their disturbing beliefs about child marriage and child labor. Republican voters presumably know where they stand on these issues and they vote for them anyway!
If you're against child marriage and child labor, maybe you should consider voting for someone who is also against those things? If you're worried about pedophiles, maybe you shouldn't vote for someone known to protect pedophiles [lawandcrime.com]? If they know but don't support those things, what do they think t
Re: (Score:2)
LOL - Florida and Texas try to regulate social media in the much the same, hold them responsible for some content despite CDA-230 or gwd forbid make them liable for harms to minors if they don't restrict their access and the frigging sky is failing. Gavin does it and - its A-OK. You are so pathetic.
The problem with this legislation is it does not seems to do enough. They can probably do jack and shit to comply beyond tossing up some click-thru that says "I pinky swear I won't use this to harm kids" and th
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't really outside mainstream Democratic party platform. Neither party would oppose this. I'd be concerned it's too broad or will be abused, but at the same time we know that social media companies have a nasty habit of prioritizing engagement above all else, to the point where they've been caught knowing they were causing harm and doing it anyway repeatedly. This is one of those cases where an industry was told "fix it or we'll fix it for you". Similar to the Video Game industry ratings in the 90s. The difference was the game industry got the hint, Zuck & Musk think they're above the law. They're mostly right, but only mostly.
I do think social media needs cracked down on, but I would think creating new laws about protecting the children is the dumbest possible way to go about it. Not to mention, as you said, the wording seems so broad it absolutely *WILL* be abused. I mean, technically, adding a video uploader could be seen as encouraging commercial sexual exploitation of children if some dumbass uploads a video of such. How about we crack the dumbass upside the head, take down the video like, agree that the dumbass was to blame
Re:Running for President (Score:4, Insightful)
Very funny. It’s republicans who support this stuff. Remember one of you nuts said 12 year olds getting married is good. Here’s the reference: https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying he's right, but do you also think it's child abuse if one child gets into a fight with another child who is the same age? Should both children be charged with child abuse?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Umm, A. he is not talking about a 12 year old marrying another 12 year old -- he voted against banning ADULTS from marrying 12 year olds. B. Any minor's "marriage" is always a parent sanctioned act. A kid doesn't know how to fill out marriage paperwork or organize a wedding. But again, he SPECIFICALLY voted against banning adults from marrying minors.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh?
A. Who isn't talking about a 12 year old? Because even that article stated that he was referring to a 12 year old who got pregnant, and then married the similarly aged child who got her pregnant. The only person talking about adults marrying children is the interviewer.
B. He voted against raising the legal age of marriage to 18. Everything you stated was just made up by the interviewer. He didn't vote specifically against banning an adult from marrying a child because no such bill was ever written. In f
Re: (Score:2)
OK .. looked into it more and you're right. Still, 12 years old is too young for any kind of "marriage". There's alternative ways to deal with the situation described.
Re: (Score:2)
There's alternative ways to deal with the situation described.
Maybe but have you even one shred of evidence any of those 'alternative ways' would be less harmful or of greater long term benefit to the parents or the child?
There is no question that for a couple of 12 year olds to have any future or success raising a child they will require massive support and intervention from their own parents and relations. All manor of other decisions will have to be made for them.
While it probably isn't the decision I'd make if it were my daughter. Presumably the children in questi
Re: (Score:3)
can it be of any question that Newsom's running for President?
He's taken it off the table for 2024.
He's said he won't run against Biden, and if Biden has a heart attack, he's also said he won't run if Kamala Harris runs, which she almost certainly will.
He may run in 2028, but that's in the distant future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
2028 will be a wide open election, and Newsom has a shot. It's hard to imagine a California liberal winning nationwide, but the Republicans are likely to nominate someone even worse, so who knows.
Kamala Harris has little chance of being the Democratic nominee. She is a terrible politician and never polled above single digits when she ran in the primary. Biden hates her (proof: He made her "immigration czar" which was a knife in the kidneys), so his machine won't help her.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Harris is a horrible person and if she ran for president her record in California will be front and center for everyone to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neoliberal moderate? Kamala Harris is what the Republican party was before Newt Gingrich told them to throw out the old playbook and start ramping up the hate and apoplectic rhetoric. Granted, so is Biden at this point, and most of the Democratic candidates that even ping the radar on the national level. The Republican party now is more of a joke wrapped in fear and religious tropes they use to hate everything with zero platform, zero issues they care about, and zero incentive to change since the anger and
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to imagine a California liberal winning nationwide
Ronald Reagan did it. He would be a liberal by current standards.
But seriously... you are right. Newsom and DeSantis are setting themselves up for the 2028 election. 2024 will be between Biden and Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you are correct on much of that.
I think the most organizing result for the GOP would be if Trump manages secure the nomination and some how get over the line in a general election. The counter Trump forces in the GOP are mostly OLD guys, they will be forced by their failing health to retire over the course of another four years. A second Trump victory will chase the non-populist wings from power in the GOP. It will cement Trumpism as the organizing platform of the party with the remnants of R
Wtf (Score:3, Interesting)
This was legal before?
Re: (Score:2)
This was legal before?
It was nebulous.
If you put up a bulletin board and let people post messages, should you be legally liable if some people use your board to solicit sex?
At least in California, we now know the answer is "Yes". Uncensored forums are illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
until pretty recently it was yes across the board, cause you are holding that material on your private equipment
Re:Wtf (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you think you accurately described the law? What you described would blatantly violate 47 U.S. Code section 230(c)(1).
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think you accurately described the law?
I don't know since I haven't actually read it.
What you described would blatantly violate 47 U.S. Code section 230(c)(1).
I agree. We'll see if the courts agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's quite a walk-back of your earlier confident assertions.
Here's a hint: TFS says you're wrong about what the law makes illegal. I suspect that courts will find that "knowingly facilitating, aiding, or abetting commercial sexual exploitation" of children must be read to involve more than running an uncensored forum.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's quite a walk-back of your earlier confident assertions.
Here's a hint: TFS says you're wrong about what the law makes illegal. I suspect that courts will find that "knowingly facilitating, aiding, or abetting commercial sexual exploitation" of children must be read to involve more than running an uncensored forum.
The wording is troubling. It could mean seeing exploitive material and not deleting it. But it could also mean providing the facilities that allowed them to upload those materials. You know, if the regulators feel like cutting you or your site down. I do believe there's a need to crack down on exploitive material involving minors. I don't know that giving the government more tools to deal with an issue that isn't nearly as sweepingly huge as government officials would like us to believe it is is the right m
Re: (Score:2)
How about banning all child sexual abuse ... (Score:2)
be that commercial or otherwise? Then: what about abuse of anyone, no matter their age or be it sexual or otherwise ?
Clearly a 1st Amendment violation (Score:1)
Especially if they want to ban cartoons and "AI" where no actual children are being abused.
I'm confused (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Very ironic
Child abuse (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No way that could go wrong from the start, right? Twitter files certainly didn't reveal any gov't demanded censorship turned out to be political... much...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Approved censorship system must be in place or you're a criminal... for the children, and we'll call you a pedo...
Don't forget:
It
Honest Question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Did Newsome suddenly sign or veto something like several dozen bills? Why has my news feed blown up with at least 10 items today? It raises many strange possibilities, including distracting from some other bill they want kept under the radar, or some kind of controversy around Feinstein's replacement
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. He had a stack of bills from the most recent legislative session on his desk that he finally signed/vetoed. This was done in quick succession, so there are a bunch of new laws that are suddenly passing or failing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. He had a stack of bills from the most recent legislative session on his desk that he finally signed/vetoed. This was done in quick succession, so there are a bunch of new laws that are suddenly passing or failing.
Erm... Surely a governor doesn't have the power to just disregard a law that has passed both houses?
I thought it was like Royal Ascent, where the law has already passed and it's just a bit of theatre for tradition's sake.
Re: (Score:2)
He has 3 (4?) choices.
He can sign the law, giving his assent to the law.
He can not sign the law, in which case it becomes law without his assent.
He can veto the law, sending it back to the state assembly/senate for revision or override (a veto can be overridden by a 2/3 vote).
In some states (including California) the governor has line-item veto power, which allows them to modify a bill before signing it by striking individual clauses from the law. Sometimes this is a minor effect, sometimes it can complete
Re: (Score:2)
The legislature frequently argues and debates throughout the session then sends the majority of new laws to the governor at the end of the session en masse.
"ok, we did our part.. You deal with it all now. We are going home."
Good intentions, horrible outcomes (Score:4, Insightful)
If I haven't said it once, I'll say it 1,000 times more. Good intentions don't matter, it is the outcomes. And every one of these schemes will somehow lead to:
1) Age verification schemes
2) Which actually means positive ID schemes
3) Which leads to zero privacy online for EVERYONE
That that is on top of just outright censorship. It doesn't matter if it is coming from the Left or the Right. You simply cannot "protect the children" from the server-side without creating extreme negative consequences for adults and all of society.
Protecting children is the job of parents. If you want to do something positive, then empower parents to take that responsibility seriously and make sure CHILDREN have protection on the CLIENT side.... Devices that CANNOT GO to places they shouldn't or interact with people they SHOULD NOT (unknown or unapproved contacts, by the parents). Make locked-down, white-list, child-friendly devices and abilities easier and more prevalent. Allow sites to flag things instead of banning them or hiding them behind ID logins, that can be picked up by client devices, if configured to do so.
NOTHING will be perfect. But destroying privacy and freedom for adults should not be the answer to the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, the whole idea of privacy seems to be evaporating, so maybe no one will actually care that they can ID'd. (until they run for political office of course...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need age verification to stop the sexual abuse of children on your platform. What you need are some technical measures (blocking images with known hashes, provided by law enforcement), and moderators who can quickly intervene when material is brought to their attention.
What caused PornHub to mass-delete user uploaded videos is that they had been ignoring requests from children and their parents to remove child abuse images. Often it was revenge porn or stolen video/photos. They made unreasonable d
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Nobody gets a goddamn sex change because their parents "pressed" them to. Stop listening to the insane right, just stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simpsons Did It (Score:2)
Ohh, won't somebody please think of the children?!
Is there a private right of action? (Score:2)
Can parents sue TikTok for self harm videos their kid watched?
Everything not forbidden (Score:2)
In California, everything not forbidden is compulsory. The only things we still have to do is find things we missed to either forbid or mandate.