California legislature passes AB 1709, sweeping social media ban for under-16s
The bill would prohibit recommendation algorithms and basic features, prompting the EFF to urge Governor Newsom to veto.
What to know
- AB 1709 would ban social media for under-16s by prohibiting recommendation algorithms and basic features, taking effect in January 2027 if signed.
- The EFF argues the bill relies on unsettled science, cuts young people off from essential communities, and would require invasive age-verification creating privacy risks.
- The law would conflict with existing California legislation and likely face court challenges.
“Age-gating requirements will force everyone to give big tech companies even more personal information. This creates massive honeypots of sensitive personal data, severely damages online anonymity, and exposes users of all ages to heightened data breach risks.”
Electronic Frontier Foundation · EFF Deeplinks
California legislature LegislatorGovernor Gavin Newsom California GovernorElectronic Frontier Foundation Digital rights advocacy organization
The record 2 articles and posts · last 30 days
What people are saying 24 voices from 2 sites · best of 127 · verbatim
- Sep 3
-
What are your five largest threats to functioning democracy in the US right now?Because I question any list that doesn't include a substantial chunk of voters being ignorant on concerns of critical importance to the country.And if that's a problem now, as a result of a couple decades of low-brow, high-emotion 80s and 90s conservative talk radio…
- Sep 2
-
E
What I sent # Newsom 's office. Veto AB 1709. It won't protect children. It endangers anyone seeking abortion care, queer, and trans Californians. It also sets us up for security breeches. Banning collection of PID, advertising, and algorithmic feeds will do more to protect all Californians, not just kids. https://www…
- Sep 1
-
This is why blunt legislation is needed.The existing parental control features are deliberately mis-designed, because there's a lot of money at stake and Meta / Google aren't stupid.Does anyone really think they didn't run uptake and engagement impact tests on various proposed parental control options... and then ship the one that impacted their…
-
> So the issue really isn't "social media", it's the blackbox personalized algorithmic feed.> So that is what we should be addressing.That is what the bill addresses. It bans providing an "addictive feature" to users under 16. It says it does not prohibit letting under 16 users use the service as long as it does not provide addictive features on…
-
> This well-intentioned, but deeply flawed piece of legislation, cuts young people off from essential information and experiences, particularly harming vulnerable youth and marginalized groups who often find safety in supportive online communities they can't access offlineHow is this precluded by this bill? My understanding is that youth can still…
-
But McD did change how they advertise to children. We can limit the harmful practices of social media platforms without banning them.https://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-told-to-change-ads..."Research has shown that young children—younger than 8 years—are cognitively and psychologically defenseless against advertising.6–9 They do not…
-
It's really difficult to sympathize with your perspective here.>>> Ban smartphones for kids.>>> But the school gives my kids homework on them.>> Then tell the school you and your kid won't use them; they still have to educate your kid.> But I want my kid to use them. I just don't like what they allow my kid to do.If they allow your kids to do…
-
Yep. All I want is allow/deny permissions on particular channels. For my little guy I'd set up a blanket Deny rule, with a few channels allowed; for older kids parents might want to go the other way.All of the "parent better" messages are useless (not to mention out of touch) when technical tools to do so are not made avaliable to us. And, of…
-
We're talking about raising kids.At the end of the day, you're now telling someone else how to raise their kids. Because you know better? Because it has been determined that some kids are harmed by tech?Let's just put flock cameras every where and send kids outside again. They will be safe under the constant observation of the state?…
-
Why can't you? These devices require accepting and agreeing to a EULA. Simply refuse the EULA and explain to the school administration that you will not enter into a contractual agreement with Apple or Google, nor will you allow them to defraud those companies by "accepting" the EULA for you.Your child has a right to an education. School…
-
One obvious solution is of course to break these companies up. Set a maximum user count that a communication network operator is allowed to have before we break them up (say, 10M). Require some kind of good-faith open federation for any communication provider over a certain size (e.g. if a user adds a user from another provider as a…
-
The point that HN libertarians miss is that the whole point of social networks is that they benefit from network effects. This is what makes them profitable. But it’s also what makes it necessary to subject them to democratic accountability and makes them a legitimate target of public policy.If my teenagers entire peer groups spends 90% of their…
-
Lost a bit of respect for the EFF with this. I can understand their dogmatism around not wanting to limit anyone’s electronic freedoms, but these are social media companies we are talking about. They aren’t there to provide a public service, but to , sell and serve ads, command attention, and create addiction to their service. Meta just agreed to…
-
The problem is strict controls is not helpful. My kids teachers often assign homework which is watch some YouTube video - which means I have to give my kids access to all of YouTube including channels i don't approve of. In turn i have to stare at my kids screen - a very creepy move - instead of working on whatever my own project is when they are…
-
Right? If I had to come to with like, five problems that I felt like they were both urgent enough and and significant enough that we should literally implement the least bad policy immediately rather than do nothing until we come up with something better, I don't think this would be on my list, and it definitely wouldn't be the top of my list if…
-
The above poster isn't saying Internet access; they're saying access to the ad-filled Skinner boxes that are trying to position themselves as necessary for communication through network effects.Incidentally, the bill doesn't even say they can't use them; it just says the platform has to tone down the Skinner box part for children.> This…
-
idk why Meta has to be the one to decide. I'm not suggesting that everyone carefully curate their own feed rules, but we could certainly choose to adopt packages from people and institutions that we trust, and be able to revisit those decision later.Meta is actually a horrible crime against humanity. They have immense power be being the gatekeeper…
-
> Clearly we can't do nothing,Why is that so clear? I can think of hundreds of real daily problems I'd rather my legislators be focused on than deciding how old my kids have to be before they're allowed on some website.I would like affordable groceries and public transport, not whatever this is.If they really want to "do something" then require an…
-
I'm afraid this reads like "we've not 100% proved that smoking causes cancer, so ..."Is the science 100% settled? No. Is this the best possible way to regulate this? No. But it's sure better than the current state of things."laws such as A.B. 1709, as passed by the legislature, function as a ban on social media use for people under the age of…
-
Agreed entirely. They're really glossing over the harm parts. The vibe in this article feels like someone who used the internet in the 90s and 2000s when community was actually a thing. Maybe even early Facebook days when it was college level and newly released to the general public.What was once genuinely helpful for society is, by and large, now…
-
This whole argument makes me feel old.This smacks of "satanic messages in metal made my kids kill themselves" and of the PMRC. Of a trailer getting burned down cause kids watched Bevis yell "fire" one too many times.Our modern society has fucked up kids, and I wont argue that tech isnt an enabler. But the fact that kids ONLY lens into the world…
-
it seems like this whole discussion, both the proposed law and EFFs full throated support for social media giants is getting lost in the weeds.we used to have a small number of media outlets for structural reasons. and we were concerned enough about their ability to filter what everyone saw that we tried to pass some laws that's weren't very…
- Aug 31
-
E
The California legislature passed Assembly Bill 1709 today, which functions as a sweeping ban on social media use for young people under the age of 16. We're urging Governor Gavin Newsom to veto the measure. https://www. eff.org/deeplinks/2026/08/eff- gov-newsom-veto-californias-ab-1709
-
S
TL;DR: California's Assembly Bill 1709, a proposed ban on social media for users under 16, could severely limit free speech and privacy while failing to enhance youth safety. Critics urge Governor Newsom to veto the bill, citing its potential to conflict with existing laws and exacerbate data privacy issues. https://www…