A California bill could allow parents to sue social-media companies for up to $25,000 if their children become addicted to the platforms

[Nomad4Ever]

Oh hell. Don't give the South any ideas regarding porn sites.

Same as with social media, there is no meaningful way to really restrict their use. The only reason we have been able to be so effective at taking down cites that host stuff like CP is because every single country on Earth has kinda agreed they don't want servers hosting CP in their country.

Short of every country taking down their porn servers as well, your only option left is to blanket restrict internet traffic out of your country.

 

[Helix]

We can’t control our kids using the devices which we bought them so that’s somebody else’s fault!

After all, why live in California if you can’t vote to increase the power of the nanny state?

Parents should get their kids ‘dumb’ flip-phones (with no internet access) and monitor the apps they place on home computers.

My kid looks at screens a lot. So do my wife and I. That genie isn't going back in the bottle. As for the stupid lawsuit stuff, it's pointless anyway. You're going to lose the suit, and even if you won, the ambulance chaser representing you will probably get most of the money. This whole thing reads like a publicity attempt for some politician.

 

[ttwtt78640]

My kid looks at screens a lot. So do my wife and I. That genie isn't going back in the bottle. As for the stupid lawsuit stuff, it's pointless anyway. You're going to lose the suit, and even if you won, the ambulance chaser representing you will probably get most of the money. This whole thing reads like a publicity attempt for some politician.

The “ambulance chaser” would be better off getting a class of plaintiffs and walking away with an undisclosed ‘compromise’ settlement.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Nothing gets passed in California without support of demorats.

And nothing gets passed on a Federal level without support of Republicans. Your point is?

 

[ttwtt78640]

And nothing gets passed on a Federal level without support of Republicans. Your point is?

Not true. The $1.9B American Rescue Plan passed with no republicant Senate votes.

 

[Felis Leo]

I think we are both in agreement in the identification of the problem. However, I don't think suing these companies is the solution. Parents sue them and then...what? How do the platforms change in a way that less harm is done? They will just pay the lawsuits and keep going along.

I think it would be death by a thousand cuts. If parents of addicted teens realized that they could make a cool $25,000.00 based on statutory strict liability, when those parents number in the millions if not tens of millions, $25k builds up quite fast. If such legislation were passed, it would not be hard to imagine some major civil litigation firms banding together to do class action suit representing 10 million sets of parents against Meta for $250 billion, a company with a market cap of $467 billion. It's the stuff of CEO nightmares.

The moment such litigation even becomes possible, I think social media firms would immediately discover ways to make sure kids don't get on their platforms, from doing multi-factor ID verification like you have for the IRS website, to hiring a veritable army of cryptographers to prevent anyone without verified IDs from using their platforms.

In my opinion we need federal legislation regarding the use of algorithms in social media. That is where the harm is being caused. The funneling of people into information environment where everyone over 120 pounds is called fat, where everyone has some interesting opinions about the Jews, or everyone telling you it's women's fault for not dating you. YouTube is notorious for this; you watch one video questioning how effective the vaccine is and before you know it you are getting recommended Qanon channels telling you Pelosi wants to eat your kids. These algorithms need to be open sourced or made very transparent. I see this akin to regulations stipulating food companies put nutrition labels on packaging.

I am totally onboard with that.

Would the world be better? Probably. But there are far too many adults who fall into exactly the same patterns anyway for that to be a real solution. Plus the cat is a bit out of the bag on this one. There is simply no way to enforce this without going full CCP. Accounts would have to be verified either with like, a state ID, or you would need a national facial recognition database and use FaceID to login. Plus there are social medias hosted on the Blockchain and whatnot now. So you'd also have to do some kind of Great Firewall type situation as well. Just a mess all around. I don't think there is a practical way to restrict it.

That is why I think this proposed state legislation acts as an acceptable halfway measure. Rather than the government monitoring social media companies, private citizens are given private right to pursue causes of action against software giants on behalf of their children via statute.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Nothing gets passed in California without support of demoCrats.

Which is why this won't go anywhere.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Co written by a Democrat and a Republican.

Nice try though

Co sponsored, not co written.

 

[braindrain]

Great idea. These platforms use tactics that drive an addiction type response. Parental responsibility? How many adults smoke because they started as adults? Parents can guide their kids, but they can't control them unless the child agrees to be controlled.

So who do you think is paying the majority of kids phone bills if it’s not the parents.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

That is why I think this proposed state legislation acts as an acceptable halfway measure. Rather than the government monitoring social media companies, private citizens are given private right to pursue causes of action against software giants on behalf of their children via statute.

I'm still not convinced that's how it will pan out, but what do I know. I'm no expert. If it works it works. I think there is value to states locally experimenting with laws. If it doesn't produce the intended outcomes get rid of it. If it is effective other states can copy it.

 

[mrjurrs]

So who do you think is paying the majority of kids phone bills if it’s not the parents.

What does that have to do with anything? You think parents buy their kids phones for the kids benefit?

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Never heard of the author of the bill, but i'd bet he's a republican.

Co written by a Democrat and a Republican.

Nice try though

Nice try what? he is a republican. All you have done is embarrass yourself that your partisan hackery is so strong all you can do is defend the republican and deflect to blame democrats. It's a stupid law but you can't possibly say that because you people can only blindly worship republicans, even the pedophiles, murderers and ***** grabbers. Pathetic

 

[Lisa]

That's dumb. Probably going nowhere.

The problem of addiction starts with the addict because not all users are addicts. They need to seek a qualified therapist if they have an addiction to anything.

 

[D_NATURED]

California is an embarrassment. Kids get their phones FROM their parents. That's like allowing Parents to sue a scissor company when the mother gives a kid a bad haircut.

 

[Crovax]

Nice try what? he is a republican. All you have done is embarrass yourself that your partisan hackery is so strong all you can do is defend the republican and deflect to blame democrats. It's a stupid law but you can't possibly say that because you people can only blindly worship republicans, even the pedophiles, murderers and ***** grabbers. Pathetic

Yes it is a stupid law but you have embarrassed yourself with partisan hackery because a Democrat is just a responsible for the bill

Assembly Bill 2408, or the Social Media Platform Duty to Children Act, was introduced by Republican Jordan Cunningham of Paso Robles and Democrat Buffy Wicks of Oakland

California bill would let parents sue social media companies for addicting kids

A bipartisan bill in the Assembly would make social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram liable for getting young users addicted.

www.latimes.com

Go back to obsessing about pedophiles, that's rather telling in itself if you ask me, because you have no business in adult conversation. You are dismissed, good day.

 

[Chillfolks]

California is an embarrassment. Kids get their phones FROM their parents. That's like allowing Parents to sue a scissor company when the mother gives a kid a bad haircut.

Have you ever seen the show Intervention? In many episodes a loved one is an enabler(parent, spouse, extended family or friends). They pay bills, give money, offer support and such that makes an addict able to maintain their lifestyle. One major obstacle for those people is a fear of loosing the addicts love if they stop the support. They also need therapy many times to learn new behaviors like saying NO. Parents who support this bill remind me of those on the show. They recognize there is a problem with a child and social media. Taking away the phone may result in unleashing the monster they helped create and they don’t want to risk any repercussions. So sue the social media sites, hold someone responsible without having to be responsible.

Sorry Kim FaceTok says you have to be 21 to join nothing I can do here is the new AppleGalxy29i to show you I love you.

 

[braindrain]

What does that have to do with anything? You think parents buy their kids phones for the kids benefit?

Do you really not understand that if a parent is paying it is well within the ability of a parent to control their kids phone usage. Even if that kid doesn’t agree to be controlled. The opposite of what you claim.

 

[Craig234]

If you don't want your kids watching too much television, take away their television.

If you don't want your kids playing certain video games, take them away. Remove the systems/computers if they continue.

If you don't want your kids spending too much time on social media, tell them to stop or take away their devices if they continue.

It's not up to everyone else to properly parent your children.

If you don't want your child getting addicted to Oxycotin sold as candy marketed to kids in the candy section at stores, tell your kids not to buy it. There's no reason 'Oxy' with cute cartoon Oxen attracting children to try it shouldn't be allowed. Same with 'starter cigarettes'.

It's not up to everyone else to properly parent your children.

 

[Excast]

If you don't want your child getting addicted to Oxycotin sold as candy marketed to kids in the candy section at stores, tell your kids not to buy it. There's no reason 'Oxy' with cute cartoon Oxen attracting children to try it shouldn't be allowed. Same with 'starter cigarettes'.

It's not up to everyone else to properly parent your children.

That is a bit hyperbolic.

We can't protect everyone from the consequences of their bad choices without making the world a very dull, sanitized place to live.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Yes it is a stupid law but you have embarrassed yourself with partisan hackery because a Democrat is just a responsible for the bill

Assembly Bill 2408, or the Social Media Platform Duty to Children Act, was introduced by Republican Jordan Cunningham of Paso Robles and Democrat Buffy Wicks of Oakland

California bill would let parents sue social media companies for addicting kids

A bipartisan bill in the Assembly would make social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram liable for getting young users addicted.

www.latimes.com

Go back to obsessing about pedophiles, that's rather telling in itself if you ask me, because you have no business in adult conversation. You are dismissed, good day.

LOL, what a joke of a projection> it's you right wingers obsessed with calling everybody pedophiles, all you do is be a partisan hack, in every moronic post of yours, including this thread'. Unlike your partisan hackery, democrats would not blindly defend and deflect from a stupid law put into place by a democrat.

Nobody gives a shit what you right wingers have to say, your personal attacks are a badge of honor because you people have no credibility.

If you are going to troll, at least put some effort into it, this is just embarrassing

 

[Craig234]

That is a bit hyperbolic.

Not really. That's the response of a person who hasn't thought he issue through and realized how their logic applies. There was a time that limiting cigarette companies from marketing designed to attract kids was seen as 'hyperbolic' also, before people came to better understand why it was a good idea. My point was that your logic supports what I said.

We can't protect everyone from the consequences of their bad choices without making the world a very dull, sanitized place to live.

You don't recognize the irony if social media companies make the 'bad choice' to design their product intentionally as addictive, and there are consequences to them for doing so. Don't you miss all those good cigarette ads like the Marlboro Man, and how much benefit there was to their sponsoring good shows? Sanitized place without them.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Not true. The $1.9B American Rescue Plan passed with no republicant Senate votes.

Yeah, but for the most part nothing gets done without bipartisan support.

 

[mrjurrs]

Do you really not understand that if a parent is paying it is well within the ability of a parent to control their kids phone usage. Even if that kid doesn’t agree to be controlled. The opposite of what you claim.

I don't claim anything, I know. Sure a parent can stop paying a cell phone bill. Nice way to prepare your child to go off into the world.

If you think taking a kids phone away is going to do anything but make the kid more devious I've got some oceanfront property in AZ you might be interested in.

Too many parents think that their age and pocketbook give them 'control' over their children. Guess what, they'll be adults way longer than they are your kids. Enjoy your old age, do you think your kids will want to visit you, or do they think you are you still trying to control them?

 

[Craig234]

It's a good idea to learn a bit about both sides of the issue. Here's some info many are not aware of.

How Instagram and Facebook are intentionally designed to mimic addictive painkillers

Americans check their phones 262 times a day on average. Much of this time is spent on social media apps like Facebook and Instagram.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[braindrain]

I don't claim anything, I know. Sure a parent can stop paying a cell phone bill. Nice way to prepare your child to go off into the world.

If you think taking a kids phone away is going to do anything but make the kid more devious I've got some oceanfront property in AZ you might be interested in.

Too many parents think that their age and pocketbook give them 'control' over their children. Guess what, they'll be adults way longer than they are your kids. Enjoy your old age, do you think your kids will want to visit you, or do they think you are you still trying to control them?

You don’t have to stop paying a cell phone bill to control what they do on social media. There are plenty of options.
There are phones plans that have limited data. There are apps that limit phone use time or you can only give them access to their phones at limited times.

Funny how I control what my teenager does just fine and he is not devious at all. And guess what if you raise your kids correctly when they are older they will realize that you did what is in the best interest and you will have a good relationship with them.

But I get it that parenting can be hard and some people just want to avoid their responsibility.

The fact that you think a parents job is not about having a certain amount of control over their kids doesn’t give me much hope for any kids you may have.