California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Radical Anti-Internet Policy

from the well,-there-goes-the-neighborhood dept

Thu, Sep 15th 2022 12:55pm – Mike Masnick

This isn’t a surprise, but it’s still frustrating. Gavin Newsom, who wants to be President some day, and thus couldn’t risk misleading headlines that he didn’t “protect the children,” has now signed AB 2273 into law (this follows on yesterday’s decision to sign the bad, but slightly less destructive, AB 587 into law). At this point there’s not much more I can say about why AB 2273 is so bad. I’ve explained why it’s literally impossible to comply with (and why many sites will just ignore it). I’ve explained how it’s pretty clearly unconstitutional. I’ve explained how the whole idea was pushed for and literally sponsored by a Hollywood director / British baroness who wants to destroy the internet. I’ve explained how it won’t do much, if anything, to protect children, but will likely put them at much greater risk. I’ve explained how the company it will likely benefit most is the world’s largest porn company not to mention COVID disinfo peddlers and privacy lawyers. I’ve explained how the companies supporting the law insist that we shouldn’t worry because websites will just start scanning your face when you visit.

Gavin Newsom Fucks Over The Open Internet, Signs Disastrously Stupid Age Appropriate Design Code

Related:

California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Radical Anti-Internet Policy

Techbro Influencer Scott Galloway Heads To The Fainting Couch Over TikTok

Techbro Influencer Scott Galloway Heads To The Fainting Couch Over TikTok

This week, Galloway spent his time pushing the hot DC claim du jour: that TikTok is a profound menace to the planet and should be banned. He made the point at the Vox Code conference, then hopped over to Bill Maher’s HBO show to make a similar pronouncement:

Actual evidence of TikTok being uniquely dangerous (especially any indication China has used or could use TikTok to bedazzle U.S. children) has been sorely lacking, but that doesn’t stop folks from heading to the fainting couches. This face fanning has been especially popular among a certain set of xenophobic DC politicians, and companies that don’t want to have to directly compete with China.

The problem: the U.S. is a corrupt, xenophobic, superficial dumpster fire, so most of the “solutions” to this potential problem have been stupid and performative.

Here’s the thing: you could ban TikTok immediately, and China could hoover up location, browsing, and behavior data from an ocean of completely unaccountable and hugely shady data brokers and middlemen. And they can do that because U.S. privacy and security standards are hot garbage. And in some instances, they’re hot garbage because of the same people now complaining about TikTok.

Both Carr and Cruz have extensive histories of undermining regulatory oversight and privacy rules at absolutely every opportunity, yet both are lauded by Galloway in a blog post for being heroic leaders in the “ban TikTok” crusades. Galloway’s a top pundit, yet somehow can’t see that Carr and Cruz are engaged in a zero-calorie xenophobic theatrics, and couldn’t care less about actual consumer privacy.

For literally thirty straight years, at absolutely every single turn, we prioritized making money over transparency or consumer privacy. As a result, consumer privacy protections are garbage, regulators are toothless, governments exploit the attention economy to avoid having to get warrants, and any idiot with a nickel can easily build gigantic, hugely detailed profiles about your everyday life without your consent.

“Banning TikTok” does nothing meaningful if you’re genuinely interested in meaningful surveillance and privacy reform. There will always be another TikTok. There’s an ocean of companies engaging in the same or worse behavior as TikTok because we’ve sanctioned this kind of guardrail-optional hyper-collection and monetization of consumer behavioral data at every step of the way.

Many of the folks beating the “ban TikTok” drum may be well intentioned but just don’t really understand how broken the consumer privacy landscape is. They may not understand that this is a problem that’s exponentially more complicated than just what we do with a single app. Freaking out exclusively about a single app tells me you either don’t really understand the data-hoovering monster we’ve built, or don’t really care if anybody other than China exploits it (waves tiny American flag patriotically).

Many of the other folks calling for a TikTok ban aren’t operating in good faith. Facebook/Meta, for example, spends a lot of time spreading scary stories about TikTok in the press and DC because they want to crush a competitive threat they’ve been incapable of out-innovating. Similar, Politico’s owner is on the Netflix board and simply wants to curtail what he sees as a threat to market and advertising mindshare.

Then there’s just a ton of Silicon Valley folks who believe they inherently own and deserve the advertising market share TikTok occupies. And then of course there’s just a whole bunch of rank bigots who are mad because darker skinned human beings built a popular app, and try to hide this bigotry behind patriotic, pseudo national security concerns.

All of this converges to create a stupid, soupy mess that’s devoid of any actual fixes to any actual problems. Hyper surveillance and propaganda are very real problems that require a dizzying array of complicated fixes, including media and privacy policy reform, antitrust reform, tougher consumer protection standards, education reform, and a meaningful privacy law for the internet era.

Previously:

The NATO to TikTok Pipeline: Why is TikTok Employing So Many National Security Agents?

The White House is briefing TikTok stars about the war in Ukraine

UK uses TikTok influencers to urge teens to get jab after Pfizer-linked vaccine committee chair admits policy lacks evidence + White House enlists army of social media influencers to promote COVID-19 vaccines

No, There Is No ‘Purge Law’ In Illinois. Here Are The Facts About Ending Cash Bail

There is no “Purge Law” in Chicago—what there is, is a concerted effort to prevent landmark bail reform that’ll prevent countless Black and brown people from being held in jail without a trial for no other reason than they’re poor by spreading lies and copaganda to the public.

Video clip originally from Olayemi Olurin

Related:

No, There Is No ‘Purge Law’ In Illinois. Here Are The Facts About Ending Cash Bail

Viral TikToks and other social media posts are wrong about an Illinois law eliminating cash bail. Judges will still be able to detain people who pose a threat to the community or a flight risk.

The Supreme Court Already Explained Why California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Unconstitutional

from the must-we-always-relive-the-past? dept

Fri, Sep 2nd 2022 09:40am – Mike Masnick

In July of 1995, Time Magazine published one of its most regrettable stories ever. The cover just read “CYBERPORN” with the subhead reading: “EXCLUSIVE A new study shows how pervasive and wild it really is. Can we protect our kidsand free speech?” The author of that piece, Philip Elmer-Dewitt later admitted that it was his “worst” story “by far.”

The Supreme Court Already Explained Why California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Unconstitutional

Previously:

Why Is A British Baroness Drafting California Censorship Laws?

Why Is A British Baroness Drafting California Censorship Laws?

Would you be surprised to find out that the censorial, moral panic bill based on hype and nonsense, but very likely to pass in California and potentially change how the internet functions… was actually written by a British noble with a savior complex?

Why Is A British Baroness Drafting California Censorship Laws?

Sounds like more censorship and narrative control! Not to mention, privacy rights violations!

Related:

Read More »

When Abortion Was Illegal, Adoption Was a Cruel Industry. Are We Returning to Those Days?

by Pema Levy

A few weeks ago, before the final decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization which ended the constitutional right to an abortion, I downloaded the audio version of American Baby: A Mother, A Child, and the Shadow History of Adoption by the journalist Gabrielle Glaser. Glaser’s book details the history of what became known as the “Baby Scoop Era,” the period from 1945 to 1973 during which as many as three to four million young, unmarried women surrendered their newborns to an exploitative adoption industry, and for many against their will, were permanently severed from their child.

When Abortion Was Illegal, Adoption Was a Cruel Industry. Are We Returning to Those Days?

Related:

The cruel secret history of a Jewish adoption agency that separated siblings

Woman discovers shocking truth of maternity home where she gave birth