#AB 1949

[botgal]

Fantastic news everyone!

Governor Gavin Newsom has officially vetoed AB 1949!!

SB 976 may have made it through this year, but I hope everyone is extremely proud of themselves!! Over the course of this year, Californians have seen a total of four dangerous internet bills stricken down! And everyone who gave their best efforts to help with calls and writing to their politicians should be proud! And with September coming to an end, California closes out the legislative year.

Of course, now focus should shift from these state bills to fully put our voices out against bills like KOSA, the EARN IT act, efforts to sunset Section 230, and others.

But for the moment, thanks to every one of you!

[botgal]

Very anxious and terrified to hear about Newsom signing the bill as someone who lives in California, yet somewhat relieved it won’t go into effect until 2027. Anything on AB 1949?

I understand. Hopefully the ruling and enforcement will be reasonable and possibly stop using it altogether when it proves too difficult to enforce safely, or that the courts will end up doing away with it. Or that another politician will make another measure to do away with it. I understand the stress, but please don't give up hope yet.

As for AB 1949, no, no word on signing or veto yet. But I'm keeping an eye out.

[botgal]

Is there a another voting on AB 1949 and SB 976 when going to Governor's desk? If so, when is the voting for both?

No. At that point it's only either Governor Newsom signs them or not. There will be no further votes on either, and I can't find any information as to when he'll assign his signatures or vetos. So it's best to just keep calling and messaging him to get your opinion in until we hear otherwise.

[botgal]

I’m genuinely so scared for the California bills as someone who lives in California as tumblr and other places on the internet are a safe place for me, I’m trying not to panic but I don’t know what else to really think of right now, I’m trying to think of some positives but with the information you’ve given me it’s not looking good so far and I’m very scared right now

I understand the unease. But please know that even if these bills pass in the coming month, it's not an immediate end to the internet as we know it.

If nothing else will make you feel better, know that these bills have already been changed vastly from when they were first introduced. AB 1949 is now essentially the same law we have now except pushed up a couple years, with the standard being that the sites must KNOW if a user is under 18 to be held liable, which will help mitigate extra restrictions. Rather than the more dangerous stance of them being able to "reasonably guess" the users ages.

And while SB 976 is going forward with not as many amendments as we would've liked, it will not come into effect until 2027, and is already on the radar of groups like the ACLU and Netchoice. Who can fight it in court on First Amendment arguments considering it's link to age verification. Especially since a noted part of it's basis for it is on the California Age Appropriate Design Code Act. Which at present is being held in injunction by the Ninth Circuit court.

We don't want these bills to pass. But if they do, it's not the end of the fight on them and what they represent. (If it helps, the bill author is also leaving open the possibility to add a cleanup followup bill to specify things later down the line. But we will focus on whether to stop that or to push for certain amendments depending on what the contents are when the time comes.)

Remember, these are only two of five or six bills of this nature that managed to push through to this stage! And have been amended a lot since their original, far worse incarnations. And we're only at this point where these two lesser versions of the bills are the only ones to worry about because of everyone calling and writing and making noise about them to draw the attention of bigger institutions that can fight them in the future.

There will always be a fight. But what's important is we not let despair take us over.

Let yourself be scared. It's natural to be. But please breathe and be assured that the fear does not need to mean an instant loss. Call your reps. Vote in elections to get people who represent your interests. It's only over when you stop trying.

[botgal]

CA Internet Bills as of 9/1/2024

Hello fellow Californians.

It's my unfortunate news to share that AB 1949 and SB 976 have both been passed from the second houses and are on their way to the Governor's desk.

We are one step closer, but the fight is still not over. We have one last chance to stop this before we must leave it to any future legal cases.

Now is the time to contact the Governor. Please call or message Governor Gavin Newsom, and voice your opposition to both bills and the desire for him to veto both bills when they reach his desk.

Thank you for all your help so far in fighting these bills. No matter what happens with these, please remember that our efforts have gotten several others stopped before they could make it this far. No matter what happens from here on out, your voices and your efforts are what have helped us to this point. And it's what will continue to help us, no matter what happens with these bills

[botgal]

for the California bills is there a high chance of it passing before august ends??

Unfortunately I can't really say that I know. That comes down to a variety of factors. There are a lot of bills for them to get through in only 2 weeks, even if they have the full 2 weeks. And the major bills going through will still need both second and third readings before they can be passed. But ultimately what it will come down to is what the politicians think of the bills and which way they'll cast their vote.

So the best thing I can say for now is to keep an eye on those bills, and to keep messaging, calling, or leaving voicemails to your reps and possibly the Governor as well. No effort no matter how small can hurt.

And thanks again to anyone who does so

[botgal]

CA Internet Bills update as of 8/16/24

Hello again to Legislative-minded Californians of Tumblr. Here are the most recent updates on the big 3 of California's internet bills. Suspense Day was yesterday, 8/15/2024. Which means that the bills that didn't make it through are dead for this legislative session, and the ones that passed will continue on to second and then third readings. After which those that pass this will go through to the Governor, where he will have a month to decide whether to pass, veto, or allow to pass without signing.

Resources:

Assembly Suspense File Hearing Results

Senate Suspense File Hearing Results

Find your California State Reps

SB 976 (Social Media Addiction Act): Passed with amendment. Current course of action, call your local Assembly member to urge them to vote NO on this bill. Can focus on fears of data breaches (for both parties), and can add in things about potential dangers of holding back internet access from LGBT+ youths for whom internet access has improved their lives, and that the kind of restrictions this bill wants to place on this could do more harm than good. Especially since it would essentially mandate age verification to function.

AB 1949 (law on collecting information on individuals under 18: Passed without amendment. Current course of action, much the same as the last one. Talk about the potential dangers that this bill would, especially because even without directly saying it, this would still more or less require invasive age verification. Call your CA senate member to urge them to vote NO on this bill.

AB 3080 (age verification for adult websites): Has been held in committee and under submission. Which means that the bill is essentially dead on arrival! And in no small thanks to everyone who would've been calling or messaging about this bill.

Thank you to everyone in California who's been doing your best to help push back against these bills. Bills that don't pass by the end of August will be dead for the rest of the year, and we'll be free of them unless the author tries to push them again the next year. We're in the home stretch, and I hope that when we get to the other side we will have done our best no matter the outcome.

Thank you again, and best of luck to all of us and our efforts!

[botgal]

California Internet Bills Status 8/9/2024

As of right now, here's the status of the three primary internet bills of note.

AB 3080, age verification for nsfw websites. Currently has been improved its terms so that metadata and other methods to better filtering as parental controls is allowed as an option rather than always age verification via ID and credit card transactions. However, it's best to still nip this one in the bud if possible. So I'd still recommend messaging your reps about it.

This bill went through second reading, but has been re-referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The hearing is scheduled for August 12th. You can find your members in the link below. So best to call them before that date if they're a part of the committee.

AB 1949, surrounding collecting personal data of those less than 18 years of age with risks of age verification due to broad language, has been sent to the Senate Suspense File and is awaiting the vote. There's no set date on the Senate website for it, but the Assembly Suspense date is listed as August 15th, so best assumption for now is that it will be on the same day. So call your Senate reps for these as well if they're a part of the Appropriations Committee (see the link above).

Lastly, SB 976, regarding age restricting "addictive" algorithms and time restricting access to social media platforms for individuals under 18. Very likely leading to age verification. Has been placed on the Assembly Suspense file for August 15th. If you have tim please call your Assembly member if they're a part of the Appropriations committee as listed below.

Thank you again for taking your time to voice your opinions and help keep our internet safe.

[botgal]

California Internet Bills Update 8/1/2024

A heads-up for everyone, all three of the major internet bills in California currently have dates before they proceed.

AB 3080, the major age verification bill for access to adult sites is set for its second reading on the CA Senate floor on this coming Monday's meeting 8/5/2024. This will not be the final vote, if it passes this second reading then it will have a vote at the third reading before going to the Governor to pass, veto, or allow to pass without signature. Current Recommended Action: call your CA Senators to voice your opposition, and call/write Governor Newsom's office in advance in the event that this bill passes through the Senate after the coming third reading.

AB 1949, the bill regarding collection and sale of data from those under 18 if the website has knowledge of their age, is set to go through the CA Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday 8/5/2024. If it passes through then it'll go to the Senate floor. Current Recommended Action: check to see if your CA Senator is a member of the committee, and call their offices to voice your opposition to this bill.

And lastly SB 976, the bill which intends to keep "addictive" social media feeds away from young users and set up systems to prevent notifications during certain hours as well as create systems where "verified" parental figures may step in and give permissions to them to access these feeds, as well as deny "addictive" feeds by default if it hasn't "reasonably determined" that the user is not a minor by 2027, will be heading to the CA Assembly Appropriations committee on Wednesday 8/7/2024. If it passes, then it will go to the Assembly floor. Current Recommended Action: check to see if your CA Assembly member is a member of the committee, and call their offices to voice your opposition to this bill.

Thank you for your hard work and everyone using your voices. Now that KOSA has thankfully been benched for the moment, I hope to ask all California users to spread this around and use your voices to keep these bills away from well-reasoned Californians at the state level as well as federal.

[botgal]

California Bill Reminders

Just a reminder that on August 5th, 2024 when the Assembly reconvenes from summer recess, the Senate Appropriations Committee is set to have a bill hearing where it will discuss and vote on various bills to decide if they'll make it to the floor. Among them is AB 1949, "California Consumer Privacy Act of 2020: collection of personal information of a consumer less than 18 years of age". I recommend going to the Senate Appropriations Committee website and submitting a Letter of Opposition if you haven't already. The deadline to do so will be on July 29th at noon PST, one week before the committee meeting. It's also a good idea especially to call or email your own District's Senators if they're members of the Committee

You can send a Letter of Opposition through the advocacy portal which is linked to the Committee's homepage here.

And here's a list of Committee Members, so go ahead and check if one of yours is there.

As for the other major bills.

SB 976 (Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act) is set to go through the Assembly Appropriations Committee, but there's currently no date set for when that committee will meet. But even so, you can always send your Position Letters and comments to the committee early through the advocacy portal. So go ahead and do so here.

As for the biggest one, AB 3080 (Age Verification for online purchases and adult content bill), that one is set to go on the floor without going through another committee, but there are no set dates for when it'll be voted on at this time. So your best bet will be to call or email your Senators now to tell them firmly that you want them to vote NO on AB 3080 for all the dangers it could pose to online privacy and safety.

That's all for now. Thanks for taking the time to read.

[botgal]

CA Internet Bills Status as of 7/17/2024

I had wanted to wait to make this post until all of the bills updated texts had been uploaded to the usual sites, but it appears what whoever's supposed to be updating AB 3080 has been lagging, so I'll just go with what I have for now. It'll be long as I'll be looking at their statuses and analyzing their updated texts so I'll put it under a cut for now.

A reminder that California's legislature is currently on recess and will be until August 5th. So no immediately imminent bills at this exact moments. But please read below the cut to get more information on the deadlines coming up.

When I last posted, all three of the bills had gone into review in their respective committees and sadly all of them passed out.

AB 3080: 11 Aye - 0 Nay

AB 1949: 11 Aye - 0 Nay

SB 976: 7 Aye - 4 No Vote

All three bills have been amended during their time in committees.

Ab 3080

AB 3080 was amended and passed from committee as amended, it is now available for a floor vote. This is the only one of the three bills where its amended text hasn't been posted anywhere I can find. However, in the analysis of the July 3rd meeting, there were acknowledgements made that not only is there no effective and safe way to verify age to view online content, but also that the existence of VPNs can circumvent any attempts to region lock sites designated as "adult" (the definition as it stands still appears to be limited to commercial websites where more than 1/3 of their content annually is sexually explicit). And that the methods to implement such a thing on commercial and non-commercial websites alike can be prohibitively expensive. So the author of the bill agreed to amendments in the bill as such according to the analysis:

"In response to the concerns of opposition, the author has agreed to amendments that allow a less restrictive means to suffice in meeting the obligation of the bill, mitigating the impact on protected speech and expression. The amendments provide that “reasonable steps” includes the business implementing a system that includes metadata or response headers identifying the product as sexually explicit to parental control software, embedded hardware applications, and other similar services designed to block, filter, monitor or otherwise prevent a minor’s access to inappropriate online content, or that blocks users designated as minors by the operating system of the device used to access the website. It also limits enforcement of this new cause of action to the Attorney General and requires the Attorney General to promulgate regulations to provide better direction for reasonable steps to verify age in addition to those listed."

So it appears that the bill may allow more websites instead to mark themselves or certain portions of their content as adult in order to be properly vetted by in-device content filters and parental controls that can be set by the device operators (or their parents in the case of minors), rather than a method that would require users to provide identification.

It's eased up quite a bit since its initial incarnation. But it's still better safe than sorry with this kind of bill, so Californians let's still push the state senators to veto this bill completely.

Organizations in support of this bill:

Organizations in opposition to this bill:

AB 1949

AB 1949 was amended and passed from committee as amended, and is currently referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

This one has also seen some fairly positive changes during this committee analysis as can be seen in the latest version of the bill. The latest version has removed any indications towards age verification. As well as it having changed several of its details. The bill only comes into effect and prevents the sale of data if the website has actual knowledge of the users' age, and that there shall be an option for the user to transmit a signal that they are under 18 for this purpose. Which again should help the argument against strict age verification barriers due to advertising purposes.

"a business shall not use or disclose the personal information of a consumer if the business has actual knowledge that the consumer is less than 18 years of age, unless the consumer, in the case of a consumer at least 13 years of age and less than 18 years of age, or the consumer’s parent or guardian, in the case of a consumer less than 13 years of age, has affirmatively authorized the use or disclosure of the consumer’s personal information."

"A business shall treat a consumer as under 18 years of age if the consumer, through a platform, technology, or mechanism, transmits a signal indicating that the consumer is less than 18 years of age."

But, once again, it is best to still work against this bill and prevent its passing at all in case it there's push to use it as a stepping stone for any bills which may further push an age verification agenda.

Organizations in support of this bill:

Organizations in opposition of this bill:

SB 976

This bill passed with amendments and is currently referred to the California Assembly Appropriations Committee. Unfortunately no major changes have been made. Only an amendment clarifying that any parental controls are only meant to limit access to "addictive feeds" and limit access to school hours, not any of the content. As this function still requires a "verified adult parent to a minor", this still holds open the door to potential future age verification dangers. As it still states that an application may choose to withhold services to minors altogether, and explicitly leaves open the possibility to allow provisions for age "assurance". So we definitely want to strike this one down if we can.

Organizations in support of this bill:

Organizations in opposition to this bill:

As of this moment, the California Legislature is out on recess until August 5.

The Senate Appropriations Committee (AB 1949) is set to meet on August 5, no word on whether it will be heard that day or on the next set hearing, August 12. So if you wish to send a position letter to the committee it would be best to do so a week before that date, so by July 29. Just to be safe.

No word on when the Assembly Appropriations Committee is set to meet, but the deadline for fiscal committees to pass bills through is August 16, so I expect that SB 976 will be heard before that day at least.

And AB 3080 is set to go to the senate floor rather than be seen by another committee before being read. No word on when the next bill readings will be on the assembly floor after it's reconvened August 5th, but I'll keep an ear to the ground for that.

The last day for each house to pass their bills for the year will be August 31st. So any bills we can stop before then are halted for good for the year.

And for any bills that do slip through, the last day for the governor to sign, let pass without signing, or veto bills is September 30th. So even if the bills pass from the floor to his desk, there's still time to send him messages to urge him to oppose any that slip through.

Thank you for your time, both in reading this and in taking the time to help us fight these bills.

[botgal]

Just a reminder. This coming Tuesday 7/2/24 is when the big internet bills for California will be seen by their respective Committees for markup.

SB 976 will be looked over by the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committees, and AB 3080 and AB 1949 will be looked over by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The time to send position letters has passed, but there's still time to call and email your assembly reps and state senators who are members of each committee to give them your opposition towards these bills and why. So make these last couple days count. Check to see if your reps are members of these committees, and tell them why you're opposed to them passing. (Most especially for these you can bring up the issue of the recent data breach of Twitter/X's age verification method just this past week to show why anything to do with age or ID verifidation is a bad idea.)

Thank you for your efforts everyone! May we show them exactly why we're in opposition and for good reason!

Find your CA state Assembly and Senate representatives

https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

CA Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee Members

CA Senate Judiciary Committee Members

[botgal]

oh and which sites will be affected ofc

AB 3080, according to the bill's text, would affect websites which sells the types of items listed below

"

(b) Products or services that are illegal to sell to a minor under state law that are subject to subdivision (a) include all of the following:

(1) An aerosol container of paint that is capable of defacing property, as referenced in Section 594.1 of the Penal Code.

(2) Etching cream that is capable of defacing property, as referenced in Section 594.1 of the Penal Code.

(3) Dangerous fireworks, as referenced in Sections 12505 and 12689 of the Health and Safety Code.

(4) Tanning in an ultraviolet tanning device, as referenced in Sections 22702 and 22706 of the Business and Professions Code.

(5) Dietary supplement products containing ephedrine group alkaloids, as referenced in Section 110423.2 of the Health and Safety Code.

(6) Body branding, as referenced in Sections 119301 and 119302 of the Health and Safety Code.

(c) Products or services that are illegal to sell to a minor under state law that are subject to subdivision (a) include all of the following:

(1) Firearms or handguns, as referenced in Sections 16520, 16640, and 27505 of the Penal Code.

(2) A BB device, as referenced in Sections 16250 and 19910 of the Penal Code.

(3) Ammunition or reloaded ammunition, as referenced in Sections 16150 and 30300 of the Penal Code.

(4) Any tobacco, cigarette, cigarette papers, blunt wraps, any other preparation of tobacco, any other instrument or paraphernalia that is designed for the smoking or ingestion of tobacco, products prepared from tobacco, or any controlled substance, as referenced in Division 8.5 (commencing with Section 22950) of the Business and Professions Code, and Sections 308, 308.1, 308.2, and 308.3 of the Penal Code.

(5) Electronic cigarettes, as referenced in Section 119406 of the Health and Safety Code.

(6) A less lethal weapon, as referenced in Sections 16780 and 19405 of the Penal Code."

This is stated explicitly to include "internet website on which the owner of the internet website, for commercial gain, knowingly publishes sexually explicit content that, on an annual basis, exceeds one-third of the contents published on the internet website". Wherein "sexually explicit content" is defined as "visual imagery of an individual or individuals engaging in an act of masturbation, sexual intercourse, oral copulation, or other overtly sexual conduct that, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

This would likely not include websites like AO3 or any website which displays NSFW content not in excess of 1/3 of the content on the site. Possibly not inclusive of writing because of the "visual imagery", but don't know at this time. In any case we don't want to set a precedent off of which it could springboard into non-commercial websites or any and all places with NSFW content.

AB 1949 is a lot more broad because it's about general data collection by any and all websites in which they might sell personal data collected by the website to third parties, especially if aimed specifically at minors or has a high chance of minors commonly accesses the site. But with how broad the language is I can't say there would be ANY limits to this one. So both are equally bad and would require equal attention in my opinion.

[botgal]

Your post about ab3080 and ab1949 are great, but could you add a blurb quickly explaining why both of these bills are bad please ? might be useful and encourage people to reblog if they understand whats at stake

Both bills are essentially age verification requirement laws. AB 3080 explicitly, and AB 1949 implicitly.

AB 3080 strictly is calling for dangerous age verification requirements for both adult websites and any website which sells products or services which it is illegal for minors to access in California. While this may sound like a good idea on paper, it's important to keep in mind that any information that's put online is at risk of being extracted and used by bad actors like hackers. Even if there are additional requirements by the law that data be deleted after its used for its intended purpose and that it not be used to trace what websites people access. The former of which provides very little protection from people who could access the databases of identification that are used for verification, and the latter which is frankly impossible to completely enforce and could at any time reasonably be used by the government or any surveying entity to see what private citizens have been looking at since their ID would be linked to the access and not anonymized.

AB 1949 is nominally to protect children from having their data collected and sold without permission on websites. However by restricting this with an age limit it opens up similar issues wherein it could cause default requirements for age verification for any website so that they can avoid liability by users and the state.

[botgal]

Update on AB 3080 and AB 1949

AB 3080 (age verification for adult websites and online purchase of products and services not allowed for minors) and AB 1949 (prohibiting data collection on individuals less than 18 years of age) both officially have hearing dates for the California Senate Judiciary Committee.

The hearing date for these bills is scheduled to be Tuesday 07/02/2024. Which means that the deadline to turn in position letters is going to be noon one week before the hearing on 06/25/2024. It's not a lot of time from this moment, but I'm certain we can each turn one in before then

Remember that position letters should be single topic, in strict opposition of what each bill entails. Keep on topic and professional when writing them. Let us all do our best to keep these bills from leaving committee so that we don't have to fight them on the Senate floor. But let's also not stop sending correspondence to our state representatives anyway.

Remember, the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee is as follows.

"Bills amending the Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Evidence Code, Family Code, and Probate Code. Bills relating to courts, judges, and court personnel. Bills relating to liens, claims, and unclaimed property. Bills relating to privacy and consumer protection."

Best of luck everyone. And thank you for your efforts to fight this so far.

Below is linked the latest versions of the bills.

Below are the links to the Committee's homepage which gives further information about the Judiciary Committee, and the page explaining further in depth their letter policy.

Edit: Was requested to add in information such as why these bills are bad and what sites could potentially be affected by these bills. So here's the explanation I gave in asks.

Why are these bills bad?

Both bills are essentially age verification requirement laws. AB 3080 explicitly, and AB 1949 implicitly.

AB 3080 strictly is calling for dangerous age verification requirements for both adult websites and any website which sells products or services which it is illegal for minors to access in California. While this may sound like a good idea on paper, it's important to keep in mind that any information that's put online is at risk of being extracted and used by bad actors like hackers. Even if there are additional requirements by the law that data be deleted after its used for its intended purpose and that it not be used to trace what websites people access. The former of which provides very little protection from people who could access the databases of identification that are used for verification, and the latter which is frankly impossible to completely enforce and could at any time reasonably be used by the government or any surveying entity to see what private citizens have been looking at since their ID would be linked to the access and not anonymized.

AB 1949 is nominally to protect children from having their data collected and sold without permission on websites. However by restricting this with an age limit it opens up similar issues wherein it could cause default requirements for age verification for any website so that they can avoid liability by users and the state.

What websites could they affect?

AB 3080, according to the bill's text, would affect websites which sells the types of items listed below

"

(b) Products or services that are illegal to sell to a minor under state law that are subject to subdivision (a) include all of the following:

(1) An aerosol container of paint that is capable of defacing property, as referenced in Section 594.1 of the Penal Code.

(2) Etching cream that is capable of defacing property, as referenced in Section 594.1 of the Penal Code.

(3) Dangerous fireworks, as referenced in Sections 12505 and 12689 of the Health and Safety Code.

(4) Tanning in an ultraviolet tanning device, as referenced in Sections 22702 and 22706 of the Business and Professions Code.

(5) Dietary supplement products containing ephedrine group alkaloids, as referenced in Section 110423.2 of the Health and Safety Code.

(6) Body branding, as referenced in Sections 119301 and 119302 of the Health and Safety Code.

(c) Products or services that are illegal to sell to a minor under state law that are subject to subdivision (a) include all of the following:

(1) Firearms or handguns, as referenced in Sections 16520, 16640, and 27505 of the Penal Code.

(2) A BB device, as referenced in Sections 16250 and 19910 of the Penal Code.

(3) Ammunition or reloaded ammunition, as referenced in Sections 16150 and 30300 of the Penal Code.

(4) Any tobacco, cigarette, cigarette papers, blunt wraps, any other preparation of tobacco, any other instrument or paraphernalia that is designed for the smoking or ingestion of tobacco, products prepared from tobacco, or any controlled substance, as referenced in Division 8.5 (commencing with Section 22950) of the Business and Professions Code, and Sections 308, 308.1, 308.2, and 308.3 of the Penal Code.

(5) Electronic cigarettes, as referenced in Section 119406 of the Health and Safety Code.

(6) A less lethal weapon, as referenced in Sections 16780 and 19405 of the Penal Code."

This is stated explicitly to include "internet website on which the owner of the internet website, for commercial gain, knowingly publishes sexually explicit content that, on an annual basis, exceeds one-third of the contents published on the internet website". Wherein "sexually explicit content" is defined as "visual imagery of an individual or individuals engaging in an act of masturbation, sexual intercourse, oral copulation, or other overtly sexual conduct that, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

This would likely not include websites like AO3 or any website which displays NSFW content not in excess of 1/3 of the content on the site. Possibly not inclusive of writing because of the "visual imagery", but don't know at this time. In any case we don't want to set a precedent off of which it could springboard into non-commercial websites or any and all places with NSFW content.

AB 1949 is a lot more broad because it's about general data collection by any and all websites in which they might sell personal data collected by the website to third parties, especially if aimed specifically at minors or has a high chance of minors commonly accesses the site. But with how broad the language is I can't say there would be ANY limits to this one. So both are equally bad and would require equal attention in my opinion.

[botgal]

SB 976 Update

Update for Californians following the progression of CA SB 976 "Protecting our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act".

As of 6/3/2024 the bill has been referred to the California Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protections.

As of today, 6/5/2024, there is no set hearing day for the bill. So now would be the time to write and submit letters of opposition for this bill. Which you can do here.

As stated on the Committee's website, its responsibilities are as follows:

"The jurisdiction of the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee spans a wide range of technology-related issues, and includes matters affecting consumer protection in both the digital and analog worlds. Specifically, the Committee has jurisdiction over matters related to privacy, the protection of personal information (including digital information), the security of data, and information technology, as well as false advertising, charitable solicitations, weights and measures, and consumer protection generally. The Committee is also responsible for oversight of the Department of Technology within the State's Government Operations Agency."

So it would be best to focus your letters around topics related to this for this bill.

Please remember that if you do send a letter of opposition, make it a firm 'no' and give reasons why you are against this bill. Do not give caveats or make statements such as "you would support if if X would change". Hard yes or no letters. These will become held as public record and may be used in committee hearings, so please word your statements professionally and refrain from inflammatory statements about any of the authors. We wish our position of opposition to be respected and heard clearly by the committee to know that California's citizens do not want what this bill could bring to us.

The deadline to submit any position letters is noon on the Tuesday prior to a committee hearing. So keep an eye out for those dates.

For a brief update on AB 3080 and AB 1949, both bills remain in the Senate Judiciary Committee and have yet to be given a hearing date. So continue sending your letters of opposition to that committee there as well.

And please continue sending your positions to your State Senators and State Assembly Representatives, who you can find here.

Thank you again for your time and effort put into keeping California's internet safe and free.