Ships Ahoy

My name is (legal name) I am a (state) constituent, (zip code) and I am calling to urge you to oppose the Kids Online Safety Act.

Even though there have been significant promising changes to the bill, KOSA still fails to address the root issues related to kid’s safety online, and furthermore puts everyone at risk. While I support efforts to protect children online, this bill overreaches in ways that will harm the right to privacy and freedom of speech.

We’ve already seen how poorly this kind of policy plays out abroad. The United Kingdom passed a similar law, the Online Safety Act, which has since faced immense public backlash. A petition calling for its repeal has already surpassed its goal by more than four hundred thousand signatures. The U.S. has an even larger population, if this kind of law sparks that level of concern in the UK, we can expect far greater unrest here.

KOSA would require online platforms to verify the ages of their users, forcing us to hand over sensitive personal information, like government-issued IDs, just to access everyday websites. This kind of data collection creates massive security risks. This information could be exploited for unprecendented levels of identity theft, fraud, and surveillance.

As an adult, I should not be forced to compromise my privacy or safety to use the internet. Age-verification mandates like those in KOSA set a dangerous precedent and open the door to widespread monitoring and censorship under the guise of child protection.

There are better ways to help kids stay safe online without sacrificing the rights and privacy of millions of adults while allowing for the exposure of such sensitive data to malicious hackers.

we'd been hearing rumors about this for a bit but now its open and out there. some details from this article

everyone go enable this immediately. it can be a bit hard to find because “visibility” is under blog settings instead of general settings or privacy. you have to do this individually for each separate side-blog

While it is good that KOSA is now dead in the House (for now) I would like to ask for people's attention on AB1949 and SB976, which could push for Age verification by showing your ID.

There was a third bill named AB3080 that had similar goals, but luckily it received revisions so it is no longer a threat or require ID verification to access websites. So it would be possible to get AB1949 and SB976 to be revised so they aren't dangerous anymore.

You can read the text for AB1949 right here

AB1949 doesn't explicitly ask for ID verification anymore, as it used to, due to a revision, but there is a provision stating if they deem a website "willfully disregards" the age of the user they will be deemed to have actual knowledge of the user's age.

This broad part could be left to abuse, which is why it needs to be revised before passing, in order to confirm ID verification is not required. FIND YOUR REPS HERE!

For AB1949, you can find your Senate representative with the link above as I said, and check to see if they're a member of the CA Senate Appropriations Committee. Then call them to tell them you oppose this bill. Try to add reasons you think this bill would negatively affect California financially because that's what this committee focuses on.

As for SB976, which you can read here

Its goal is to "keep kids off social medias and addictive feeds" But the concerning part is that "it would make it unlawful for the operator of an addictive internet-based service or application, as defined, to provide an addictive feed to a user, unless the operator does not have actual knowledge that the user is a minor; commencing January 1, 2027, has reasonably determined that the user is not a minor; or has obtained verifiable parental consent to provide an addictive feed to the user who is a minor."

How are you supposed to know that you have "verifiable parental consent" without ID and age verification of both parents and child?Even then, holding the ID of a minor feels pretty illegal given how sensitive how an info this is, in case of a data breach (which will happen) this would endanger kids even more, and no one in general want to give their ID to access a website or an app.

The bill would also make it unlawful for a website or app to send notifications to a minor according to a certain timeframe.

For SB976, find your Assembly representative using the link below and check to see if they're a member of the CA Assembly Appropriations Committee. Then call them to tell them you oppose this bill. https://apro.assembly.ca.gov/members

You can tell them how this is terrible for privacy, and the safety of children, and that it would be terrible for the economy of California, as they seem to focus on it. You can try sending faxes for either bills, but calling IS MUCH MORE efficient. https://faxzero.com/

Here is the time schedule, bills must be taken care before the end of August so it is a matter of time crunch:

You may use the following scripts for the respective bills, you can try to trim it if you deem it too long!

The bill itself was amended from what it was last year, however the EFF still finds it a huge risk for online censorship (as well as the ACLU).

This bill is a big-ass gift to conservatives and Christian nationalists btw. Championed by the Heritage foundation, it's going to be critical for the implementation of project 2025 should Trump take office and appoint new commissioners to the FTC (whom of which would be responsible for determining what kind of content is "harmful to children").

As always, bans on access to information are a means of control. The feds do not want you to be educated, nor to have access to/the ability to understand what they are doing and how it will affect you.

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

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

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.

Hello everyone. As of now, California State Senator Skinner's bill SB 976 (Protecting our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act) has been added to the California Assembly's Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection Hearing Schedule.

This bill hearing is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday 7/2/2024 at 1:30 PM.

Information on how to submit Position Letters in opposition to this bill can be found on the Committee's homepage here.

As a reminder, Position Letters should only be in terms of opposition, not opposition unless X part of the bill has been altered. Keep your reasoning solid and concise.

The Committee is specifically focused around "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 keep this in mind when writing your letters for the best chance of convincing this committee against allowing SB 976 to be allowed through.

And here is a link to the most recent version of the bill's text.

The deadline to submit Position Letters is noon one week before the hearing is to be held. So in this case, the deadline is 6/25/2024 at 12:00 PST.

Thank you for taking your time to help us oppose this privacy harming bill, and making efforts to keep our internet safe and free of restriction and surveillance.

EDIT:

There is a more recent version of the bill which was amended on June 18th. No major changes or provisions added that I can see, mostly points made about mental health of teens as reasons for who they want the bill implemented. But you can find the latest version here just in case.

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.

Hello everyone. As of now, California State Senator Skinner's bill SB 976 (Protecting our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act) has been added to the California Assembly's Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection Hearing Schedule.

This bill hearing is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday 7/2/2024 at 1:30 PM.

Information on how to submit Position Letters in opposition to this bill can be found on the Committee's homepage here.

As a reminder, Position Letters should only be in terms of opposition, not opposition unless X part of the bill has been altered. Keep your reasoning solid and concise.

The Committee is specifically focused around "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 keep this in mind when writing your letters for the best chance of convincing this committee against allowing SB 976 to be allowed through.

And here is a link to the most recent version of the bill's text.

The deadline to submit Position Letters is noon one week before the hearing is to be held. So in this case, the deadline is 6/25/2024 at 12:00 PST.

Thank you for taking your time to help us oppose this privacy harming bill, and making efforts to keep our internet safe and free of restriction and surveillance.

EDIT:

There is a more recent version of the bill which was amended on June 18th. No major changes or provisions added that I can see, mostly points made about mental health of teens as reasons for who they want the bill implemented. But you can find the latest version here just in case.

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.

And now, I come to you all with yet one more thing that you can do. Possibly even easier than constantly calling and emailing people. Something that's really quite simple for any adult to do.

Cut the hydra's head and burn the stump for good. This year, we actually have the opportunity to vote some of the biggest sponsors of the bills that pose the greatest danger to our internet out of office. Which could prevent any further attempts to keep popping up their bills over and over again. Including one of the two main backers of KOSA.

Below are a couple of Senators who are up for re-election this very November, and who you have a chance of giving the boot for a chance to salt the earth of at least a couple of these dangerous bills. Or at least make it harder for them to make a comeback.

Senator Marsha Blackburn (Republican - Tennessee) - One of the two major sponsors of the dreaded KOSA.

Senator Ted Cruz (Republican - Texas) - One of the major sponsors of the newer Kids Off Social Media Act that was introduced earlier this month.

Senator Christopher Murphy (Democrat - Connecticut) - One of the main sponsors of the Protecting Kids On Social Media Act.

While getting these three out of office would not fully solve the problem, getting them voted out could give us a fighting chance! So if you or any of your friends, enemies, frenemies, occasional acquaintances, or distant cousins thrice removed live in those states and want to give us a chance to get some of the hottest irons out of the proverbial fire, then keep your eyes on those elections, ensure your voter registration is all up to date, and use what little power we as voting adults have in this crapstorm of a nominally democratic system to get them out of there so we can have a chance to breathe a little easier!

While obviously there may be other considerations for some people when voting certain people out of office, and you may choose for certain people over others due to some issues outweighing others, these are my suggestions to you if you would like to focus on this issue in particular. Do what is best for you, but if the free and private internet is important to you, then I ask you to place some genuine consideration on this.

For anyone living in Tennessee, Texas or Connecticut, You know what to do.

While this law doesn't go specifically as far as the Florida law of outright banning anyone 14 and under from using social media and requiring a form of ID in order to have access to an account within the state, the law does pose troubling potential future legal repercussions.

This bill's primary focus is on the "protection" of young people who use social media from "addictive" features for the sake of their mental health. However, it intends to do this by implementing strict features such as parental controls which would require all minor users to have parental controls overseeing their accounts to limit their access to "addictive" feed features, as well as enforcing time periods where minor users will not receive notifications as well as mandatory time limits on how long minors can access social media that are restricted by the parents.

I need not tell you that this is a dangerous undertaking considering the only way that companies under this regulation could 100% ensure this level of compliance would likely be to follow the same ID verification systems which are feared to come about in Florida within the next year.

So if you live in California and don't want us to fall into the same trap which could strip away social media privacy and rights, I'd urge you to find your state representatives (state senators especially) and urge them to vote NO on CA SB 976, the Social Media Youth Addiction Law.

Source 1

Source 2

California Senate Bill 1228, "Large online platforms: user identity authentication" as proposed by Senator Steve Padilla. While it's supposed purpose is to combat internet misinformation on social media platforms, especially in an election year, its wording implies many nefarious things. This bill does explicitly what Senate Bill 976 threatens to do implicitly.

"SB 1228 would require large online platforms to seek identity verification from users with large audiences or spreading large amounts of AI-generated content. The platform would be required to label the users as “identity authenticated” or “identity unauthenticated” to better inform Californians of the source of information they are consuming, while still allowing users to remain anonymous if they desire. More specifically, it would require users with more than 25,000 followers or who are sharing more than 1,000 pieces of AI-generated content to verify their name, phone number, and email. For users over 100,000 followers or those sharing more than 5,000 pieces of AI-generated content, the platform is required to seek verification of a user’s government issued ID. The bill would also allow users to opt-out of receiving posts from unauthenticated accounts."

Yes you read that correctly. While this bill specifically targets AI generated content and people with large followings, it also specifically calls for government issued ID verification in plain language. Even if this would apply to only a few people with these massive amounts of numbers, we cannot allow this to become a set precedent. If we want to protect online anonymity and a severe overreach of privacy and free speech, then you need to call your representatives and tell them that on no uncertain terms should this bill be allowed to come into California law. What happens here could affect many other places within the country. Do not let our legislators' targeting of social media as a band-aid for proper regulation and preservation of an anonymous and informed internet bring about something that could affect us all, especially as our free speech and ability to use the internet without reservation becomes an increasingly more valuable commodity.

Source 1

Source 2

Additionally, there's an assembly bill which could also have repercussions on our valuable free internet.

California Assembly Bill 1949, the California Children’s Data Privacy Act. Proposed by the trifecta of Attorney General Rob Bonta, Senator Nancy Skinner, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.

"AB 1949 would amend the CCPA to prohibit businesses from collecting, using, sharing, or selling personal data of anyone under the age of 18, unless they receive informed consent or unless doing so is strictly necessary for the purpose of the business. For users under 13, this informed consent must come from a parent. The bill authorizes the Office of the Attorney General to enforce the law and seek injunctive relief, damages, or civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation."

While this bill is less outwardly hostile to internet privacy and rights as the aforementioned two, the focus on determining age and requiring parental consent for an account could be further twisted down the line. If the state wishes to create laws that prevent the collection and sale of user data by online businesses and social media, then it should be done for the population as a whole, not simply focusing on minor users. Don't allow this one to slip under your radar either.

Source 1

Source 2

Remember: CA SB 976, CA SB 1228, and CA AB 1949

Find your representatives

To add another bill to add to your list of call-ins, add on Assembly Bill 3080 "Age verification: obscene and indecent material". As created and sponsored by Republican Assemblymember Juan Alanis of Assembly District 22.

This is an age verification bill specifically made to be like the pornography age verification law that's passed in a few states. It would require an internet website that publishes "obscene or indecent images or videos" to verify the age of each individual attempting to access the material. So, again, users who wish to access commercial websites which specifically host such content to verify the ages of the users by means strictly named such as government ID, driver's license, bank accounts, credit or debit cards, etc.

To note, this so far only covers commercial websites whose primary purpose is to earn profit with the images. But please take note that this law does not only cover images and video. By the letter of this bill, it also includes "image, video, audio recording, audiovideo file, film, written material, document, software, data file, scripting language, computer code, game, virtual reality technology, interactive and noninteractive streaming service, interactive and noninteractive streaming software, and downloadable application".

I cannot stress this enough. Call your Assemblymember on this as soon as you can. Along with all the others.

This bill has a committee hearing date with the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee on the 16th of April, 2024. If your Assemblymember happens to be a member of the committee, call them. If you wish to contact the committee directly to make your opinion known, call or fax via these numbers.

If you've been following my other post regarding social media legislature that's been making its way through California's senate and assembly, then you'll know that there are a few bills that are currently in circulation that could restrict the internet freedoms of Californians in multiple ways. From forcing age verification via government IDs to restricting what kinds of content can be accessed and when. If you'd like to help spread the word further and show greater numbers of resistance to these laws being passed, then here's a series of four change.org petitions you can sign! If you can add your signatures and share them around, no matter if the numbers are small at first, it can at least help to show that there are numbers of Californians that are against these laws being passed.

Of course, keep calling your legislators as much as you can. But if even signing and spreading petitions can help bring awareness and resistance to these bills before it's too late, the more support the better.

Keep calling and writing. Don't give up the fight for free speech and internet privacy in California.

If you've been following my other post regarding social media legislature that's been making its way through California's senate and assembly, then you'll know that there are a few bills that are currently in circulation that could restrict the internet freedoms of Californians in multiple ways. From forcing age verification via government IDs to restricting what kinds of content can be accessed and when. If you'd like to help spread the word further and show greater numbers of resistance to these laws being passed, then here's a series of four change.org petitions you can sign! If you can add your signatures and share them around, no matter if the numbers are small at first, it can at least help to show that there are numbers of Californians that are against these laws being passed.

Of course, keep calling your legislators as much as you can. But if even signing and spreading petitions can help bring awareness and resistance to these bills before it's too late, the more support the better.

Keep calling and writing. Don't give up the fight for free speech and internet privacy in California.