老夫子传媒

California lawmaker Cristina Garcia was spending time with a friend when she asked her friend鈥檚 8-year-old why she was refusing to eat.

鈥淚 said, 鈥榃hy aren鈥檛 you eating lunch?鈥� And she鈥檚 like, 鈥榃ell, because I have to look thin and look a certain way to be a YouTube star and get followers,鈥欌�� said Garcia, a Democrat from Bell Gardens who is a member of the Assembly.

After spending 13 years as a teacher, she had seen how eating disorders and body image concerns affected her students 鈥� and she blames social media鈥檚 altered images for feeding the problem. 鈥淚 think that affects you even as an adult, but I think it鈥檚 particularly damaging when you鈥檙e a young kid, when you鈥檙e still trying to figure things out,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e being bombarded with these images that are photoshopped into unrealistic expectations.鈥�

She鈥檚 carrying legislation that would . If someone 鈥� and particularly influencers 鈥� artificially improved their skin or toned their body, and did so in order to make money, the platform would have to say so and even specify what they altered.

But California state lawmakers who have introduced bills to further tighten social media practices are having little success thus far this year.

Lawmakers pushed consideration of Garcia鈥檚 to next year amid pushback from social media firms. The companies said it was difficult for them to even know when a picture has been edited since it often occurs on a third-party platform, such as a photo-editing app.

Other bills similarly shuffled over to a two-year track include one that would to allow it, and another that would .

Michael Karanicolas, executive director of UCLA鈥檚 Institute for Technology, Law and Policy, said restricting social media is tricky to assess from a constitutional perspective, because laws and court rulings are constantly in flux.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not always easy to draw a clear and bright line between what the government can force you to disclose 鈥� and what the government can鈥檛 force you to say,鈥� Karanicolas said. 鈥淭hat doesn鈥檛 mean that they鈥檙e not going to regulate the space because maybe the state government feels it鈥檚 worthwhile to roll the dice and see how the law survives a constitutional challenge.鈥�

And the supermajority of Democrats gave the cold shoulder to a Republican-sponsored bill that would have deemed social media platforms the new 鈥減ublic square鈥� 鈥� and sought to considered lawful under the First Amendment. A recent real-world example: Twitter鈥檚 ban on the account of former President Donald Trump.

Regulations 鈥� too far or not far enough?

So what tech-targeting social media bills are still moving forward this year? A bill that would require big social media firms to file quarterly terms of service with the state.

California鈥檚 landmark computer privacy law, which took effect last year, was the first of its kind nationwide to give people more control over their digital data. It grants Californians the right to about them for free, and requires businesses to give users the chance to opt-out of having their data sold.

Critics say the law doesn鈥檛 go far enough in reining in social media platforms.

They鈥檝e have called for increased protections for children roaming the Internet, and for regulation that stops the spread of misinformation and hate speech on social media.

While spending less than traditional forces like oil interests and labor unions, technology companies still have a great deal of influence in the state because of their hefty economic impact; California鈥檚 this year is in part due to the huge success of Golden State-based tech giants during the pandemic.

A bill still in play this year would require social media companies to file quarterly reports about their to the California attorney general. The bill鈥檚 author, Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, an Encino Democrat, said there鈥檚 a lot of confusion over social media companies鈥� policies. For example, it鈥檚 difficult to find terms of service reports 鈥� which outline policies like how companies collect users鈥� data and moderate content 鈥� on companies鈥� websites and there鈥檚 often no historical record of past reports.

鈥楲ooking under the hood鈥� of social media

would also require companies to provide data on how well they complied with their terms of service. Social media companies that have over $100 million in revenue would have to report statistics such as the number of posts flagged by the company, the views those flagged posts received and the number of posts that were removed, demonetized or deprioritized.

Gabriel said he hopes the proposed law would achieve two things: encourage 鈥済ood behavior鈥� and allow policymakers to better understand how misinformation, hate speech and the like spread on social media and influence hate crimes.

The proposed legislation would force social media companies to 鈥渓et folks look under the hood a little bit because there鈥檚 just a lot of confusion right now and a lot of skepticism about what they鈥檙e doing,鈥� Gabriel said. 鈥淚鈥檓 a big believer in transparency, because it encourages people to behave in ways that they would want for the public to see them behaving.鈥�

Noting that the bill targets companies with over $100 million dollars in revenue in the past year, Gabriel said 鈥淚 think companies like that can pretty easily comply with what we鈥檙e asking them to do, and I think a lot of this information that we鈥檙e asking for, they鈥檙e already looking at on a daily basis and maybe even more frequently than that.鈥�

A Facebook spokesperson told CalMatters via email that Facebook already publishes 鈥渞egular transparency reports, including our quarterly 鈥� The report shares data on how many posts violated Facebook鈥檚 content standards and what actions the company took to deal with them, and can be found on the company鈥檚 website.

Facebook recently announced those reports would be audited outside the company by , 鈥渟o we鈥檙e not grading our own homework,鈥� the Facebook rep said.

Giving bad actors a blueprint?

Business interests including the Internet Association, which represents Big Tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Google, contend that Gabriel鈥檚 bill may undermine the goal of reducing misinformation and hate speech by providing 鈥渂ad actors鈥� with a granular blueprint for evading detection.

鈥淲hile well intentioned, these requirements will ultimately allow scammers, spammers, and other bad actors to exploit our systems and moderators,鈥� went their argument, cited in the Assembly bill analysis.

These groups also warn that Gabriel鈥檚 bill could open up social media companies to lawsuits over routine decisions by content moderators, and perhaps even for how effective companies鈥� moderation practices are in the first place 鈥� which platforms predict could deter them from investing in content moderation.

An Internet Association industry spokesperson, who would discuss the bill only if he was not named, noted that it would not apply to some social media companies that have a share in the spread of misinformation and hate speech. For example, the current law would include fancy exercise bike company Peloton, but not right-wing friendly social media sites or , since they don鈥檛 meet the $100 million revenue requirement.

One of the bills lawmakers held over until next year, by Berkeley Democratic Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, aims to .

Do parents need an assist from Big Tech?

Wicks said the auto-play on websites like YouTube can lead to children watching objectionable content. Her example: If parents put on a 鈥淭homas the Tank Engine鈥� video on YouTube, an hour later their child might be watching a video on train crashes, depending on what YouTube algorithms think qualifies as related content.

Her measure would require websites like YouTube to add a parental opt-in for auto-play. A previous version 鈥� which died 鈥� would have created broader regulation.

Wicks said the bill has been popular with both Democrats and Republicans, especially those who are parents: 鈥淎ny parent who has dealt with technology these days with their children knows this problem.鈥�

The Internet Association objected to how the bill would be enforced. For example, the bill would require social media companies to disclose if an individual makes money from a post, which could be difficult to discern. It also said the bill鈥檚 requirement of an annual audit to ensure compliance with the Children鈥檚 Online Privacy Protection Rule was unnecessary because the attorney general already has the authority to enforce the rule.

鈥淛ust because you can create a product targeted at young people doesn鈥檛 mean you should,鈥� said Marvin Deon, a vice president at Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that provides families with media literacy resources and age-based ratings of movies, TV shows and books. 鈥淲e have to be sure that we鈥檙e keeping an eye on the Constitution, but also not skirting our duties to protect kids.

鈥淭hings that go after the addictive nature of some of the designs of these platforms, like the auto-play where a kid can start off looking at a Disney cartoon and 20 minutes later, he鈥檚 looking at a kid selling toys, and then 20 minutes later, some kid showing someone being blown up with some type of an explosive.鈥�

Tech and social media companies often counter that parents are responsible for monitoring and regulating children鈥檚 online and social media use. But David Monahan, campaign director for Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, a non-profit that advocates for children鈥檚 privacy, disagrees.

Monahan said that legislation is necessary until companies stop manipulative and unfair practices, such as targeting kids to spend excessive amounts of time online, share personal information, watch advertising and make in-game or in-app purchases.

鈥淲e find corporations pointing the finger at families and parents and saying, 鈥榊ou鈥檙e the gatekeepers? Why aren鈥檛 you protecting your kids?鈥� And that鈥檚 really unfair,鈥� Monahan said. 鈥淧arents need an assist from Big Tech.鈥�

CalMatters is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.