I am addicted to Lehtos Law and intend to sue for undue personal intellectual enhancement and a horrible new appreciation of our nation and society as a whole
I'll join you. I wanted to remain stupid and on welfare, but this "personal intellectual enhancement" you reference means I now have to go to college, then get a job. Surely that's significant damage, considering the cost of college these days?
Let's re-word the suit in order to force the state to pay Steve for the education that he's provided us. Hereto, furthermore and moreover; Steve should be awarded a medal from the executive branch for helping them to publicize the law.
I've actually had family members ANGRY at me that I don't post pics of my kids on social media. They truly can't comprehend why anyone would be against doing that. I honestly eventually stopped talking to them.
Good for you, I never once posted pics of me, my wife or least of all our son online. Except for just a face pic of me on LinkedIn. I don't have facespacebooktiktokinstayadayada, my wife knows that if she posts pics of us 'I'm taking her phone and computer, and I might sue her on top of it too.
@@sytunsyn Yup, took a very heated exchange to right that attitude, they now ask when they want to post something, but don't bother most of the time since they ensure my family isn't in their photo.
God forbid that parents actually be a parent...nooo we have to get the government involved. The movie Idiocracy is getting closer to reality every day.
Just like everything else, people not wanting to take accountability and play the blame game. It all starts at home, with the parents "addiction" or "addiction to social media" CAN be a learned behavior. If the parents are zoned out with their noses to the screen kids see that as normal.. It's not..
very true, though I can say neither me or my husband had cell phones when our teens got theirs (they paid for them not us) and yes one of them had her nose in it all the damn time.....we had our rules while she was home or out with us but when she wasnt home their was nothing we could do...she is out on her own now and at least alot better now that she is working.
On the flip side there’s precedent that platforms like TikTok are designed to hook you in and especially TikTok is designed to prompt specific ideas and actions. And it’s really becoming clear it’s targeted towards kids. The amount of garbage nonsense content like those awful mobile app ads or hitler and the hulk dancing to my little tea pot made to simply hijack the simplistic nature of childrens minds in hopes the clicks they give will inflate valuations and any accidental transactions are a plus.
Mr. DEREK got this whole world figured out. He solved this situation with a single generalization. Bloody smart Mr. DEREK. It all starts at home... WAIT, so you are saying you believe the "addiction to social media" thing? I mean that's a start. I never thought a man like you would give in to this addiction being a real thing. Of course, if it is a real thing, holding companies accountable for marketing addicting habits to minors is something well established within the law. I guess that's where something like this actually begins to take shape - once we got the Mr. DEREKs testifying to the fact this type of addiction is real - well, the rest falls into place quite easily. Big TY Mr. DEREK - couldn't resist but to toss out a blanket statement I know but by doing so you are breathing life into this - poetic.
Wait, so as a parent I _don't_ have to take _any_ responsibility & raise my own children? Shouts down the hall, "Timmy quick, pick up that iPhone & get your arse of Meta. We'se retiring early son!" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@eacproductions3651 - Oh that's a good one! You made me think of _more_ horrible things I can do... shouldn't I have _more_ kids? You know, like 8-12 _more?_ I'll just ignore them & hand them tablets as soon as they can hold something! That way I can make it a working business out of my horribly trashy irresponsibility. This is _honestly_ thee BEST way I could ever "trash parent" another human being in this world, right?! _OR_ could I do worse? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
If this Bill becomes Law, I'd be seriously surprised if it survives it's first Legal Challenge in Court... And if it DOES survive Legal Challenge, I'd be very surprised if the affected Social Media Companies don't then simply block access to their services in California and/or all other States that adopt this Law... The Injunctive Relief that Parents can Sue for to change how the Platform does Business sounds exactly like the Pork Farming Bill that got shot down not that long ago because it would force a Business that is outside of the State of California to change how they do Business in other States...
If the law passes the social media companies will just block access to California. So, California can say goodbye to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tik Tok, et all for kids as well as adults. They won't be able to take a chance on some kid faking their age as Steve alluded to. California is a big market in the US but makes up only a tiny portion of the worldwide market.
If you let your children unlimited/unsupervised access on facebook, you're likely a crappy parent. You wont sue anybody... But in case you do, I hope you lose
Small issue if it does survive legal challenge: TH-cam Headquarters: San Bruno, California Facebook (Also instagram and WhatsApp as same parent company) Headquarters: Menlo Park, California Twitter Headquarters: San Francisco, California TikTok Headquarters: Culver City, California Discord Headquarters: San Francisco, California Reddit Headquarters: Santa Monica, California LinkedIn Headquarters: Sunnyvale, California Pinterest Headquarters: San Francisco, California SnapChat Headquarters: Santa Monica, California Twitch Headquarters: San Francisco, California And reading this bill, I think you are a soicial media platform if you provide both search and email, or email and SMS as each exclusion provision says only that one. Basically RIP what is left of the Californian economy.
If such a law gets passed, it better come with a cause of action for the company to countersue parents for being so lame they pass the buck for child development on to a media company rather than do literally anything about being a parent. How in the world someone could hand their child a device and then abdicate all responsibility from there is beyond me.
I would agree with you if not for the Facebook and Instagram leaks that revealed the companies had done studies which revealed the mental damage done by their platforms then suppressed said studies, and then proceeded to double down on funding ways to draw even more kids in because it meant more money. they knew about the damage and hid it, and used what they learned to make their platforms do even more damage. So yeah, I think they should suffer many lawsuits for that
I don't see how it's social media's job to parent those kids. Any parent who doesn't control their children's use of technology isn't parenting at all. Another question is; what is that sort of addiction anyway? Do their kids sniff or swallow the stuff? Do the kids poke a stylus in their arm? Maybe the kids breathe the fumes from a burnt out i-phone.
@@UncleKennysPlace Is that so? Schools shove tablets on my kids without anyway to opt out. All their assignments, homework, and other communication between teaching staff and students are contained within. You cant opt out, i know because ive been a very loud luddite about this and am greatly angered. But thats my fault, right? Companies preying on our kids using mentally predatory tactics that patents are ill equipped to face. And its still our faults? Jesus H Cjrist on a roman hurt stick, thats so damned ignorant to say.
Let me get this straight... Parent allows child access to social media, Child has adverse effect, Parent can sue? Isn't this like saying, "I've allowed my teenager to drink a case of beer a day, and now he's an alcoholic. I should be able to sue Budweiser."
You realize that "allow" really doesn't apply these days. Try to remove every phone, tablet, computer, etc that exsists in your kid's life and tell me how easy it is. Computers are mandated by schools, it's almost impossible to restrict content on phones... etc, etc. Just try.
@@CobaltLobster If someone were to try and apply that same flawed logic to alcohol, they'd be laughed out of the room. "I keep telling little Timmy not to guzzle the entire bottle of sacramental wine, but what can a parent do when alcohol is everywhere." 🙄 It's not the prevalence of electronics that's the problem, it's the lack of proper parenting and an entire generation raised without any sense of Personal Responsibility.
To me this seems like one of those laws that gets passed to virtue signal because there's no way it's constitutional, but the legislators know it will get struck down and it wastes a lot of taxpayer money, except sometimes it doesn't get struck down and the dog catches the car.
Nah, it's a reaction to Elon Musk seeking to acquire Twitter. They want the power to deplatform specific social media companies. If you don't think this will be applied biasedly then I give you Section 230. Its exclusions somehow never apply to any social media algorithms which are almost universally editorial in nature. Combined with forced arbitration these laws prevent any and all civil lawsuits against said multi-billion dollar companies. Now politicians need a way to cage the powerful monster they created when that monster becomes unruly.
To answer your question: Selling one's data means advertising. It means building a profile that allows them to tailor the experience to be even more addictive. (Though they'd say "relevant.")
My understanding is that this is already illegal under Federal law via COPPA (1998, 2013), especially after the recent 2019 court case against TH-cam/Google where they explicitly forbid companies from using targeted advertising against children and allowing them to comment/interact without verifiable parental permission.
Attention parents. You can control where your children visits on the net, and it’s easy. Your router has a firewall that you can set the time and block what website or social media platforms. If your kid needs a mobile phone get then a flip top phone (non-smart phone).
@@tissuepaper9962 thr whole problem is that kids don't have enough self control thats why parents are there or the jid out be watching cartoons all day uneducated and eating icecream for 3 meals lol
Maybe limiting time say down from 6 hr/day to 5 and a half. Parenting is exhausting, so they use these devices as babysitters. I've seen women give a small child a device and go blab on the phone for 3 hrs while the child is glued to the device and hasn't moved from that spot the entire 3 hrs. If you've had kids then you know how abnormal it is to see a 4 yr old sit still for even 15 minutes. It is eerie to see a small child with a smart phone or similar device. And, since there is no reason for any child under certainly 6 to have one , the only reason would be a parent got it to skirt their responsibilities. So all these parents should be arrested.
One thing i love about your videos is the relatable context in between... its like finding mental gold. Shortening your videos would greatly minimize the valuable, not so common, knowledge you have to share
interesting, so I buy my child something, let them use it as they see fit, then sue the company who provides a service, I let my child use... makes perfect sense..... speaking sarcastically of course.
The next step is parents can sue 7-11 because my kid drank too many Slurpee‘s and got fat. Then the next step is to sue any company that………….. you get the point. BUT, Can you sue the drug dealer who gets our kids addicted drugs?
Social media platforms are designed to be addictive. It's their business model. That being said, this law will, unsurprisingly, do little to stop this.
@@marktunney5000 False equivalency. Youre equating a thing one needs to survive with a malignant form of entertainment. With thinking like yours, no wonder so many corps get away with being so predatory.
This seems so dangerously arbitrary. I feel that this is like wiggling a chunk of meat over a deep pool of ravenous mixed aquatic carnivores. I don't know who is going to bite, or how much, but it will certainly be a messy spectacle.
This may be a gross overreaction to things like these viral challenges that encourages kids to do stupid, dangerous and/or illegal acts. Yes, there is the matter of parental responsibility, but what do you do if the parents are assisting and encouraging those kids in said behavior..... Its a problem, I don't think this is the fix for it though
and if you're wiggling that chunk of meat, slip and get your arm bitten off, you can sue the man that owns property on the other side of the pool. Literally, this is what this bill is.. Just because someone is addicted to a particular social media outlet, doesn't mean their addiction started there.
I dont use social media and as a young person in my 20s I often feel left out and out of the loop with what is going on because it's like everyone and their mom is glued to their phones.
Interesting note about the "parent" involvement. Parents should set limits on social media activity, and monitor said activity. Absolutely. That is, no questions asked, the role of parents. The problem is numerous studies all show the algorithms are designed to get emotional engagement, and the engagement triggers chemical releases in the brain that drive more and more activity on social media. If they designed the system to work that way, should they not be accountable for that action? The other side of that is it's doing it to everyone, not just kids.
I look at it in sort of the same way as the opioid epidemic. The companies involved knowingly and intentionally produced an extremely addictive product and sold it without telling anybody about that inconvenient fact. There's definitely culpability there even if a lot of the blame needs to go to the parents who can't see when social media use becomes unhealthy, analogous to the doctors who needed to see when opiates were doing more harm than good.
@@rabefamily9146 a book doesn't track every second you spend reading it and then dynamically change the text on the following pages to manipulate your emotions. Bad analogy.
This is how we make college affordable!!! Have your kids get addicted to social media, then claim they woulda gotten a scholarship if they weren't addicted, then sue for actual damages for the cost of college tuition!!!
You know Commiefornia had a plan to tax people and businesses that left them right? I think i saw it on Timcast from like 2019 to 2021 and the best part? It would hit anyone and everywhere especially businesses and "my job needs me in X" people.
social media companies can forbid persons under 18 from signing up and make it so if parents sign up for them the parents are liable and can ban the account of the parent and the account parent made for the kid
I’m split on this, it’s absolving parents of parental responsibility, and granting potentially negligent parents an easy buck! However, certain social media platforms have toxic algorithms that you cannot get around. While I won’t name the one I no longer use (except in a very limited professional capacity, wherein I’m already getting friend suggestions, adverts et al despite ONLY following one page, the page I’m professionally linked to), said platform gave the option to avoid adverts by going through your ad preferences; a 2hour task. Having requested Not to see ads (1 per 5 posts), in a fit of pique I had 1 Sponsored ad per post or two! That is the level of toxicity these platforms have, “We let you Think you control what you see, but you see what We Want you to!” For me, the most frustrating part was that I never responded to an ad on said platform, except to block it (AGain!!!), and am so rarely influence by ads in any other media, I am a salesman’s nightmare
2nd thought: If this becomes a law here in California, will the children get p*ssed-off at their parents when the companies suddenly close their accounts and say: "In California, no one under 18 years old". I can hear the "RRREEEEEEE"s from the future, echoing back through time...
I'm a second gen native Californian who sadly left in the 70s because I couldn't afford to be a stay at home mom there. I'm no longer sad that I had to leave CA.
Where are the parents?! I told my 14 year old daughter no and deleted the account snuck in and made without telling me (because she made it on my account which I signed her phone into my account for these reasons) if I can't be responsible enough parent then that's on me not Facebook and Twitter, people can't take personal responsibility anymore and I know that it's hard, parenting has always been hard, put your big boy or big girl pants on and be a responsible adult parent otherwise there are tons of people looking to adopt!
Honestly, if a law like this makes social media companies ban CA children from using it, forcing the kids to go outside, play, ride a bike and experience the sun for once, I'll allow it.
@@corbinsmith50 funny joke but you can be addicted to anything especially when theyvgot people who KNOW how to force you to do their will. Why do you think lootboxes are so flashy? Why they put so much sweet stuff in Cereal? Hell I knew a guy wjo was addicted to cashing in his Checks!
@@corbinsmith50 - Your autocorrect placed "addition", in place of addiction. Though California schools are applying "woke" modifications to math, so in California, "addition" is now subjective !
So parents once again don't need to actually be responsible for anything? Yes, that sounds pretty accurate to the last 20 years. How about you watch your own kids?
@@1x1HealthyEnergybyAndrew yes i am, four girls and one boy. I agree, how about people start parenting your kids. If you did your job as a parent this kind of silliness wouldn't be an issue.
Brian, the point is even if you do that where are kids for a vast majority of their lives? Unless you're a Montessori homeschooler, good luck with that. Computers are constant in education. elementary kids are even assigned laptops
@@davidjames6788 That's not a point. Its an excuse. Its pushing blame and what-about-ism. If you can't figure out how to simply keep your children off of social media you shouldn't be a parent. Its not everyone else's job or the governments job to do it for you. More nonsense laws are not the answer. You simply setting your own rules and following them is. If you can't do that, don't breed and certainly don't expect others to make up for your inequities.
@@Soulflayerr The street gangs are central to my children's whole world and we can't take the drugs and murder out of them or my kids will feel offended and have no purpose in life.
Well what this bill is basically saying is that parents have little responsibility over their children in certain matters, but some corporate enterprise bears that responsibility.
How is selling the user data (non-identifying search/shopping history) attempting to 'addict' someone? Let me explain: Because that browsing history allows algorithms to crunch exactly the type person that browser is...and then turn around and heavily target them with both information and advertisements they are drawn to. Addictions to social media and the internet are due to the fact that content providers use this info to create echo chambers so people feel comfortable within. Part of this includes the marketing of products and services. The social media companies whose ads perform the best are the ones who have better mastered creating information bubbles.
@@andrewk8636 there is nothing they won't target you with to keep you coming back and also seeing the targeted ads. For this business model to work the "get-em-addicted" mindset is the modus operandi of all social media.
Jesus Christ no enforcement and they aren't doing anything, enforcement and the parents are to blame why are they enforcing this. Please just leave we don't need people like you.
What do the parents have to do with this? The amount of time you have to watch your child in todays society is miniscule, unless you home school and are the ultimate helicopter parent. Your comment was a sly way to say you don't accept that children's brains are not fully developed... while most adults turn around and look at you like you are the one whose brain isn't developed.
The government controls them from birth and the parents are only alotted time with the new slave. Social media is to engineer their traits and make them conform so the government can more easily control them. Look at all the "We're all the same" groups that exist under the guise of "equality" It's all built to label and inculcate everyone into one mass so that outliers can be unpersoned. It's a huge system built on corruption and nobody's any wiser.
I'd argue that the definition of how they contribute should be adjusted, but part of the reason that this is coming about is that some of these platforms are literally studying and researching how to drive them to use the platform and influence their behavior on the platforms. Just look at FB's research that got reported on last fall of how they were experimenting on teens that use instagram. What might make more sense would be to expand COPPA a bit to also say that they can't knowingly use minors in research or product experiments.
@@davidjames6788 you are responsible for your own child if you can't maybe hire someone most can't there's also the state they will take them off your hands if in capable. These entitled people started out as kids learn from there parents. Everything has to do with kids growing up environment how they turn out. Some can defy odds but end day who raises them will have the biggest impact not social media.
As neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky has pointed out, we have neuromarketing which specifically aims to hijack decision-making to favor the desires implanted by those monetizing people. The reality of “free will” is pretty shaky anyway. Manipulation by corporations will make it virtually extinct.
I live in San Francisco, CA. & ask every day how accountability became such a strange concept. Can we pass a bill to sue addiction treatment centers if the child relapses after treatment for going to social media to complain about the treatment for addiction treatment?
Keep in mind anybody can open an addiction treatment center and they are non-medical facilities. That means that many legal medical protections (like malpractice) don't apply. People have been taking advantage of not just the addicted but the mentally unwell and elderly for some time now. We do need tighter legal standards here. You would expect medical profressionallism and to not be sold a 'product' that is non-functional? What I just said basically means the addicted will enter into a healthcare facility (you and I know it's healthcare. They won't ever legally label it as such) They will receive treatment NON medically. Just joe-bob who was working at the gas station last year will be your nurse. You will not get a doctor. You will be charged heavily, probably provided medication, and get out with very mixed results ranging from perfectly acceptable treatment to absolutely no proper treatment, and if it's all above board you can't sue your own money back. It needs reform.
@@mikethegreat4296 I believe in CA there are some standards for funding/reimbursement, but it seems like 'tick the box' paperwork than a reality of maintaining standards of accountability. A friend was saying at one program, a complaint over delay to pick up antibiotics, couldn't be substantiated because the records were not detailed enough. Wouldn't that in itself be a violation? Most staff couselors attend a short certification before full-time employment. Part of the issue is their pay is often barely above minimum wage ($18/hr for couselors at some places in SF), so they often get poor quality staff.
Just imagine if parents took a few hours out of their lives to learn how to keep track of their children's app hours and limit them, talk to them about moderation, or even give them more options to spend their time with them their phones and interact with them. You can't legislate shit parenting.
One of the things that social media companies like youtube for example do is to suggest to it's users more content similar to what the preference of the individual is.. this clearly contributes to addition.
Could Facebook include a "Must be 18 or older in their T&C" and then turn around and countersue for these damages under damages suffered from breach of contract?
I feel like a lot of other folks, the laws should go after the parents for neglect. We all know screen time should be controlled but very few parents will do the right thing and shut it down. The physical size of our youth is a testament to that.
Where do we draw the line? Is the internet company liable for providing the service that the child got addicted on? Is the phone company liable for providing a child a device with which to access the social media? If the child bought the phone with their own money, is their job liable for giving the child money that they used to buy a device to use the service? Are the parents liable if they don't monitor their child's internet time and usage? This law is insane.
That's exactly why I find this bill crazy. If the social media site can be found liable for "contributing" (no matter how small it is) to a child's addiction, then the parents should be found liable as well. Otherwise it's just a double standard. And if parents are found liable too, then we just go back to what you said: what about the ISP? The phone/computer manufacturer? If they truly care about social media getting out of control, they would call for Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok's breakup. But of course that won't happen, because corruption in the "land of the free" is a legitimate activity called "lobbying".
On the other hand, hey parents. Want to cash in big? Get your kid a smart phone and a tablet, maybe two of each to be sure. Then get them accounts on every platform that meets the financial limit. Encourage the kid to be on social media as much as possible.
It time parents take responsibility! What's next soda, clothing, toys, video games? How about whole foods? Anyone can become addicted to anything they like. Let's just sue all companies for making a product people like.
Many people can be addicted to anything, but they won't ever be. Children are not hypothetically being addicted. They are factually being addicted based on decades of heavy social science research. You can blame the parents if you want, but the parents are not actively driving their children's engagement. How would you like if your kid went literally anywhere a third party tried to get them addicted to gummy bears as a joke by giving them drug laced candy as a joke, and then people blamed you for not already just knowing what's in the candy??? Ignorance is invincible. Except this once again isn't a hypothetical it's happening en masse. And you're right to point out soda as a problem. It's almost like they are addictive, massively unhealthy, and there are laws governing how much can be sold to children and where to fight addiction.
@@mikethegreat4296 what have you been addicted to mike? If social media company have to send money directly to rehabilitation facilities for your child's rehabilitation then it would be a different story. It is ultimately the parents responsibility to know what their child is doing, how much they are doing it and when the parent thinks it's excessive they need to actively get involved to limit their child's access to their addiction. If a parent fails multiple time then they need external help which should come from professional should be paid directly from the social media companies to rehabilitation facilities. No money compensation to the addict or addicts family. Just a free ride to sobriety at a licensed rehabilitation facility.
@@svenjorgensenn8418 As we've seen with every other crime up to and including sexual assault, this is an entirely internal matter to the school and will be handled by the definitely not a detective or lawyer principle and vice principle.
There are many, many problems with social media; parents not doing their jobs raising their kids and guiding them through the dangers of life is not one of those problems.
Parents are addicted to television yet want to sue internet companies for their kid's addiction to them? Jizes. Appears more like a plan hatched by lawyers
Selling the child's data allows advertisers and other businesses to pinpoint their interests and figure out what stimuli influence their engagement. the more potent the stimuli they are bombarded with the more likely they are to become addicted. so while it's a bit roundabout, selling the data does relate to online addiction.
Yep finally someone else here who gets it, the tik tok algorithm can supposedly create a fully curated feed withing 5 to 10 minutes for a new account. Great progress in stopping these predatory addiction driven platforms
I need to read this bill, but on its surface, I seem to agree. Especially since these platforms purposefully use addictive practices to hook users. I also am on favor of applying the punishment of big tobacco to them. The one where they have to advertise the negative consequences on their product.
Social media is just the most recent form of "electronic babysitter" that has been marketed to us. Back in the 70s it was CB radio. It was supposed to be 18 and over, but that didn't get much attention. Kids were given radios and antennas, them plunked down, and basically told "now play nice on the radio while we go do this over here" whatever that was. Parents have been doing this since trendy electronics has existed, and before that, they just booted us out the door to play. I'd say that they can sue for addiction so long as it meets the medical definition of a psychological addiction, and that the parents themselves were not negligent by giving it to their kids as a de facto babysitter.
I don't think anybody would get the court to side with them without a psychological evaluation and then some. (Other) People in here acting like the law shouldn't exist because people will use it in bad faith like we don't literally have court for this. All laws can be abused in bad faith.
I agree that social media platforms need to be held accountable to some degree for their addictive nature, but I don't think this is how. Is anyone talking about the fact that this bill provides incentive for parents to let their children become addicted to social media?
Most civil laws incentive victims to take damage and sue for tort. If you are implying, however, that a problematic wave of law-created victims will arise, can you point to another situation where a law was enacted to protect people from capitalist ventures, but then people just turned around and got hurt on purpose to sue en masse?
@@mikethegreat4296 the way you phrased that question implies the assumption that all parents are victims when their children are victims. Unfortunately I think their are plenty of parents who will gladly sacrifice their children's health if it means they get a payout.
Social media companies will be forced to update terms and/or set some sort of time limits or even suspend some demographics to avoid liability. We obviously can't expect parents to take responsibility for these things. 🙄
Among the many issues the courts will be asked to address as the first cases wind their way through is the definition of the words “addicted” and “addiction”. Those have come to have meanings in popular parlance that differ from their clinical definitions. The law relies on precision in language not jargon. It would be reasonable to ask for clinical proof of an “addiction” before making a finding in such a case and such proof would prove elusive. This law, if enacted, will be overturned rather quickly.
The entirety of social media from web design to algorithms is specifically made to be addictive and got constantly improved with the goal to make it more addictive with every change... on top of it YT for kids as a single example is full of political content... go figure if it's only the parents that should be blamed like many commenters seem to claim
If this is true. I'll be opening my new social media addiction center where children will be cured by waking up and watching cartoons, riding bikes, digging holes, swimming, and playing games. Upon completion of the regimen they will receive a flip phone.
Personally I just wanted to play when I was younger and.. my parents had like -1 in morality. Just make sure to have good morals basically be the old boy scouts!
I'm kinda on the fence. Honestly social media platforms do need to have some checks and balances on them and frankly f**k stalkerbook. But at the same time... shouldn't parents be monitoring them when they go online and try to be responsible for their kids, isn't that just basic parenting?
Agreed on the parents part. Internet access is way easier to control than say drugs. I'm pretty sure most routers should have a "parental controls" feature inside them, as well as straight-up DNS blocking. Just block all social media sites in the router-level, and keep your child from getting admin access to the router. Problem solved.
I can only imagine that parents would purposely let their kids get addicted to Social media websites just so they could sue them later. The chaos it would create. Next would be alcohol, then cigarettes, then sugar items then stuff that has good taste that became addictive.
This is all our policymakers do these days. Pointless laws & legislation that they can type up in an hour then pass based on some anecdotal story. Because actual governance, legislation, & negotiation is hard and their donors don’t want any legislation that might effect them.
Addictions are the fault of the user alone. Technically, it's only an addiction, if a person uses it more than they want, or when they would prefer not to use the substance. Most kids want to use social media more than they can each day, and I think a person would be hard-pressed to find a kid or teen who confesses they use social media too much, and need help using it less.
On the topic of evading the age check, it's downright impossible to ensure that only adults are registering. Kids can make a fake id, etc. This means either adults will have to go through a rigorous background check process, or the sites shut down. And they can't just apply this in California, because VPN exists. This law would literally kill Facebook
It would not kill the companies. They will require people to be over 18 to sign up. Companies are not liable for fraudulent use of their services, so they if someone under 18 signed up fraudulently they would not be liable for that.
@@Tugela60 depends on how the law is written and interpreted by judges. I won't re-watch the video now, but I recall hearing something along the lines of, FB can't just get out of it with a disclaimer. Maybe I'm wrong, we'll see.
@@milkman2758 They can get rid of it by requiring users to affirmatively certify that they are 18 or older. If the user commits fraud to access the service, the service is NOT liable for the consequences of that fraud.
We have become a society of victims. Nothing is our fault. Personal responsibility is not our responsibility. When we try to legislate morality we are on a very slippery slope. My kids grew up with social media and we talked about it regularly. I followed my kids on all the different platforms but never posted, so I could view what they were posting. "But Cor, little Suzie won't let me follow her!" WTF??!??! Is she paying for the cell plan? Internet service? The phone itself? Granted, there is a balance between respecting their privacy and be aware what is happening. So many of our social ills could be improved if parents turned off the TV and put down their phone and became an active parent. Kids shooting up schools? Watch for the warning signs and lock up your guns. Teenage pregnancy? Teach them to respect themselves and know they have something much more valuable to offer then their body. Poor performance in school? Sit down with them every night a go over homework. Teach them the value of an education regardless of the profession they want to go into. Some of the best tradesmen I've met are highly intelligent and very well educated, just not from colleges (and they make a ton of money).
I read this article and was floored by it. It makes no sense why this could be a thing. As a parent of 1 child, I always monitor him on his phone, PS4, Tablet, and Computer. This has to be the looniest thing California could ever put through. In my mind, it is the job of a parent to monitor their children at all times and give them boundaries and not let up on those boundaries.
Issue is that not all parents are as careful as you are, and not all parents are good with tech. My dad (and mom, to a lesser extent) was extremely involved in monitoring my online activity but I was also never that interested in social media. Even now, I don’t really use social media. But a lot of other kids my age and younger who DO want to use it often have the know-how to get around their parents and the parents don’t always have the mental bandwidth to keep up. So I understand why people would propose such a law, even if this isn’t a good way to go about it.
Try to understand you, as a good and responsible parent, are in a very small minority. Most parents are simply too busy or simply believe blindly that their little angels are capable of raising themselves and/or set their own limits.
So cigarette companies should be able to sell to children because parents should be the ones to control their kids? I'm not saying I disagree, I just want clarification regarding your arguement.
Even then, every platform covered by this bill, is headquarters in california... I mean, how stupid do you want to get to cut out such a huge part of your economy.
This just in: Local boomers would rather pass laws than learn and understand technology, thereby allowing them to effectively parent their kids. Reality really is stranger than fiction 😂
One, the defendants will ask who evaluated the children for proof of addiction. Two, parents can't keep children off social media when you have given them mobile phones and computers and refuse to monitor. Three, parents need to take responsibility for their own negligence.
Well, actually, no - they want money. Blame schame. Did you think they had these kids knowing it cost THEM money to raise them? (Sorry. I'm a bit of a crab and capitalist).
The problem is you can't buy a cell phone or any other electronic device where you can set restrictions on it because the manufacturers and tech companies don't want restriction. These tech companies need to be held accountable.
As much as I'd like this kind of law, it seems as if it is against the Constitution and as you say Steve, this should be a parent problem. The law could or would put these companies out-of-business which might not be bad, but it just seems legally wrong. If it had the result of cleaning up these sites of the atrocious lies and disinformation then I'm all in.
@@timtresch4848 we already do like for abuse and such but that is already hard to enforce. If you pass some kind of parent reposnsibility for a child's social media try enforcing that. The benefit would be slim compared to the resources and difficulty of enforcement
@@timtresch4848 you do realize that's impossible and stupid to even suggest. Single mothers get a bunch of hate but they're the parent that stuck around while the father lacks any accountability and personal responsibility for the child they created. They're the ones setting a bad example. Outlaw deadbeat dads and make them take care of the kids (just paying doesn't count)
I will be up for Facebook and Twitter and TH-cam creating a parent mode that will give access and control setting to their children profiles. I know children are smart and can create their own account, however parents can see what activities their children are using, and maybe with AI Tech see if the child has non-custodian account. Or Google, Facebook, and Twitter could require all children accounts to have a custodian account with can expire at the age of 18. Just an idea. Still needs to be worked out. But I think it's a good starting point. It may not solve all the problems, but it could help out a little.
Problem is to make this work they would need you to require an actual form of legal ID to create an account, just to ensure that kids aren't creating accounts without it.
@@Tugela60 comes with the same problem. Only way to verify ages is with types of official ID. Anyone can claim they are 18, you need the be able to make them prove it. A teen clicking a box that says "I am 18" wouldn't be a legal defence, no matter how good your terms and conditions are, as a minor can't agree to them to begin with, and thus they can't violate them.
@@cgi2002 Not a problem. It is a legally binding contract when you press "accept". If you have done that fraudulently then you are liable for any damages that result from that fraud. You can't claim damages yourself that result from your fraudulent activity. A minor can't enter into a valid contract, but they CAN commit fraud. In this particular case, the parent would not be suing in their own capacity, they would be sueing on behalf of the minor and as a result, if the minor was on the site as a result of fraud, they would not be able to sue.
@@Tugela60 fair but I missed a part. They would need to apply this to the entire US (arguably entire world). What is to stop a kid in say Texas becoming "addicted", the parents then moving to California and suing then. There is no timeframe attached to the law, you can become an addict, have access cut off by moving, your still an addict, and the law doesn't specific you must become addicted while in California, just that you are an addict once within California. Hell they could cut off the kids in California now but the ones already addicted still have a potential case. It's such a badly written law that I can't see it been enforceable, with any luck the first judge it comes up infront of strikes it down, but that's assuming the judge has half a brain, and as we see far too often, many don't, especially when it involves the internet.
Here's a question I was at the hospital the other day with my kid he's 13 they made him sign the paperwork and said he's responsible for his own bill that's in Illinois so a 13-year-old is responsible for his own hospital bill I thought you couldn't have a contract with anybody under the age of 17 but you know Illinois is above the law top three crooked estates in the Union
Selling data can addict the child because the data allows you to tailor the algorithm to be more addicting. If Meta buys the data from a third-party and then uses it to make their product more addicting, then the sale of data was a direct contribution to the contributory negligence.
In order to make an "addiction" illegal, wouldn't it have to be a recognized ailment according to the ICD 10? Sections P04.40 through P04.49 identify various types of addictions, with pre and post natal designations, but while there are various substances and harms identified, there is nothing under "social media".
That the issue, till they amend it so it "aint" a issue but much like a bully can taunt you 364 days a year but you throw the first punch.. context is killed and you are to blame for it all.
I am addicted to Lehtos Law and intend to sue for undue personal intellectual enhancement and a horrible new appreciation of our nation and society as a whole
Let's make it a class action. I believe I've been intellectually enhanced, too, and it just isn't right. :)
I'll join you. I wanted to remain stupid and on welfare, but this "personal intellectual enhancement" you reference means I now have to go to college, then get a job. Surely that's significant damage, considering the cost of college these days?
@@aussiebloke609 Let us call it the "My Brain Is Full" lawsuit!
@@MonkeyJedi99 Sounds like a tribute to Gary Larson - I"m pretty sure one of his _Far Side_ cartoons featured that line. 😛
Let's re-word the suit in order to force the state to pay Steve for the education that he's provided us.
Hereto, furthermore and moreover;
Steve should be awarded a medal from the executive branch for helping them to publicize the law.
The abdication of parental responsibility continues.
I've actually had family members ANGRY at me that I don't post pics of my kids on social media. They truly can't comprehend why anyone would be against doing that. I honestly eventually stopped talking to them.
Good for you, I never once posted pics of me, my wife or least of all our son online. Except for just a face pic of me on LinkedIn. I don't have facespacebooktiktokinstayadayada, my wife knows that if she posts pics of us 'I'm taking her phone and computer, and I might sue her on top of it too.
My problem is reverse. Family member wont stop posting pis of me despite my protest.
@@sytunsyn Yup, took a very heated exchange to right that attitude, they now ask when they want to post something, but don't bother most of the time since they ensure my family isn't in their photo.
@@sytunsyn I see 2 possible solutions, 1 smash their phone, 2 slap them silly. If it were me I'd do both.
Another proposed law that attempts to go after a perceived problem without fixing any underlying issue.
However, it will benefit the attorneys!
Isn't that what matters most?
You're kidding? The companies admitted to Congress that they manipulate your feed to stay addicted to scrolling. You're a fool
Benefits attorneys, hmm, most people in congress are attorneys; ah, just a coincidence.
This is just more evidence that we should have intelligence tests for lawmakers.
And minimum intelligence standards for a parental license.
... and if they fail that IQ test - they're eligible for public orifice.
God forbid that parents actually be a parent...nooo we have to get the government involved. The movie Idiocracy is getting closer to reality every day.
You never had kids have you?
There should be a law allowing parents of children who become addicted to social media to be charged with child neglect.
Just like everything else, people not wanting to take accountability and play the blame game.
It all starts at home, with the parents "addiction" or "addiction to social media" CAN be a learned behavior. If the parents are zoned out with their noses to the screen kids see that as normal.. It's not..
very true, though I can say neither me or my husband had cell phones when our teens got theirs (they paid for them not us) and yes one of them had her nose in it all the damn time.....we had our rules while she was home or out with us but when she wasnt home their was nothing we could do...she is out on her own now and at least alot better now that she is working.
On the flip side there’s precedent that platforms like TikTok are designed to hook you in and especially TikTok is designed to prompt specific ideas and actions. And it’s really becoming clear it’s targeted towards kids. The amount of garbage nonsense content like those awful mobile app ads or hitler and the hulk dancing to my little tea pot made to simply hijack the simplistic nature of childrens minds in hopes the clicks they give will inflate valuations and any accidental transactions are a plus.
Mr. DEREK got this whole world figured out. He solved this situation with a single generalization. Bloody smart Mr. DEREK. It all starts at home... WAIT, so you are saying you believe the "addiction to social media" thing? I mean that's a start. I never thought a man like you would give in to this addiction being a real thing. Of course, if it is a real thing, holding companies accountable for marketing addicting habits to minors is something well established within the law. I guess that's where something like this actually begins to take shape - once we got the Mr. DEREKs testifying to the fact this type of addiction is real - well, the rest falls into place quite easily. Big TY Mr. DEREK - couldn't resist but to toss out a blanket statement I know but by doing so you are breathing life into this - poetic.
Just what I was thinking.
The studies have been suppressed, that's why you ignorantly support manipulative companies
8:05 "...and any other relief that the court deems proper." Isn't that at least a little bit of what might be termed "Constitutionally vague"?
Wait, so as a parent I _don't_ have to take _any_ responsibility & raise my own children? Shouts down the hall, "Timmy quick, pick up that iPhone & get your arse of Meta. We'se retiring early son!" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
And you can get free money claiming your kids an addict and still not take any responsibility
@@eacproductions3651 - Oh that's a good one! You made me think of _more_ horrible things I can do... shouldn't I have _more_ kids? You know, like 8-12 _more?_ I'll just ignore them & hand them tablets as soon as they can hold something! That way I can make it a working business out of my horribly trashy irresponsibility. This is _honestly_ thee BEST way I could ever "trash parent" another human being in this world, right?! _OR_ could I do worse? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
If this Bill becomes Law, I'd be seriously surprised if it survives it's first Legal Challenge in Court...
And if it DOES survive Legal Challenge, I'd be very surprised if the affected Social Media Companies don't then simply block access to their services in California and/or all other States that adopt this Law...
The Injunctive Relief that Parents can Sue for to change how the Platform does Business sounds exactly like the Pork Farming Bill that got shot down not that long ago because it would force a Business that is outside of the State of California to change how they do Business in other States...
I think this is a good idea. If I was one of the social media companies I would block them too
If the law passes the social media companies will just block access to California. So, California can say goodbye to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tik Tok, et all for kids as well as adults. They won't be able to take a chance on some kid faking their age as Steve alluded to. California is a big market in the US but makes up only a tiny portion of the worldwide market.
If you let your children unlimited/unsupervised access on facebook, you're likely a crappy parent.
You wont sue anybody...
But in case you do, I hope you lose
Small issue if it does survive legal challenge:
TH-cam Headquarters: San Bruno, California
Facebook (Also instagram and WhatsApp as same parent company) Headquarters: Menlo Park, California
Twitter Headquarters: San Francisco, California
TikTok Headquarters: Culver City, California
Discord Headquarters: San Francisco, California
Reddit Headquarters: Santa Monica, California
LinkedIn Headquarters: Sunnyvale, California
Pinterest Headquarters: San Francisco, California
SnapChat Headquarters: Santa Monica, California
Twitch Headquarters: San Francisco, California
And reading this bill, I think you are a soicial media platform if you provide both search and email, or email and SMS as each exclusion provision says only that one.
Basically RIP what is left of the Californian economy.
They can't block California, they would lose too much money
If such a law gets passed, it better come with a cause of action for the company to countersue parents for being so lame they pass the buck for child development on to a media company rather than do literally anything about being a parent. How in the world someone could hand their child a device and then abdicate all responsibility from there is beyond me.
I would agree with you if not for the Facebook and Instagram leaks that revealed the companies had done studies which revealed the mental damage done by their platforms then suppressed said studies, and then proceeded to double down on funding ways to draw even more kids in because it meant more money. they knew about the damage and hid it, and used what they learned to make their platforms do even more damage. So yeah, I think they should suffer many lawsuits for that
Now try working in a school 🤔
@@mtnentertainment3454 And yet it's still the parents. Still. The. Parents.
I don't see how it's social media's job to parent those kids. Any parent who doesn't control their children's use of technology isn't parenting at all.
Another question is; what is that sort of addiction anyway? Do their kids sniff or swallow the stuff? Do the kids poke a stylus in their arm? Maybe the kids breathe the fumes from a burnt out i-phone.
@@UncleKennysPlace Is that so? Schools shove tablets on my kids without anyway to opt out. All their assignments, homework, and other communication between teaching staff and students are contained within. You cant opt out, i know because ive been a very loud luddite about this and am greatly angered. But thats my fault, right?
Companies preying on our kids using mentally predatory tactics that patents are ill equipped to face. And its still our faults? Jesus H Cjrist on a roman hurt stick, thats so damned ignorant to say.
Let me get this straight...
Parent allows child access to social media,
Child has adverse effect,
Parent can sue?
Isn't this like saying, "I've allowed my teenager to drink a case of beer a day, and now he's an alcoholic. I should be able to sue Budweiser."
Don't give them any ideas.
Yes, it's that stupid. AND it actually incentivizes the parents to let their kids have all the beer they want so they can turn around and sue.
Yes! Yes yes yes! We all go to Tampa and ride the rides fur frees and take the tasting tour 9 am to 9 pm. Murica!
You realize that "allow" really doesn't apply these days. Try to remove every phone, tablet, computer, etc that exsists in your kid's life and tell me how easy it is. Computers are mandated by schools, it's almost impossible to restrict content on phones... etc, etc. Just try.
@@CobaltLobster If someone were to try and apply that same flawed logic to alcohol, they'd be laughed out of the room.
"I keep telling little Timmy not to guzzle the entire bottle of sacramental wine, but what can a parent do when alcohol is everywhere." 🙄
It's not the prevalence of electronics that's the problem, it's the lack of proper parenting and an entire generation raised without any sense of Personal Responsibility.
To me this seems like one of those laws that gets passed to virtue signal because there's no way it's constitutional, but the legislators know it will get struck down and it wastes a lot of taxpayer money, except sometimes it doesn't get struck down and the dog catches the car.
Nah, it's a reaction to Elon Musk seeking to acquire Twitter. They want the power to deplatform specific social media companies. If you don't think this will be applied biasedly then I give you Section 230. Its exclusions somehow never apply to any social media algorithms which are almost universally editorial in nature. Combined with forced arbitration these laws prevent any and all civil lawsuits against said multi-billion dollar companies. Now politicians need a way to cage the powerful monster they created when that monster becomes unruly.
@@Mavendow what does section 230 have to do with anything?
@@pkobalt If you can't follow the logic I laid out then why are you watching a law channel?
Need to protect kids from do-nothing parents!
Protect all children from all parents.
To answer your question: Selling one's data means advertising. It means building a profile that allows them to tailor the experience to be even more addictive. (Though they'd say "relevant.")
My understanding is that this is already illegal under Federal law via COPPA (1998, 2013), especially after the recent 2019 court case against TH-cam/Google where they explicitly forbid companies from using targeted advertising against children and allowing them to comment/interact without verifiable parental permission.
@@yellowcrescent Yeah, it probably IS already illegal, but Steve had asked why a company would want to sell a child's data -- this is why.
Attention parents. You can control where your children visits on the net, and it’s easy. Your router has a firewall that you can set the time and block what website or social media platforms. If your kid needs a mobile phone get then a flip top phone (non-smart phone).
Or, teach your children to have good habits and a healthy relationship with technology, and you won't need to block anything.
@@tissuepaper9962 thr whole problem is that kids don't have enough self control thats why parents are there or the jid out be watching cartoons all day uneducated and eating icecream for 3 meals lol
Maybe limiting time say down from 6 hr/day to 5 and a half. Parenting is exhausting, so they use these devices as babysitters. I've seen women give a small child a device and go blab on the phone for 3 hrs while the child is glued to the device and hasn't moved from that spot the entire 3 hrs. If you've had kids then you know how abnormal it is to see a 4 yr old sit still for even 15 minutes. It is eerie to see a small child with a smart phone or similar device. And, since there is no reason for any child under certainly 6 to have one , the only reason would be a parent got it to skirt their responsibilities. So all these parents should be arrested.
One thing i love about your videos is the relatable context in between... its like finding mental gold. Shortening your videos would greatly minimize the valuable, not so common, knowledge you have to share
interesting, so I buy my child something, let them use it as they see fit, then sue the company who provides a service, I let my child use... makes perfect sense..... speaking sarcastically of course.
The next step is parents can sue 7-11 because my kid drank too many Slurpee‘s and got fat. Then the next step is to sue any company that………….. you get the point.
BUT,
Can you sue the drug dealer who gets our kids addicted drugs?
Sad truth is you can do both already. You may not get very far with the cases, but that doesn't stop you suing them.
7-11 has money. Dealer has no name (and is also in New Mexico). Let the fat kid think on it for 24 hours. 99.8 per cent will figure it out.
This is already the next step on that path. Remington was the first step.
That’s outrageous there is no company and to be blamed for somebody who can’t put their damn phone down
Social media platforms are designed to be addictive. It's their business model. That being said, this law will, unsurprisingly, do little to stop this.
Thats like saying food companies make food addictive.
This is true. I highly recommend the book Stolen Focus to understand the means and impact of this addiction.
@@marktunney5000 False equivalency. Youre equating a thing one needs to survive with a malignant form of entertainment. With thinking like yours, no wonder so many corps get away with being so predatory.
@@marktunney5000 That's not even remotely true. Every living organism needs food. Social media is a business model that was invented 15 years ago.
@@marktunney5000 You could of chose literally anything but chose something Everyone needs?
But seriously half of the food should not even be Sold!
This seems so dangerously arbitrary. I feel that this is like wiggling a chunk of meat over a deep pool of ravenous mixed aquatic carnivores. I don't know who is going to bite, or how much, but it will certainly be a messy spectacle.
This may be a gross overreaction to things like these viral challenges that encourages kids to do stupid, dangerous and/or illegal acts. Yes, there is the matter of parental responsibility, but what do you do if the parents are assisting and encouraging those kids in said behavior..... Its a problem, I don't think this is the fix for it though
and if you're wiggling that chunk of meat, slip and get your arm bitten off, you can sue the man that owns property on the other side of the pool. Literally, this is what this bill is.. Just because someone is addicted to a particular social media outlet, doesn't mean their addiction started there.
No worse than "Don't say gay" or "Sue any woman that had a miscarrage" laws.
@@CobaltLobster this is nowhere near those levels what?
@@BiggyB0i I think you need to re-read what "No worse than..." means.
I dont use social media and as a young person in my 20s I often feel left out and out of the loop with what is going on because it's like everyone and their mom is glued to their phones.
Interesting note about the "parent" involvement. Parents should set limits on social media activity, and monitor said activity. Absolutely. That is, no questions asked, the role of parents. The problem is numerous studies all show the algorithms are designed to get emotional engagement, and the engagement triggers chemical releases in the brain that drive more and more activity on social media. If they designed the system to work that way, should they not be accountable for that action? The other side of that is it's doing it to everyone, not just kids.
This is how I see it I feel like this law is a way to force social media companies to not make their algorithms so addictive by nature
I look at it in sort of the same way as the opioid epidemic. The companies involved knowingly and intentionally produced an extremely addictive product and sold it without telling anybody about that inconvenient fact. There's definitely culpability there even if a lot of the blame needs to go to the parents who can't see when social media use becomes unhealthy, analogous to the doctors who needed to see when opiates were doing more harm than good.
Reading is addictive in the same way. Where is the proof of damages.
@@rabefamily9146 a book doesn't track every second you spend reading it and then dynamically change the text on the following pages to manipulate your emotions. Bad analogy.
This seems like a massive over reach i would never support such a extreme law or a politician who proposes it.
This is how we make college affordable!!! Have your kids get addicted to social media, then claim they woulda gotten a scholarship if they weren't addicted, then sue for actual damages for the cost of college tuition!!!
Can this be renamed "The Failed and Negligent Parents Act" and only allow children to sue their parents for their failed parental responsibilities?
Hit the bullseye with that comment
This PLEASE.
Exactly....
Should be called the "move to cali quick and sue them, everyone is leaving and we need people"
You know Commiefornia had a plan to tax people and businesses that left them right?
I think i saw it on Timcast from like 2019 to 2021 and the best part? It would hit anyone and everywhere especially businesses and "my job needs me in X" people.
Finally, a man with principles! Way too go Steve!
social media companies can forbid persons under 18 from signing up and make it so if parents sign up for them the parents are liable and can ban the account of the parent and the account parent made for the kid
Yeah I think that's what would happen and I'm actually for it
I’m split on this, it’s absolving parents of parental responsibility, and granting potentially negligent parents an easy buck!
However, certain social media platforms have toxic algorithms that you cannot get around. While I won’t name the one I no longer use (except in a very limited professional capacity, wherein I’m already getting friend suggestions, adverts et al despite ONLY following one page, the page I’m professionally linked to), said platform gave the option to avoid adverts by going through your ad preferences; a 2hour task. Having requested Not to see ads (1 per 5 posts), in a fit of pique I had 1 Sponsored ad per post or two! That is the level of toxicity these platforms have, “We let you Think you control what you see, but you see what We Want you to!” For me, the most frustrating part was that I never responded to an ad on said platform, except to block it (AGain!!!), and am so rarely influence by ads in any other media, I am a salesman’s nightmare
I think a better solution would be just to break up these giants. Antitrust used to be enforced easily.
2nd thought: If this becomes a law here in California, will the children get p*ssed-off at their parents when the companies suddenly close their accounts and say: "In California, no one under 18 years old". I can hear the "RRREEEEEEE"s from the future, echoing back through time...
I'm a second gen native Californian who sadly left in the 70s because I couldn't afford to be a stay at home mom there. I'm no longer sad that I had to leave CA.
Take me with you!
Where are the parents?! I told my 14 year old daughter no and deleted the account snuck in and made without telling me (because she made it on my account which I signed her phone into my account for these reasons) if I can't be responsible enough parent then that's on me not Facebook and Twitter, people can't take personal responsibility anymore and I know that it's hard, parenting has always been hard, put your big boy or big girl pants on and be a responsible adult parent otherwise there are tons of people looking to adopt!
I do not know about my kids. But I am addicted to TH-cam commenting. Steve's channel is a main factor in my condition.
🤣
Honestly, if a law like this makes social media companies ban CA children from using it, forcing the kids to go outside, play, ride a bike and experience the sun for once, I'll allow it.
Knowint commiefornia, they will actually lock you out of your house or water if you literally dont touch grass.
You can't prove addiction to social media. Addition is a subjective thing.
@@corbinsmith50 funny joke but you can be addicted to anything especially when theyvgot people who KNOW how to force you to do their will.
Why do you think lootboxes are so flashy?
Why they put so much sweet stuff in Cereal?
Hell I knew a guy wjo was addicted to cashing in his Checks!
@@corbinsmith50 - Your autocorrect placed "addition", in place of addiction. Though California schools are applying "woke" modifications to math, so in California, "addition" is now subjective !
@@corbinsmith50 addiction is not subjective.
So parents once again don't need to actually be responsible for anything? Yes, that sounds pretty accurate to the last 20 years. How about you watch your own kids?
You're not a parent
@@1x1HealthyEnergybyAndrew yes i am, four girls and one boy. I agree, how about people start parenting your kids. If you did your job as a parent this kind of silliness wouldn't be an issue.
@@1x1HealthyEnergybyAndrew you don't need to buy a cell phone for an 8 year old. What's your point?
Brian, the point is even if you do that where are kids for a vast majority of their lives? Unless you're a Montessori homeschooler, good luck with that. Computers are constant in education. elementary kids are even assigned laptops
@@davidjames6788 That's not a point. Its an excuse. Its pushing blame and what-about-ism. If you can't figure out how to simply keep your children off of social media you shouldn't be a parent. Its not everyone else's job or the governments job to do it for you. More nonsense laws are not the answer. You simply setting your own rules and following them is. If you can't do that, don't breed and certainly don't expect others to make up for your inequities.
If parents actually did their job as parents, we wouldn’t even be talking about this. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Same could be said about drugs
@@Soulflayerr The street gangs are central to my children's whole world and we can't take the drugs and murder out of them or my kids will feel offended and have no purpose in life.
Then why aren't we suing teachers that put gold stars on homework that has been graded?
I go with Steves remark: as a parent you are in control over your kids, not any company.
So I can sue TH-cam as I am afdicted to Steves vids.
...only if you are under 18 years old...
Well what this bill is basically saying is that parents have little responsibility over their children in certain matters, but some corporate enterprise bears that responsibility.
How is selling the user data (non-identifying search/shopping history) attempting to 'addict' someone? Let me explain:
Because that browsing history allows algorithms to crunch exactly the type person that browser is...and then turn around and heavily target them with both information and advertisements they are drawn to. Addictions to social media and the internet are due to the fact that content providers use this info to create echo chambers so people feel comfortable within. Part of this includes the marketing of products and services. The social media companies whose ads perform the best are the ones who have better mastered creating information bubbles.
Just remember... everyone has a very different Facebook experience than you due to bubbles they encourage...
And then they know what kind of propaganda works best on you too
@@andrewk8636 there is nothing they won't target you with to keep you coming back and also seeing the targeted ads. For this business model to work the "get-em-addicted" mindset is the modus operandi of all social media.
So no blame on the parents seems it's never the parents fault why they turn out the way they do.
Jesus Christ no enforcement and they aren't doing anything, enforcement and the parents are to blame why are they enforcing this. Please just leave we don't need people like you.
What do the parents have to do with this? The amount of time you have to watch your child in todays society is miniscule, unless you home school and are the ultimate helicopter parent. Your comment was a sly way to say you don't accept that children's brains are not fully developed... while most adults turn around and look at you like you are the one whose brain isn't developed.
The government controls them from birth and the parents are only alotted time with the new slave.
Social media is to engineer their traits and make them conform so the government can more easily control them. Look at all the "We're all the same" groups that exist under the guise of "equality"
It's all built to label and inculcate everyone into one mass so that outliers can be unpersoned.
It's a huge system built on corruption and nobody's any wiser.
I'd argue that the definition of how they contribute should be adjusted, but part of the reason that this is coming about is that some of these platforms are literally studying and researching how to drive them to use the platform and influence their behavior on the platforms. Just look at FB's research that got reported on last fall of how they were experimenting on teens that use instagram.
What might make more sense would be to expand COPPA a bit to also say that they can't knowingly use minors in research or product experiments.
@@davidjames6788 you are responsible for your own child if you can't maybe hire someone most can't there's also the state they will take them off your hands if in capable. These entitled people started out as kids learn from there parents. Everything has to do with kids growing up environment how they turn out. Some can defy odds but end day who raises them will have the biggest impact not social media.
As neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky has pointed out, we have neuromarketing which specifically aims to hijack decision-making to favor the desires implanted by those monetizing people.
The reality of “free will” is pretty shaky anyway. Manipulation by corporations will make it virtually extinct.
I live in San Francisco, CA. & ask every day how accountability became such a strange concept. Can we pass a bill to sue addiction treatment centers if the child relapses after treatment for going to social media to complain about the treatment for addiction treatment?
I had a fucking english teacher literally not tell me what i was doing wrong on my assignments, the wrinkle monger.
Keep in mind anybody can open an addiction treatment center and they are non-medical facilities. That means that many legal medical protections (like malpractice) don't apply. People have been taking advantage of not just the addicted but the mentally unwell and elderly for some time now. We do need tighter legal standards here. You would expect medical profressionallism and to not be sold a 'product' that is non-functional?
What I just said basically means the addicted will enter into a healthcare facility (you and I know it's healthcare. They won't ever legally label it as such) They will receive treatment NON medically. Just joe-bob who was working at the gas station last year will be your nurse. You will not get a doctor. You will be charged heavily, probably provided medication, and get out with very mixed results ranging from perfectly acceptable treatment to absolutely no proper treatment, and if it's all above board you can't sue your own money back.
It needs reform.
@@mikethegreat4296 I believe in CA there are some standards for funding/reimbursement, but it seems like 'tick the box' paperwork than a reality of maintaining standards of accountability. A friend was saying at one program, a complaint over delay to pick up antibiotics, couldn't be substantiated because the records were not detailed enough. Wouldn't that in itself be a violation? Most staff couselors attend a short certification before full-time employment. Part of the issue is their pay is often barely above minimum wage ($18/hr for couselors at some places in SF), so they often get poor quality staff.
I am addicted to Steve's Videos. I am on this journey more than 5 years, maybe more.
Just imagine if parents took a few hours out of their lives to learn how to keep track of their children's app hours and limit them, talk to them about moderation, or even give them more options to spend their time with them their phones and interact with them. You can't legislate shit parenting.
you can definitely sue and target drug dealers, and this is just the digital equivalent.
One of the things that social media companies like youtube for example do is to suggest to it's users more content similar to what the preference of the individual is.. this clearly contributes to addition.
Could Facebook include a "Must be 18 or older in their T&C" and then turn around and countersue for these damages under damages suffered from breach of contract?
I feel like a lot of other folks, the laws should go after the parents for neglect. We all know screen time should be controlled but very few parents will do the right thing and shut it down. The physical size of our youth is a testament to that.
Where do we draw the line? Is the internet company liable for providing the service that the child got addicted on? Is the phone company liable for providing a child a device with which to access the social media? If the child bought the phone with their own money, is their job liable for giving the child money that they used to buy a device to use the service? Are the parents liable if they don't monitor their child's internet time and usage? This law is insane.
if it's anything like FB they know that their platform is "addictive" they've been researching how to make people as hooked to it as much as possible.
That's exactly why I find this bill crazy. If the social media site can be found liable for "contributing" (no matter how small it is) to a child's addiction, then the parents should be found liable as well. Otherwise it's just a double standard.
And if parents are found liable too, then we just go back to what you said: what about the ISP? The phone/computer manufacturer?
If they truly care about social media getting out of control, they would call for Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok's breakup. But of course that won't happen, because corruption in the "land of the free" is a legitimate activity called "lobbying".
phone companies actually might be liable if they provide both email and SMS/MMS service as the bill excludes only if you provide just that.
On the other hand, hey parents. Want to cash in big? Get your kid a smart phone and a tablet, maybe two of each to be sure. Then get them accounts on every platform that meets the financial limit. Encourage the kid to be on social media as much as possible.
It time parents take responsibility! What's next soda, clothing, toys, video games? How about whole foods? Anyone can become addicted to anything they like. Let's just sue all companies for making a product people like.
Thats what they are working towards.
Many people can be addicted to anything, but they won't ever be. Children are not hypothetically being addicted. They are factually being addicted based on decades of heavy social science research. You can blame the parents if you want, but the parents are not actively driving their children's engagement. How would you like if your kid went literally anywhere a third party tried to get them addicted to gummy bears as a joke by giving them drug laced candy as a joke, and then people blamed you for not already just knowing what's in the candy??? Ignorance is invincible.
Except this once again isn't a hypothetical it's happening en masse.
And you're right to point out soda as a problem. It's almost like they are addictive, massively unhealthy, and there are laws governing how much can be sold to children and where to fight addiction.
@@mikethegreat4296 what have you been addicted to mike? If social media company have to send money directly to rehabilitation facilities for your child's rehabilitation then it would be a different story. It is ultimately the parents responsibility to know what their child is doing, how much they are doing it and when the parent thinks it's excessive they need to actively get involved to limit their child's access to their addiction. If a parent fails multiple time then they need external help which should come from professional should be paid directly from the social media companies to rehabilitation facilities. No money compensation to the addict or addicts family. Just a free ride to sobriety at a licensed rehabilitation facility.
Can the platforms start reporting the parents that sue them to CPS for enabling an apparently dangerous addiction?
What if the family has no internet access and the SM access is at school or work? Don't be a fool
@@svenjorgensenn8418 As we've seen with every other crime up to and including sexual assault, this is an entirely internal matter to the school and will be handled by the definitely not a detective or lawyer principle and vice principle.
Of course it's in California! Lmao 🤣 🤣
There are many, many problems with social media; parents not doing their jobs raising their kids and guiding them through the dangers of life is not one of those problems.
Parents are addicted to television yet want to sue internet companies for their kid's addiction to them? Jizes. Appears more like a plan hatched by lawyers
All laws are "plans hatched by lawyers", but it seems like you think that's a bad thing.
Child protective services should be investigating these parents
Selling the child's data allows advertisers and other businesses to pinpoint their interests and figure out what stimuli influence their engagement. the more potent the stimuli they are bombarded with the more likely they are to become addicted. so while it's a bit roundabout, selling the data does relate to online addiction.
Yep finally someone else here who gets it, the tik tok algorithm can supposedly create a fully curated feed withing 5 to 10 minutes for a new account. Great progress in stopping these predatory addiction driven platforms
@@1creep2e3r Fuck that the parents need to parent their children.
I need to read this bill, but on its surface, I seem to agree. Especially since these platforms purposefully use addictive practices to hook users. I also am on favor of applying the punishment of big tobacco to them. The one where they have to advertise the negative consequences on their product.
Social media is just the most recent form of "electronic babysitter" that has been marketed to us. Back in the 70s it was CB radio. It was supposed to be 18 and over, but that didn't get much attention. Kids were given radios and antennas, them plunked down, and basically told "now play nice on the radio while we go do this over here" whatever that was. Parents have been doing this since trendy electronics has existed, and before that, they just booted us out the door to play.
I'd say that they can sue for addiction so long as it meets the medical definition of a psychological addiction, and that the parents themselves were not negligent by giving it to their kids as a de facto babysitter.
I don't think anybody would get the court to side with them without a psychological evaluation and then some.
(Other) People in here acting like the law shouldn't exist because people will use it in bad faith like we don't literally have court for this. All laws can be abused in bad faith.
Wait. Can I now sue the makers of Oxycontin for my kids getting addicted to it?
Sorry you missed out on that class action
unless your kid had cancer or something, you should have sued the dr. that would have been overkill, likely.
Yes, until they change law again.
I agree that social media platforms need to be held accountable to some degree for their addictive nature, but I don't think this is how. Is anyone talking about the fact that this bill provides incentive for parents to let their children become addicted to social media?
Can't the parents install bans so their children can't access the social media platforms?
Most civil laws incentive victims to take damage and sue for tort. If you are implying, however, that a problematic wave of law-created victims will arise, can you point to another situation where a law was enacted to protect people from capitalist ventures, but then people just turned around and got hurt on purpose to sue en masse?
@@mikethegreat4296 the way you phrased that question implies the assumption that all parents are victims when their children are victims. Unfortunately I think their are plenty of parents who will gladly sacrifice their children's health if it means they get a payout.
Social media companies will be forced to update terms and/or set some sort of time limits or even suspend some demographics to avoid liability. We obviously can't expect parents to take responsibility for these things. 🙄
im addicted to tiktok already so time to make some money!
Among the many issues the courts will be asked to address as the first cases wind their way through is the definition of the words “addicted” and “addiction”. Those have come to have meanings in popular parlance that differ from their clinical definitions. The law relies on precision in language not jargon. It would be reasonable to ask for clinical proof of an “addiction” before making a finding in such a case and such proof would prove elusive. This law, if enacted, will be overturned rather quickly.
Ben between Vol VI and VII of the OED.
Steve has the 20 volume set of OED, Vols VI - X are on the shelf below Vols I - V, ditto for Vols XVI - XX below XI - XV 😉👍
Insane legislators in CA. And OR and WA are not far behind.
Question: Would this also include phone service providers who put these apps on their products as nonremovable bloatware?
Less bloatware would be the one good thing this law could do.
The word 'addiction' is so improperly overused it honestly has no meaning anymore.
The entirety of social media from web design to algorithms is specifically made to be addictive and got constantly improved with the goal to make it more addictive with every change...
on top of it YT for kids as a single example is full of political content... go figure if it's only the parents that should be blamed like many commenters seem to claim
If this is true. I'll be opening my new social media addiction center where children will be cured by waking up and watching cartoons, riding bikes, digging holes, swimming, and playing games. Upon completion of the regimen they will receive a flip phone.
You might have found a gold mine.
Personally I just wanted to play when I was younger and.. my parents had like -1 in morality.
Just make sure to have good morals basically be the old boy scouts!
If you are a parent etc, you are responsible to control the behavior of your children. It isn't the business of the Government, to raise our children.
Didn't someone in the 1960's call television a vast wasteland? Nothing changes but the platform 😅
I'm kinda on the fence. Honestly social media platforms do need to have some checks and balances on them and frankly f**k stalkerbook. But at the same time... shouldn't parents be monitoring them when they go online and try to be responsible for their kids, isn't that just basic parenting?
Agreed on the parents part. Internet access is way easier to control than say drugs. I'm pretty sure most routers should have a "parental controls" feature inside them, as well as straight-up DNS blocking. Just block all social media sites in the router-level, and keep your child from getting admin access to the router. Problem solved.
I can only imagine that parents would purposely let their kids get addicted to Social media websites just so they could sue them later. The chaos it would create. Next would be alcohol, then cigarettes, then sugar items then stuff that has good taste that became addictive.
They've gotta look like they're doing something while doing nothing to improve conditions of society, on our dime. Sensibility has left our govt!
This is all our policymakers do these days. Pointless laws & legislation that they can type up in an hour then pass based on some anecdotal story. Because actual governance, legislation, & negotiation is hard and their donors don’t want any legislation that might effect them.
Driving each service overseas one regulation at a time, just likely manufacturing.
nonsense. you are to blame for your kids addictions.
Addictions are the fault of the user alone. Technically, it's only an addiction, if a person uses it more than they want, or when they would prefer not to use the substance. Most kids want to use social media more than they can each day, and I think a person would be hard-pressed to find a kid or teen who confesses they use social media too much, and need help using it less.
*places finger over lips, wibbles it up and down, goes 'blblblblblblblbl...'* California, you never cease to disappoint me.
On the topic of evading the age check, it's downright impossible to ensure that only adults are registering. Kids can make a fake id, etc. This means either adults will have to go through a rigorous background check process, or the sites shut down. And they can't just apply this in California, because VPN exists. This law would literally kill Facebook
And that a bad thing cuz?
Mine them out of a job damn data miners.
It would not kill the companies. They will require people to be over 18 to sign up. Companies are not liable for fraudulent use of their services, so they if someone under 18 signed up fraudulently they would not be liable for that.
@@Subject_Keter not saying it's bad thing, just stating the facts. I for one couldn't care less.
@@Tugela60 depends on how the law is written and interpreted by judges. I won't re-watch the video now, but I recall hearing something along the lines of, FB can't just get out of it with a disclaimer. Maybe I'm wrong, we'll see.
@@milkman2758 They can get rid of it by requiring users to affirmatively certify that they are 18 or older. If the user commits fraud to access the service, the service is NOT liable for the consequences of that fraud.
California never ceases to amaze me.
We have become a society of victims. Nothing is our fault. Personal responsibility is not our responsibility.
When we try to legislate morality we are on a very slippery slope. My kids grew up with social media and we talked about it regularly. I followed my kids on all the different platforms but never posted, so I could view what they were posting. "But Cor, little Suzie won't let me follow her!" WTF??!??! Is she paying for the cell plan? Internet service? The phone itself? Granted, there is a balance between respecting their privacy and be aware what is happening.
So many of our social ills could be improved if parents turned off the TV and put down their phone and became an active parent. Kids shooting up schools? Watch for the warning signs and lock up your guns. Teenage pregnancy? Teach them to respect themselves and know they have something much more valuable to offer then their body. Poor performance in school? Sit down with them every night a go over homework. Teach them the value of an education regardless of the profession they want to go into. Some of the best tradesmen I've met are highly intelligent and very well educated, just not from colleges (and they make a ton of money).
I'm addicted to watching Steve Lehto videos. Should I sue TH-cam or Steve?
I read this article and was floored by it. It makes no sense why this could be a thing. As a parent of 1 child, I always monitor him on his phone, PS4, Tablet, and Computer. This has to be the looniest thing California could ever put through. In my mind, it is the job of a parent to monitor their children at all times and give them boundaries and not let up on those boundaries.
Issue is that not all parents are as careful as you are, and not all parents are good with tech. My dad (and mom, to a lesser extent) was extremely involved in monitoring my online activity but I was also never that interested in social media. Even now, I don’t really use social media. But a lot of other kids my age and younger who DO want to use it often have the know-how to get around their parents and the parents don’t always have the mental bandwidth to keep up. So I understand why people would propose such a law, even if this isn’t a good way to go about it.
Try to understand you, as a good and responsible parent, are in a very small minority. Most parents are simply too busy or simply believe blindly that their little angels are capable of raising themselves and/or set their own limits.
So cigarette companies should be able to sell to children because parents should be the ones to control their kids?
I'm not saying I disagree, I just want clarification regarding your arguement.
Even then, every platform covered by this bill, is headquarters in california... I mean, how stupid do you want to get to cut out such a huge part of your economy.
Selling the data customizes ads and sponsored posts to the kid's likes, strengthening the addiction.
This just in: Local boomers would rather pass laws than learn and understand technology, thereby allowing them to effectively parent their kids. Reality really is stranger than fiction 😂
"Boomers" are WELL past the age of raising children. That's on the (narrow and weak) shoulders and backs of the "gen z" and "millennial" crowd now.
@@MikeBrown-ii3pt k
Oh, hunny. I'm over 57 and have no interest (nor corporeal competence) to squeeze out a brat. You just keep being you, Homicidal!
One, the defendants will ask who evaluated the children for proof of addiction. Two, parents can't keep children off social media when you have given them mobile phones and computers and refuse to monitor. Three, parents need to take responsibility for their own negligence.
Sooo... instead of PARENTING their kids, they want to blame someone else. California lmao
Well, actually, no - they want money. Blame schame. Did you think they had these kids knowing it cost THEM money to raise them? (Sorry. I'm a bit of a crab and capitalist).
If this law passed and I was a parent I would encourage my parents to become addicted and then want to stop so I could sue
Only in California would this happen...
Raising your kids without communicating with your kids.
The problem is you can't buy a cell phone or any other electronic device where you can set restrictions on it because the manufacturers and tech companies don't want restriction. These tech companies need to be held accountable.
As much as I'd like this kind of law, it seems as if it is against the Constitution and as you say Steve, this should be a parent problem. The law could or would put these companies out-of-business which might not be bad, but it just seems legally wrong. If it had the result of cleaning up these sites of the atrocious lies and disinformation then I'm all in.
They are "F ing up" the Constitution even more now with this.
Why don't we make bad parent laws? it would solve a lot more problems.
@@timtresch4848 we already do like for abuse and such but that is already hard to enforce. If you pass some kind of parent reposnsibility for a child's social media try enforcing that. The benefit would be slim compared to the resources and difficulty of enforcement
@@katyar4883 great so how about a law outlawing single mothers? It would probably save a lot of children from being raised in unstable households
@@timtresch4848 you do realize that's impossible and stupid to even suggest. Single mothers get a bunch of hate but they're the parent that stuck around while the father lacks any accountability and personal responsibility for the child they created. They're the ones setting a bad example. Outlaw deadbeat dads and make them take care of the kids (just paying doesn't count)
Seems like a law for no personal responsibility.
the other kids " liking" contributes to the addiction. These teenage monsters should also be made to pay $25000
I will be up for Facebook and Twitter and TH-cam creating a parent mode that will give access and control setting to their children profiles. I know children are smart and can create their own account, however parents can see what activities their children are using, and maybe with AI Tech see if the child has non-custodian account.
Or Google, Facebook, and Twitter could require all children accounts to have a custodian account with can expire at the age of 18. Just an idea. Still needs to be worked out. But I think it's a good starting point. It may not solve all the problems, but it could help out a little.
Problem is to make this work they would need you to require an actual form of legal ID to create an account, just to ensure that kids aren't creating accounts without it.
Easier to just restrict access to people over 18.
@@Tugela60 comes with the same problem. Only way to verify ages is with types of official ID. Anyone can claim they are 18, you need the be able to make them prove it.
A teen clicking a box that says "I am 18" wouldn't be a legal defence, no matter how good your terms and conditions are, as a minor can't agree to them to begin with, and thus they can't violate them.
@@cgi2002 Not a problem. It is a legally binding contract when you press "accept". If you have done that fraudulently then you are liable for any damages that result from that fraud. You can't claim damages yourself that result from your fraudulent activity. A minor can't enter into a valid contract, but they CAN commit fraud.
In this particular case, the parent would not be suing in their own capacity, they would be sueing on behalf of the minor and as a result, if the minor was on the site as a result of fraud, they would not be able to sue.
@@Tugela60 fair but I missed a part. They would need to apply this to the entire US (arguably entire world). What is to stop a kid in say Texas becoming "addicted", the parents then moving to California and suing then. There is no timeframe attached to the law, you can become an addict, have access cut off by moving, your still an addict, and the law doesn't specific you must become addicted while in California, just that you are an addict once within California. Hell they could cut off the kids in California now but the ones already addicted still have a potential case. It's such a badly written law that I can't see it been enforceable, with any luck the first judge it comes up infront of strikes it down, but that's assuming the judge has half a brain, and as we see far too often, many don't, especially when it involves the internet.
This bill is just so many layers of insane...
Here's a question I was at the hospital the other day with my kid he's 13 they made him sign the paperwork and said he's responsible for his own bill that's in Illinois so a 13-year-old is responsible for his own hospital bill I thought you couldn't have a contract with anybody under the age of 17 but you know Illinois is above the law top three crooked estates in the Union
Teach your son how to sign UD before his signature. In effect it makes it void.
Punctuation is your friend.
Selling data can addict the child because the data allows you to tailor the algorithm to be more addicting. If Meta buys the data from a third-party and then uses it to make their product more addicting, then the sale of data was a direct contribution to the contributory negligence.
The parents should be charged for child endangerment if they allow their "child" become addicted and they didn't do anything to prevent it.
People want to have kids then expect you to change your whole life to accommodate their choice.
I keep seeing this chocolate bar commercial with 2 little girls sharing that I know is gonna cause my grandchild to become addicted to chocolate.
In order to make an "addiction" illegal, wouldn't it have to be a recognized ailment according to the ICD 10? Sections P04.40 through P04.49 identify various types of addictions, with pre and post natal designations, but while there are various substances and harms identified, there is nothing under "social media".
That the issue, till they amend it so it "aint" a issue but much like a bully can taunt you 364 days a year but you throw the first punch.. context is killed and you are to blame for it all.