‘Today We Save Our Children’ Says Governor Hochul, Signing Bill That Will Not Save Anyone
from the legislating-by-grandstanding-moral-panics dept
New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s response to the horrifying shootings in Buffalo in 2022 was not to look for ways to limit access to guns or improve mental health care. It was not to look into why law enforcement ignored the threats that the shooter had made, which they were aware of. It was not to figure out why the 911 dispatcher who answered the first call about the shooting hung up on the caller after getting mad at them for whispering.
No, it was to blame the internet.
Blaming the internet is a very convenient scapegoat for politicians who are in over their heads with societal-level problems.
On Thursday, Hochul became the living embodiment of the “won’t someone please think of the children” meme. She gleefully signed an easily unconstitutional bill that will not protect children, and which will likely do real harm. She signed the SAFE For Kids Act, which bans algorithmic feeds for kids. In signing the bill she literally said:
“Today, we save our children.”
There are just a few problems with this, all of which Hochul’s office (and the sponsors of this bill) have been told about, only to be dismissed as “talking points from big tech.”
Problem 1: There remains no study showing that algorithmic feeds are somehow “addictive” or even a problem. It’s all based on vibes (and adults who seem unable to put down their own phones).
Problem 2: What actual studies show is that if you force chronological feeds on people, a few things happen, none of which “save our children.” First, users get annoyed because they see less of the stuff they go to social media for. This doesn’t make them use less social media, it just makes them switch to other social media. It also exposes those on the chronological feed to more untrustworthy content and disinformation. I’m not sure why Kathy Hochul thinks that exposing kids to more disinformation is “saving our children,” but someone should ask her.
Problem 3: This bill requires age verification, which has already been ruled to be unconstitutional by multiple courts. It is also a privacy nightmare, as has been described multiple times in the past. Creating a world that puts kids’ private data at risk is not “saving our children.”
Problem 4: The requirement about how websites can order content is just a blatantly obvious First Amendment infringement. I mean, just imagine if the NY legislature told a newspaper that it could no longer prioritize some headlines over others and had to lay out the newspaper in the order the stories were written? Everyone would immediately recognize the First Amendment problems with such a law. But this is no different.
Problem 5: Algorithms are a hugely important tool in keeping kids safe online, by minimizing or hiding more harmful or problematic content. And Hochul and the NY legislature are telling social media companies that such tools must be removed from their arsenal.
Hochul told a reporter, “we’ve checked to make sure, we believe it’s constitutional.” And, that’s just laughable. Checked with whom? Every attempt I saw to call out these concerns was brushed off as “just spewing big tech’s talking points.”
The Constitution is not a “big tech talking point.” What the actual research shows is not a “big tech talking point.”
I’m not against chronological feeds as a general concept. They’re great for those that want them. Lots of services already offer them as an option. But mandating them, and especially mandating them for certain ages (necessitating dangerous age verification), doesn’t solve any legitimate problem and makes it harder for trust & safety teams to actually help protect kids.
I recognize that this signing happened the same day that Hochul’s approval ratings and favorability hit all-time lows. So, it’s no surprise that she’s trying populist nonsense and embracing moral panics. But perhaps she should try actually doing things to actually help, rather than things already proven harmful?
Filed Under: algorithmic feed, algorithms, kathy hochul, new york, protect the children, safe for kids act
Comments on “‘Today We Save Our Children’ Says Governor Hochul, Signing Bill That Will Not Save Anyone”
Blame Canada
He’s blaming The Internet when he should be blaming Canada.
It doesn’t even have to be mildly true if you just say it enough times with enough conviction.
Re:
See also: people who think mandating Christian prayers and the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools will magically make a potential school shooter stop and think before they pull the trigger
Re: Re:
When, in reality, it will be used as a bludgeon to torment kids for being different until their only option left is to pick up a gun and take revenge.
Re: Re: Re:
let’s see if net choice will sue
Re: Re: Re:2
Given that they called the bill unconstitutional in a press release, I expect them. And given that the federal courts here are quite competent, I expect this law to be killed quickly after they do so.
Re: Re: Re:2
Even if it gets struck down, we already know they’ll spend decades stacking the judiciary to greenlight crackdowns on secular liberties. And while it’s being fought, they’ll likely pass 100 other laws that enable them to torment people for being different.
It’s ultimately just easier to burn things down and shit in the ashes than it is to build things.
Re: Re: Re:3
unless we all vote blue
Re: Re: Re:4
Isn’t it a Democrat that just signed this bill into law?
Re: Re: Re:5
Reading the site in “threaded” mode may help you.
Re: Re: Re:3
i like how you’re the only one that’s being pessimistic
Re: Re: Re:4
This is a fight we’re all in for the rest of time. I take a long view of the war rather than myopically getting caught up in my emotions over various arbitrary battles.
Re: Re: Re:5
i think there is a possible solution to this issue
Re: Re: Re:6
The solution is to fight forever. To study the landscape always. To move and speak with purpose, and to always keep up the pressure.
There is no “set it and forget it” when it comes to freedom and democracy.
Re: Re: Re:7
exactly
Re: Re: Re:6
Sure, you can start with ‘never vote for a republican candidate so long as there is any alternative, and if republicans are all you’ve got(something I unfortunately have experience with) do your best to find the least disgusting turd of the lot’.
Re: Re: Re:7
She is Democrat
Re: Re: Re:3
Kathy Hochul is a state governor and can’t stack federal courts. Furthermore, the federal courts were not kind to her last attempt to go after social media, which was much more tame than these.
Re: Re: Re:4
They spent half a century setting up Dobbs. The GOP is a national fascist movement, working in concert with a global fascist movement. This is not a fight against any one person in any one place. This is the early stages of WWIII.
Re: Re: Re:5
And the Confederacy is in the process of reviving and aligning with the Axis this time around.
Re: Re: Re:5
Kathy Hochul is a democrat and the main sponsor of the SAFE act is a democrat.
Source: I am a New Yorker and the main sponsor of the SAFE act is my state senator. I wrote him a letter objecting to it but he doubled down.
Re: Re: Re:6
idk why he went from corrupted courts to pre ww2 like what?
Re: Re: Re:7
I didn’t realize the thread had been hijacked. As a general rule, I assume TD readers can follow a conversation thread until proven otherwise.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Also, WW3 != WW2
Re: Re: Re:8
you always change subjects do you?
Re: Re: Re:9
I did not change the subject, as can be verified by scrolling up just a smidge and looking at the comment chain.
Re: Re: Re:10
uhhh it went from a unconstitutional bill to ww3 yea totally isn’t changing subject
Re: Re: Re:11
No, there was actually quite a bit of discussion in between those 2 things that provided the segue. What was lacking, as previously mentioned, is your ability to follow a conversation. But then, we’ve been through that over and over. Haven’t we?
Re: Re: Re:12
so you flood chats good to know troll
Re: Re: Re:13
That’s one way of saying “you engage in conversations I have no hope of understanding.”
It’s about the dumbest way possible, but don’t let that stop you.
You can have last word. I’m done engaging with you.
Re: Re: Re:6
You’re right. Landry is the Louisiana governor.
I just didn’t realize the thread had been hijacked.
Re: Re: Re:4
Unfortunately, in the last election the choices for NY were her or a MAGA idiot who would have pardoned trump at the drop of a hat and said idiot would most likely have come up with similar legislation.
Re: Re: Re:5
and now you’re back to this
Re: Re: Re:5
For sure. We see it with KOSA too. Dems will absolutely hang marginalized groups out to dry for political points when it’s convenient. Republicans make a sport of it though.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Why so salty over legitimate and well-intentioned efforts to protect vulnerable children and young people?
It’s almost as if you want them to be preyed upon!
Re:
your clown license you dropped it
Re:
You ever hear about what they use to pave the road to Hell?
Re: Re:
it’s hermen off his meds again
Re: Re: Re:
Has hurrmen ever actually taken his meds?
Re: Re: Re:2
not at all
Re:
Always projection from you pedos.
Re: Re:
It’s weird. Like they think once kids understand their own minds and bodies, it suddenly gives adults permission to have sex with them? Obviously, I can’t speak for everyone. But at a minimum, I and those in my circle wouldn’t even conceive of such a thing, let alone act on it.
They’re getting the information they need for their lives to not be a living hell. They’re getting the information they need to recognize and report abuse. It takes an exceptionally sick mind to get upset over those things.
Re:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dallas-megachurch-pastor-robert-morris-resignation-b2565418.html
As per usual, the rightoid doth protest too much.
Re:
I mean, there is some question as to how “legitimate” and well-intentioned some of these efforts are, but even disregarding that, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It doesn’t matter how well-intentioned the efforts may be; they won’t actually help kids and will actually cause more problems. I prefer solutions that have a reasonable chance of actually solving the problem, not making it worse.
Additionally, I’m opposed to wasting taxpayer money on passing, enforcing, and defending (in court) laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. It will obviously be made void before it could do any protecting (even if I accept that it would actually help, which it won’t), making it a waste of time and resources that would be far better spent on other things—like mental health programs, education, and more robust privacy protections—that would actually help kids and which wouldn’t be unconstitutional.
Basically, I want a solution that works and is constitutional. I don’t accept the, “We need to do something, this is something, therefore we need to do this,” line of reasoning. It’s foolish, accomplishes nothing, and is often counterproductive.
By all means, please protect children. However, scapegoating social media like this won’t do that.
If I wanted that, I’d support the bill for making it easier to prey upon kids while pretending to solve the problem.
Re:
Because legislation isn’t supposed to be merely “well-intentioned”, it’s supposed to be *effective, and is definitely not supposed to have the exact opposite effect to what was supposedly intended.
It’s almost as if you don’t want legislation that would actually be effective in protecting kids. Would that cramp your style?
Reddit gets over one million posts per day. How can a chronological feed possibly work there?
Re:
Go to the top of any subreddit. Click sort by new. Boom. Chronological feed. you can even do it with r/all. They wouldn’t be able to insert recommended posts easily, but I see that as a win.
Re: Re:
That’s so far beyond idiotic that it can’t even see idiotic in the rearview mirror.
Re:
Spoiler: It can’t.
Seems this case will turn on the recent 303 Creative decision. Because website design and presentation was considered speech in that case, applying it would show that this law violates the platforms’ First Amendment rights to display content in a non-chronological manner. Unless we get a rogue judge, this will hopefully be the outcome.
Netchoice better step up with the challenges too. Louisiana’s law goes into effect in July, more are probably on the horizon, and the more precedent we get now, the harder it will be to pass and uphold these laws later on.
I find the claim dubious that “forcing” chronological feeds on people necessarily means showing them less of what they’re interested in.
If I’m interested in new things that have happened since I was last on social media then I don’t want to see a reference to some random tragedy or call-out or other cortisol-generating post from months or even years prior.
I can’t stress strongly enough how much I despise forced “relevance” feeds be they in social media or search. If I find reverse chronological feeds don’t have enough of what I want – then I can go to the social-media-platform recommended feed.
Re:
In a chronological feed you’ll very rarely see anything you want, unless you’re on a platform so small you don’t need a feed.
In the aggregate. Most people are more interested in their feeds being sorted based on relevance to them than chronological order. This is based on research.
That’s what you want. And besides, most social media feeds tend to favor newer content over years-old content in my personal experience.
Then use a search engine or social media platform that doesn’t do that. The issue here is in forcing all platforms to force chronological feeds on certain/all users, not just to simply have it as an option or having some platforms provide chronological feeds.
Re:
This should be so fucking obvious on its face that it beggars belief anyone claims otherwise.
“My way is the best way. They just don’t know what they want. Let’s break the internet to prove it.” Jesus wept.
This should be so fucking obvious on its face that it beggars belief anyone claims otherwise.
“My way is the best way. They just don’t know what they want. I’ll break the internet to prove it.” Fuck these morons. With a rake.
SAVE the children
Dont teach them to swim
Dont teach them NOT to stick forks in electrical sockets.
Dont teach them how Dogs are.
Dont teach them how to HEAL themselves.
Dont teach them about Guns, knives, cooking, Boiling water.
Dont teach them HOW to cross the street, about Cars. truck, motor cycles.
Dont teach them HOW TO COOK.
How many more idiots do we need in this world?
‘We must Save the children[1][2][3]!’
[1] From privacy
[2] From the ability to communicate or use online services
[3] But most important of all, not in any way that requires an admission of guilt or responsibility on our part.
But history says that the Internet was the cause of every problem. Trojan War? Some chick was using multiple dating apps.
Mankind getting kicked out of the Garden/Original Sin? She saw a recipe for Apple Pie.
WW2? Somebody took Grammar Nazi to the real world.
Salem Witch Trials? Bad selfie filter choice.
French Revolution? One of the Royals left a 1-Star Yelp review on a bakery.
Space Shuttle explosion? The instruction video buffered and skipped a step.
The Spanish Flu? Well that wasn’t the internets fault, but the Chipotle app didn’t help!
Want the sources of these claims? Its all on the Internet.
She also dumped a huge pile of cash into monitoring sharks to protect people from the couple shark attacks that happen every year.
People just like to believe something was done & that means its fixed.
If I like this post on FB that will totally help that baby with cancer and I can go on with my life.
There’s an episode of “Will & Grace”, in which Will talks to Grace about her poker playing style, saying to her, “You have a “tell” when you’re bluffing… you tell everybody you’re NOT bluffing.” When it comes to these Internet laws, politicians have a similar tell that the bills they back are (likely) unconstitutional, they tell everybody that it IS constitutional.
There should be a presumption of unconstitutionality to any government Internet regulation that has a substantial impact on speech and expression or a platform’s editorial conduct that goes against the First Amendment principles extended to the Internet through the landmark Reno v. ACLU case, until and unless a court decides otherwise.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I’m glad there are at least some politicians who take the concerns of parents seriously and are willing to push policies that evil social media companies don’t like, but which might keep under-developed brains from being harmed.
Re:
The parents I know don’t appreciate this idiocy either.
Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
I think algorithmic feeds are big problem period, for adults and children. It’s one reason the country is so divided. I believe it’s how a lot of disinformation is spread. I don’t agree with this bill however.