The infinite scroll may become endangered if controversial Calif. law passes

Social media companies might soon be forced to remove the addictive features that keep teenagers online for hours on end — including the ubiquitous infinite scroll.

Read more 55-year-old Bay Area electronics company to close plant, lay off 200

Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, a Democrat from Long Beach, initially introduced Assembly Bill 1709 in February as a proposal that would prohibit teenagers from using social media platforms that are designed to be dangerously addictive. But after deliberations over several hearings in the California Legislature between lawmakers, advocates and a prominent Big Tech lobby, all agreed that age-gating the internet could ultimately do more harm than good. 

So, last month, Lowenthal amended his bill to instead require the companies, including behemoths like Meta and Reddit, to come up with an alternative, less addictive feed for underage users. If the companies can’t abide, then kids under 16 will be unable to make accounts on their platforms. 

“We’re not banning kids from riding skateboards when we tell them to use a helmet,” Lowenthal told SFGATE in a phone call last week. “The bill entails to ban social media from accessing young people if they are using these harmful features. The bill was never intended to block access, but it was to block predatory behavior.”

The bill text defines an “addictive feature” as “psychologically exploitative features intended to maximize engagement that foreseeably lead to compulsive use.” Under the revised proposal, companies will have until 2028 to adjust their platforms, Lowenthal said in a call with SFGATE. It would also create an oversight group composed of experts who will serve as a liaison between the California attorney general’s office and the companies. 

The most recent version of the bill has been months in the making. 

Lowenthal told SFGATE he came up with the idea after a trip to Australia, where lawmakers implemented a first-of-its-kind social media ban for teenagers last year. Australians are now prohibited from having social media profiles until they reach age 16. Since Australia’s law went into effect, countries across Asia and Europe have announced similar plans to set an age limit on social media access.

But after originally proposing a de facto ban, Lowenthal heard from critics who argued a ban would isolate teenagers, particularly LGBTQ kids, who find resources and community online. Others argued that age verification could violate users’ data privacy. There were also questions raised about whether the bill could infringe on free speech rights. At an June 30 committee hearing, Lowenthal argued that “infinite scroll, auto play, recommended algorithms, and push notifications are product features. They are not speech.”

Still, Lowenthal said he took those recommendations into consideration: “How do we maximize children’s safety online, while also preserving opportunities for connection and inclusion? I believe that concept deserves careful consideration,” he said during a June 22 committee hearing.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, who sits on the committee to which Lowenthal presented, said during the June 22 hearing that he thinks addictive feeds “are disgusting and they should not exist,” but he hesitated to support the bill if it prohibited teens from using social media. He said that it would only further isolate kids who are already detached from a community. Wiener eventually voted “with trepidation” in favor of the bill advancing out of committee on the hope that Lowenthal makes substantial changes.

Lowenthal did so, amending the bill to put the onus on companies instead. He said in a hearing the following week that he thinks the new version “preserves opportunities for connection and inclusion while maximizing children’s safety on social media platforms.”

The amended version specifies that teens would only be blocked from using apps if the parent companies do not fix the “engagement-maximizing features” that Lowenthal says are specifically designed to keep users online longer. The new version also narrows the definition of what an “addictive feature” is to include only “addictive feeds,” “autoplay,” and “any other feature defined” by the attorney general “as an addictive feature.”

Read more California’s dairy industry panics over August recycling deadline

“I don’t see Big Tech as the problem, I see them as the solution. I think they’re under immense pressure from Wall Street to be constantly outperforming what they’ve done in the previous quarter, and regretfully, addiction pays,” Lowenthal told SFGATE in a phone call in March, in the early weeks of deliberation over his bill.

“When they lean into their responsibility, they will be able to grow in ways that they never thought of. I want to be with them to help them make that shift,” he said.

California lobbyist Rob Boykin, who works for TechNet, a prominent tech group that represents the industry in Sacramento, said during the June 22 hearing that outright prohibition for teens would be a “one size fits all” approach. He cautioned that teens will continue to find ways to go online, and use less safe, unregulated platforms and workarounds to do so. 

Boykin told SFGATE in a statement that they “appreciate” the new amendments and the Legislature’s willingness to address concerns. 

Lowenthal said he spoke with Meta representatives just once. The company, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, brought people in from Washington, D.C., when the bill was first introduced to negotiate parental controls as a middle ground. 

“We outright rejected that,” Lowenthal said of Meta’s request. When SFGATE asked whether Meta’s $65 million spent on lobbying efforts in California impacted his choice to back off a full ban, Lowenthal said the bill changes were not directly because of requests from the tech company. He added: ”We should all be alarmed at Meta’s presence in Sacramento.”

Marc Berkman, the CEO of the Organization for Social Media Safety and a supporter of the bill, told SFGATE in a phone call this week that the U.S. is “lagging” in providing protection for young users. He said families talk about these issues at the dinner table, but there’s “still a gap on how severe and pervasive these are across the board. I think that this bill is the right response for California,” he said.

The bill is now headed to the Senate Appropriations Committee for review.