California lawmakers have amended A.B. 1709, but the core problem remains: the bill is still a ban on social media access for youth under 16, and it still threatens the privacy and First Amendment rights of all Californians.
Proponents of the bill may argue that the recent amendments represent a compromise, but a close look at the text shows no major changes. As the bill moves forward in the Senate, we must continue to urge lawmakers to vote NO.
Take Action: Tell Your Senator to OPPOSE A.B. 1709
A "Compromise" That Still Denies Access
Under the newly amended Section 22683, platforms are prohibited from offering "addictive features" to users under 16. A platform can allow a minor to keep an account only if it strips away these features, which include what the bill calls "addictive feeds," auto-play, and anything else the Attorney General designates in future rulemaking.
However, the bill defines "addictive feeds" so broadly that it covers virtually every functional recommendation algorithm. The bill applies this label to any presentation of user-generated content recommended "in whole or in part, on information provided by the user." That includes basic inputs like who a user follows, what posts they like, or their self-expressed interests. By calling these basic tools and features “addictive," the bill also makes broad conclusions about the unsettled science behind social media use, youth, and addiction.
Because almost every major social media service uses automated feeds to deliver content, the end result of AB 1709 remains the same: young people under 16 will be denied access to major social media services as they currently exist.
Even if a platform attempts to comply by stripping away recommendation systems for minors, this still violates the First Amendment. Recommendation systems are the primary tools that users rely on to find speech and disseminate their own. Forcing young people onto a stripped-down, dysfunctional version of social media burdens their constitutional right to access information and participate in public discourse.
AB 1709 Still Forces Invasive Age Verification
The amendments do not eliminate the privacy threats posed by age gating. Although the bill references the age-signaling framework in AB 1043, Section 22684 explicitly states that a covered platform "shall verify the age of a user” and makes platforms liable every time a person under 16 makes it through an age check.
Because AB 1043 does not actually specify how verification should occur without requiring additional proof, AB 1709 will, in practice, force platforms to implement the strictest forms of age verification. To comply, platforms will likely require users to upload government-issued IDs or submit to biometric scanning. Forcing users to turn over their personal information will create massive honeypots of sensitive personal data, destroying online anonymity and exposing users of all ages to security breaches. And relying on biometric systems to verify users’ ages is problematic because the systems have historically had high error rates estimating ages across race and gender lines.
Take Action: Tell Your Senator to OPPOSE A.B. 1709
Lawmakers Must Reject AB 1709
The amendments to AB 1709 also introduce legal confusion, creating provisions that conflict with already enacted legislation like SB 976. Rather than providing clarity or protecting young people, AB 1709 creates a tangled regulatory scheme that sacrifices constitutional rights for political grandstanding.
Denying minors access to digital forums—or stripping those forums of the basic tools needed to navigate them—is censorship. California should not set a national precedent of cutting young people off from digital lifelines, communities, and speech.
We need to keep the pressure on as AB 1709 moves through the Senate. Contact your state senator today and tell them that minor tweaks to a bad bill do not make it good policy.
Facts Only
* California lawmakers amended A.B. 1709.
* Section 22683 prohibits platforms from offering "addictive features" to users under 16.
* A platform can allow minors an account only by stripping away these features, including "addictive feeds," auto-play, and other designations made by the Attorney General.
* The definition of "addictive feeds" covers any presentation of user-generated content recommended based on user input, such as who a user follows or what posts they like.
* AB 1709 mandates that platforms must verify the age of a user under 16.
* Platforms are made liable when a person under 16 passes an age check.
* The bill references the age-signaling framework in AB 1043.
* Compliance with lack of specification in AB 1043 will likely force platforms to implement strict verification, potentially requiring government IDs or biometric scanning.
Executive Summary
Lawmakers have amended A.B. 1709, but the core issue remains a proposed ban on social media access for youth under 16, and threats to Californian privacy and First Amendment rights persist. The amendments modify how platforms must handle user data and age verification, but the article argues these changes do not fundamentally alter the overall impact of the bill. Specifically, the definition of "addictive feeds" is broad, covering basic functions like following and liking, which the author contends allows for broad conclusions about social media use and addiction. Furthermore, the measures intended to address privacy threats through age gating are presented as forcing platforms into invasive verification methods, such as requiring government IDs or biometric scanning, which risks mass data collection and raises concerns about accuracy.
The core argument presented is that procedural changes do not negate the substantive harm: denying access to existing social media features constitutes censorship, and the mandates for age verification create severe privacy risks by encouraging data harvesting. The author urges continued opposition to A.B. 1709 based on these implications regarding constitutional rights and data security.
Full Take
The narrative operates by framing regulatory adjustments as superficial changes masking entrenched outcomes. The pattern involves equating procedural compromises with substantive defeats, leveraging the concept of "compromise" to mask the continuation of a restrictive policy. This structure relies on connecting technical definitions (like "addictive feeds") directly to high-level constitutional concerns (First Amendment and privacy). The implications point toward a systemic pattern where regulatory mechanisms are designed not for public protection but as tools for state control, shifting burdens onto vulnerable populations while expanding surveillance capabilities under the guise of safety or order. The focus on mandated verification as a mechanism for mass data collection establishes a pattern where legal compliance is presented as an unavoidable step toward privacy erosion rather than a genuine balance between safety and rights. The underlying assumption is that complexity or procedural shifts in legislation are inherently disadvantageous to individual agency unless actively challenged against the inherent power dynamics of the system.
BRIDGE QUESTIONS:
If the focus on mandated verification is understood primarily as a mechanism for data collection, what alternative verification frameworks could establish age-appropriate access without sacrificing user privacy? How can legal arguments be developed that challenge the premise that restricting access to specific digital features equates to a violation of free expression when those features are derived from user interaction? What long-term consequences arise if regulatory schemes prioritize system control over individual autonomy in the digital sphere?
Sentinel — Human
This text functions as advocacy writing, utilizing factual premises about legislation to build a persuasive case against the policy, rather than purely objective reporting.