I read both. Cali needs more to time to cook.

“SB 976 frustrates young people’s ability to use the internet to its full potential, prohibiting them from relying on tools that disseminate their speech and help them view and interact with other users’ speech,” the brief argues.

Not being allowed to use a 250db megaphone thst would collapse buildings frustrates young people's ability to use the public square to its full potential.

Gotta disagree with this one. Forums have worked fine for decades for disseminating information. Lemmy is a perfect example of this. Terrible argument imo.

"One could imagine a law that required services to minimize the amount of data they collect, or limit using more invasive data analysis practices, such as tracking users across multiple services, analyzing keystrokes, and other surveillance-intensive practices,” the brief argues. “Such restrictions likely would serve the state’s aim of protecting all internet users—including minors—and would be more narrowly tailored to addressing the harms those practices cause than SB 976."

That should be center piece.

But one should replace 'limit' with 'prohibit'.

Because than algorithmic recommendation would technically cease and be replaced with human recommendations.

A California law that prohibits teens from receiving recommended social media content from other social media users violates their First Amendment rights, EFF argued this week.

The case, Meta v. Bonta, challenges SB 976, which requires that teen social media users get their parents’ permission before seeing other users’ recommended speech on their social media feeds. The legal challenge to SB 976 has largely centered on how the law violates social media services’ First Amendment rights to curate user-generated content and present it as they see fit.

But the friend-of-of the-court brief EFF filed along with the Center for Democracy & Technology and the Wikimedia Foundation shows that the law violates teen users’ First Amendment rights, too.

LMAO seeing EFF and the wikimedia foundation side with Meta is certainly something lol. But it actually makes sense here so…

the friend-of-of the-court brief

Children have the right to doomscroll, obv. It would be inhumane to prevent that.