These 2 Terrible Tech Bills Are on Gavin Newsom's Desk
One limits children’s access to mental health services, the other mandates a black box warning, and both undermine users’ digital privacy.

The California state Senate recently sent two tech bills to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk. If signed, one could make it harder for children to access mental health resources, and the other would create the most annoying Instagram experience imaginable.
The Leading Ethical AI Development (LEAD) for Kids Act prohibits "making a companion chatbot available to a child unless the companion chatbot is not foreseeably capable of doing certain things that could harm a child." The bill's introduction specifies the "things" that could harm a child as genuinely bad stuff: self-harm, suicidal ideation, violence, consumption of drugs or alcohol, and disordered eating.
Unfortunately, the bill's ambiguous language sloppily defines what outputs from an AI companion chatbot would meet these criteria. The verb preceding these buckets is not "telling," "directing," "mandating," or some other directive, but "encouraging."
Taylor Barkley, director of public policy for the Abundance Institute, tells Reason that, "by hinging liability on whether an AI 'encourages' harm—a word left dangerously vague—the law risks punishing companies not for urging bad behavior, but for failing to block it in just the right way." Notably, the bill does not merely outlaw operators from making chatbots available to children that encourage self-harm, but those that are "foreseeably capable" of doing so.
Ambiguity aside, the bill also outlaws companion chatbots from "offering mental health therapy to the child without the direct supervision of a licensed or credentialed professional." While traditional psychotherapy performed by a credentialed professional is associated with better mental health outcomes than those from a chatbot, such therapy is expensive—nearly $140 on average per session in the U.S., according to wellness platform SimplePractice. A ChatGPT Plus subscription costs only $20 per month. In addition to its much lower cost, the use of AI therapy chatbots has been associated with positive mental health outcomes.
While California has passed a bill that may reduce access to potential mental health resources, it's also passed one that stands to make residents' experiences on social media much more annoying. California's Social Media Warning Law would require social media platforms to display a warning for users under 17 years old that reads, "the Surgeon General has warned that while social media may have benefits for some young users, social media is associated with significant mental health harms and has not been proven safe for young users," for 10 seconds upon first opening a social media app each day. After using a given platform for three hours throughout the day, the warning is displayed again for a minimum of 30 seconds—without the ability to minimize it—"in a manner that occupies at least 75 percent of the screen."
Whether this vague warning would discourage many teens from doomscrolling is dubious; warning labels do not often drastically change consumers' behaviors. For example, a 2018 Harvard Business School study found that graphic warnings on soda decreased the share of sugar drinks purchased by students over two weeks by only 3.2 percentage points, and a 2019 RAND Corporation study found that graphic warning labels have no effect on discouraging regular smokers from purchasing cigarettes.
But "platforms aren't cigarettes," writes Clay Calvert, a technology fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, "[they] carry multiple expressive benefits for minors." Because social media warning labels "don't convey uncontroversial, measurable pure facts," compelling them likely violates the First Amendment's protections against compelled speech, he explains.
Shoshana Weissmann, digital director and fellow at the R Street Institute, tells Reason that both bills "would probably encourage platforms to verify user age before they can access the services, which would lead to all the same security problems we've seen again and again." These security problems include the leaking of drivers' licenses from AU10TIX, the identity verification company used by tech giants X, TikTok, and Uber, as reported by 404 Media in June 2024.
Both bills could very likely exacerbate the very problems they seek to address— worsening mental health among minors and unhealthy social media habits—while making users' privacy less secure. Newsom, who has not signaled if he'll sign these measures, has the opportunity to veto both bills. Only time will tell if he does.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Oh, I know this one!
m-i-c-r-o-m-a-n-a-g-e-b-y-b-u-r-e-a-u-c-r-a-t-s-t-o-o-s-t-u-p-i-d-t-o-g-e-t-a-r-e-a-l-j-o-b.
For what it's worth, California cannot properly manage a bowel movement, much less handle these bills.
In before sarcbot strawman. He won't criticize Newsome though.
How does Nick Jacastro feel about it?
Reason never criticizes Democrats, therefore this article does not exist.
Haha. Called it. Poor retarded sarc.
Missing the important AI news of the day.
Nvidia gives $100 billion to OpenAI so that OpenAI can buy Nvidia chips. Which will certainly help Nvidia but makes you wonder who is really paying and what does this mean about AI
AI clearly can't fund its growth with revenues. Nvidia knows this which is why they are recycling their own revenues within the Silicon Valley AI sphere. Meaning - we are in a bubble and the clock is ticking. Not news to anyone. Nor however is it the same sort of obvious as a sock puppet on a Super Bowl commercial.
Once that shit-ton of capital spending/intensity starts getting written down by the Mag7+, they will turn into shitty business models - permanently. What made those companies so massively profitable over the decades was that they could generate obscene margins with no capital expenditures via their cartelized network effect. it was the great success of the VC fueled tech model for decades. That's gone permanently.
Tech will now become VERY capital intensive and not just the semi/foundries where that capital was spent by China/Taiwan/Korea for decades. Meaning that the consumer-driven debt-driven economic model that has fueled the US for decades will now diminish. And Asia is now pulling capital out of the US because the US is clearly a hostile uninvestable space for foreigners.
8 Gw of chip compute which is the 'deal' here is the equivalent of roughly 18% of incremental electrical capacity created each year in the US. Since this deal involves precisely zero Gw of additional electrical power supply (like pretty much everything that techbros have been doing with their data center construction), the only effect is to increase demand - ie increase electricity bills for everyone else. IDK the marginal price elasticity of that sort of demand increase - but it will be noticeable. After all, $100 billion is about six months of Nvidia revenue. So - not only is AI hyped/supposed to take people's jobs, it will also reduce their ability to have indoor electricity. Won't take long before the tech crowd gets an even more evil reputation.
Maybe AI will come up with some non-imaginary solution in response to a well-structured prompt. Hahahahaha.
Why is the supply of electric power seen as a limited resource, but there is no end to the amount of chips that can be produced?