California
Op-Ed: California’s fight for a safer internet isn’t over
This month, a invoice to control social media providers for kids was rejected by California’s Senate Appropriations Committee with out clarification. The proposed laws, sponsored by Assemblymembers Jordan Cunningham (R-Paso Robles) and Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and referred to as the Social Media Platform Obligation to Kids Act, would have allowed the state legal professional normal and native prosecutors to sue social media corporations for knowingly incorporating options into their merchandise that addicted kids. The highly effective tech trade lobbied for months to defeat the invoice.
However a companion invoice spearheaded by the identical lawmakers — the Age-Applicable Design Code Act — survived the appropriations committee and should still grow to be regulation.
With out the sturdy enforcement provisions within the Social Media Platform Obligation to Kids Act, some despair that the legislative effort was a waste of time. Progress, nonetheless, is made in increments. These legislative efforts have already achieved a number of positive factors.
First, they named the issue as one among company accountability and reframed the general public dialogue round social media regulation.
Each payments recognized social media dependancy as a professional downside, and one brought on by firms. Social media corporations and their defenders have repeatedly rejected accountability for the addictive nature of their choices. Fb, for instance, has denied reviews that Instagram use harmed teenage ladies and pushed again forcefully towards claims that its platform harms customers.
This company gaslighting successfully blames kids for being hooked on social media and conveniently ignores how corporations have deliberately designed their merchandise to have addictive options, suggesting: My product isn’t the issue; it’s your child. The bipartisan legislative effort rejected this view, legitimized parental issues about social media dependancy and reframed the problem as one among company accountability and product legal responsibility as an alternative of blaming the sufferer.
Second, these payments acknowledged that web use implicates competing values and priorities and chipped away at Large Tech exceptionalism.
When confronted with the prospect of any sort of on-line regulation, social media corporations, old-school web idealists and free-market zealots ring the identical two alarm bells: Regulation will stifle free speech and impede tech innovation. For the previous couple of a long time or so, these twin bugbears have scared away legislators from imposing regulation with actual enamel. However these arguments have a number of flaws.
Social media corporations usually are not absolute protectors of free speech and already impose limits on the speech they distribute. Nor are they the one revolutionary companies topic to regulation. The biotech trade, for instance, should adjust to rules that promote security and efficacy.
A spotlight solely on so-called free speech and innovation additional ignores that different vital values will be threatened by an unregulated web, akin to privateness, autonomy and security.
Till this month, it seemed as if California would possibly lastly cross a invoice that will maintain the tech trade accountable for the hurt brought on by its merchandise. However although that enforcement laws creating a brand new path for lawsuits has been killed, the battle isn’t over.
The design laws that’s nonetheless alive within the state Senate would require corporations to implement common sense privateness necessities akin to stringent default settings and clear, concise phrases of service. It could additionally require corporations to evaluate the influence that their merchandise have on kids and prohibit options akin to “darkish patterns,” pop-ups and different parts of the product interface that encourage kids to offer private data.
These provisions usually are not simply good for kids — they’re good for all customers. Critics who declare that the laws would require age verification on all web sites are lacking the purpose. Firms ought to adjust to these provisions whatever the age of their customers; age verification can be mandatory provided that they want to interact in misleading and dangerous on-line practices with grownup customers.
The laws would impose civil penalties of as much as $2,500 or $7,500 per youngster relying on whether or not the violation is negligent or intentional. Though these penalties could also be too small to financially harm corporations akin to Fb (or technically, Meta), the invoice stipulates that they are going to be used to offset the prices of regulation. Civil penalties additionally are inclined to have a public shaming impact, which can additional erode the Teflon coating that has lengthy protected the tech trade from regulation.
Furthermore, the loss of life of the companion invoice empowering state lawsuits doesn’t preclude all civil lawsuits towards social media corporations. Though mother and father wouldn’t be capable of sue below the design invoice itself, the requirements that develop in response to it could assist mother and father in lawsuits introduced towards corporations on the idea of product legal responsibility, tort or contract legal responsibility. Tech might face stress from shoppers too: Firms that fail to adapt to prevailing enterprise norms could also be seen as negligent or reckless.
It’s now as much as the state Senate to approve the common sense design act that can assist defend California’s kids from addictive and poisonous on-line environments.
Nancy Kim is a regulation professor at Chicago-Kent Faculty of Legislation, Illinois Institute of Know-how.
California
California proposes its own EV buyer credit — which could cut out Elon Musk's Tesla
- Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to revive California’s EV rebate if Trump ends the federal tax credit.
- But Tesla, the largest maker of EVs, would be excluded under the proposal.
- Elon Musk criticized Tesla’s potential exclusion from the rebate.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom is preparing to step in if President-elect Donald Trump fulfills his promise to axe the federal electric-vehicle tax credit — but one notable EV maker could be left out.
Newsom said Monday if the $7,500 federal tax credit is eliminated he would restart the state’s zero-emission vehicle rebate program, which was phased out in 2023.
“We will intervene if the Trump Administration eliminates the federal tax credit, doubling down on our commitment to clean air and green jobs in California,” Newsom said in a statement. “We’re not turning back on a clean transportation future — we’re going to make it more affordable for people to drive vehicles that don’t pollute.”
The rebates for EV buyers would come from the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is funded by polluters of greenhouse gases under a cap-and-trade program, according to the governor’s office.
But Tesla’s vehicles could be excluded under the proposal’s market-share limitations, Bloomberg News first reported.
The governor’s office confirmed to Business Insider that the rebate program could include a market-share cap which could in turn exclude Tesla or other EV makers. The office did not share details about what market-share limit could be proposed and also noted the proposal would be subject to negotiations in the state legislature.
A market-share cap would exclude companies whose sales account for a certain amount of total electric vehicle sales. For instance, Tesla accounted for nearly 55% off all new electric vehicles registered in California in the first three quarters of 2024, according to a report from the California New Car Dealers Association. By comparison, the companies with the next highest EV market share in California were Hyundai and BMW with 5.6% and 5% respectively.
Tesla sales in California, the US’s largest EV market, have recently declined even as overall EV sales in the state have grown. Though the company still accounted for a majority of EV sales in California this year as of September, its market share fell year-over-year from 64% to 55%.
The governor’s office said the market-share cap would be aimed at promoting competition and innovation in the industry.
Elon Musk, who has expressed support for ending the federal tax credit, said in an X post it was “insane” for the California proposal exclude Tesla.
The federal electric vehicle tax credit, which was passed as part of the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, provides a $7,500 tax credit to some EV buyers.
Musk, who is working closely with the incoming Trump administration, has expressed support for ending the tax credit. He’s set to co-lead an advisory commission, the Department of Government Efficiency, which is aimed at slashing federal spending.
The Tesla CEO said on an earnings call in July that ending the federal tax credit might actually benefit the company.
“I think it would be devastating for our competitors and for Tesla slightly,” Musk said. “But long-term probably actually helps Tesla, would be my guess.”
BI’s Graham Rapier previously reported that ending the tax credit could help Tesla maintain its strong standing in the EV market by slowing its competitors growth.
Prior to the EV rebate proposal, Newsom has already positioned himself as a foil to the incoming Trump administration. Following Trump’s election win the governor called on California lawmakers to convene for a special session to discuss protecting the state from Trump’s second term.
“The freedoms we hold dear in California are under attack — and we won’t sit idle,” Newsom said in a statement at the time.
California
California Gov. Gavin Newsom says state will provide rebates if Trump removes tax credit for electric vehicles
California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the state will provide rebates to residents if President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration does away with a federal tax credit for electric vehicles.
In a news release issued Monday, Newsom said he would restart the state’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Program, which provided financial incentives on more than 590,000 vehicles before it was phased out late 2023.
“We will intervene if the Trump Administration eliminates the federal tax credit, doubling down on our commitment to clean air and green jobs in California,” Newsom said. “We’re not turning back on a clean transportation future — we’re going to make it more affordable for people to drive vehicles that don’t pollute.”
The federal rebates on new and used electric vehicles were implemented in the Inflation Reduction Act that President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022. When Trump’s second term in office begins next year, he could work with Congress to change the rules around those rebates. Those potential changes could limit the federal rebates, including by reducing the amount of money available or limiting who is eligible.
Limiting federal subsidies on electric vehicle purchases would hurt many American automakers, including Ford, General Motors and the EV startup Rivian. Tesla, which also builds its automobiles in the United States, would take a smaller hit since that company currently sells more EVs and has a higher profit margin than any other EV manufacturer.
Newsom also announced earlier this month that he will convene a special session “to protect California values,” including fundamental civil rights and reproductive rights, that he said “are under attack by this incoming administration.”
“Whether it be our fundamental civil rights, reproductive freedom, or climate action — we refuse to turn back the clock and allow our values and laws to be attacked,” Newsom said on X on Nov. 7.
A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This isn’t the first time California will be taking action against the Trump’s administration concerning clean transportation legislation.
In 2019, California and 22 other states sued his administration for revoking its ability to set standards for greenhouse gas emission and fuel economy standards for vehicles, The Associated Press reported.
California sued the Trump administration over 100 times during his first term, primarily on matters including gun control, health care, education and immigration, the Los Angeles Times reported.
California
45 Years Later, California Murder Mystery Solved Through DNA Evidence
A 45-year-old cold case of a 17-year-old girl brutally raped and murdered has been resolved, bringing closure to the family. On February 9, 1979, Esther Gonzalez walked from her parents’ home to her sister’s in Banning, California, roughly 137 km east of Los Angeles. She never arrived. The next day, her body was discovered in a snowpack near a highway in Riverside County, California. Authorities determined she had been raped and bludgeoned to death, leading to an investigation that spanned decades.
The lab was able to match the DNA to a man named Lewis Randolph “Randy” Williamson, who died in 2014. Williamson, a US Marine Corps veteran, called authorities on the fateful day to report finding Ms Gonzalez’s body. At the time, he claimed he could not identify whether the body was male or female. Described as “argumentative” by deputies, Williamson was asked to take a polygraph test, which he passed, clearing him of suspicion in the pre-DNA era. He had faced assault allegations in the past but was never convicted of any violent crimes, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Despite limited leads, the Riverside County cold case homicide team didn’t give up. A semen sample recovered from Ms Gonzalez’s body in 1979 was preserved but remained unmatched in the national Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) for decades.
In 2023, forensic technology finally caught up. The homicide team collaborated with a genetic lab in Texas that specialises in forensic genealogy. A sample of Williamson’s blood from his 2014 autopsy provided the DNA match needed to confirm him as the 17-year-old’s rapist and killer.
The Gonzalez family had mixed emotions—relief at finally having answers and sadness knowing Williamson would not face justice, as he died in Florida ten years ago. Ms Gonzalez, remembered by her family as a shy yet funny and mild-mannered young woman, was the fourth of seven children. Her oldest brother, Eddie Gonzalez, wrote on Facebook, “The Gonzalez family would like to thank the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department on a job well done. After 40 years, the Gonzalez family has closure.”
“We are very happy that we finally have closure,” Ms Gonzalez’s sister, Elizabeth, 64, shared with CNN. “We are happy about it but, since the guy has died, a little sad that he won’t spend any time for her murder.”
-
Business1 week ago
Column: Molly White's message for journalists going freelance — be ready for the pitfalls
-
Science6 days ago
Trump nominates Dr. Oz to head Medicare and Medicaid and help take on 'illness industrial complex'
-
Politics1 week ago
Trump taps FCC member Brendan Carr to lead agency: 'Warrior for Free Speech'
-
Technology1 week ago
Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI
-
Lifestyle1 week ago
Some in the U.S. farm industry are alarmed by Trump's embrace of RFK Jr. and tariffs
-
World1 week ago
Protesters in Slovakia rally against Robert Fico’s populist government
-
Health3 days ago
Holiday gatherings can lead to stress eating: Try these 5 tips to control it
-
News1 week ago
They disagree about a lot, but these singers figure out how to stay in harmony