Ep. 236 - Kami Peer - Common Sense Media

Kami Peer, California Policy Associate with Common Sense Media, shares with Bryan how proposed legislation this past session was drafted to combat tactics used to addict minors to social media. Kami goes behind the scenes discussing the platforms and political leaders they are taking on in this fight.

 

(Originally aired 30Aug22)

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

S1 (00:01):
OLAS Media. OLAS Media Presents Nation State of Play. Welcome to

(00:27):
the Nation State of Play podcast. I'm your host, Brian Miller.
And each episode we explore the political stories that are
driving public policy in California. We explore these stories with
political insiders, business leaders, journalists and policymakers themselves to get
below the surface of the headlines and show you the
true forces shaping our nation state. Well, thanks for listening. Today,
we have a really interesting episode that our guest is

(00:49):
Kami Peer with common sense media. This is an issue I
wanted to talk about. It's how to regulate social media
companies and particularly the things that they do to addict
minors to social media applications and common sense media led
an unsuccessful fight this session, but I expect them to
be back in session on really some groundbreaking legislation that

(01:11):
would create liability for the addictive features in social media
when they create harm to minors. Now that that bill
just went down in the notorious suspense file process that
we do annually here in California. And Kami helps us
look behind the scenes as to what was really driving
the politics of that, who's fighting it? How the bill

(01:31):
died at least this year in suspense and how they
hope to bring it back next year. And something that
I really think California needs to be a leader on.
So really interesting conversation. Stay with us. Coming up right
after this. Kami Peer with common sense.

S2 (01:51):
American democracy is good, but we can make it better.
The National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers includes organizations across the
country that are working right now to build a better
democracy by opening primaries, implementing safe, secure voting systems, reducing
corruption and increasing transparency. Listen to our weekly podcast, How
to Win Friends and Save the Republic. To hear the

(02:13):
latest updates from the Democracy Reform Space, subscribe and learn
more about us at nonpartisan reformers. Dot org.

S1 (02:21):
Welcome back to the Nation State of Play podcast Kami,
Thanks so much for being here today. It's a pleasure
to have you on the show.

S3 (02:28):
Yeah, thanks so much for having me on.

S1 (02:31):
So I'm sorry that we're talking about this bill after
it has gone down for the session. And this is
a struck me as a tremendously important bill, and I
assume I'm going to keep at it. So we wanted
to talk about what it would have done fully, what
it can do going forward. And but before we get
into the details of it, just ask you first a

(02:52):
little bit about your organization, what you focus on at
a high level?

S3 (02:55):
Yeah, sure. So I am a state policy associate here
in California. Common Sense Media is a nationwide organization. In
about 2010, we emerged as kind of an early and
leading voice in supporting kids digital wellbeing. So we were
the first non-profit to basically show up and tell tech

(03:18):
companies to stop tracking our kids data. And I'm continuing
our advocacy efforts in California supporting bills and supporting our
federal laws across the country in support of kids privacy
and kids protections.

S1 (03:34):
Okay. So let's talk about a 24 hour wait. What
would the bill have done?

S3 (03:40):
Right. So it's a pretty simple bill. It's a product
liability bill. In essence, it makes it unlawful for social
media giants. So basically, the Tiktoks, the Snapchats, the metas,
which is both Instagram and Facebook. It makes it unlawful
for them to admit kids with their products. So it

(04:03):
doesn't apply to any content on these platforms. It focuses
on the design features they're using to manipulate and harm children.
These are things like the auto scroll. So you're scrolling
through videos and another video just keeps popping up for
hours and hours, push notifications, luring children onto apps, and

(04:26):
then something called Snapchat Streets, which is known to be
a social pressure for kids to get on Snapchat over
and over. The bill says if a company is negligently
or knowingly causing addiction and harm to a minor, then
public prosecutors have grounds to hold them liable. So under

(04:49):
the bill, family would need to prove both addiction and harm.
So this is something like a family showing that they
had mental health visits for their child who was suffering
from an eating disorder due to the content that was
being pushed towards someone on an app. Could be medical

(05:10):
treatments for even wors case scenarios where a child is
struggling through self-harm. So there is a liability portion of
the bill that provides platforms with. Kind of a grace
period to react to this band of their features, to

(05:33):
get rid of those harmful design features in a timely
manner so they can react and make their platforms safe.
We want to just set those guardrails.

S1 (05:43):
In terms of the damages under the bill. Can you
explain more about how that works? Would it be confined
to only actual damages for particular plaintiffs, or would there
be other damages that the state could seek or maybe
punitive damages, things along those lines?

S3 (05:57):
Yes. So the liability under this is for the largest
social media companies and it is for public prosecutors, the
AG and others to work with families, empower them to
actually stand up to tech giants. So there are still

(06:19):
suits that are going on from private entities and with families,
and those are still completely viable and going through. And
then this is just adding that extra support for families.

S1 (06:33):
I want to talk more about how addiction works on
social media. Is there a difference in your mind about
how these developments impact children versus adults? I know that
Bill is focused on on minors, but is it really
any different based on what a juror?

S3 (06:50):
Yeah. I mean, we we know that for a fact
based on meta then Facebook internal research that was shared
last year in Francis Huggins but so well that they
know their their platforms are disproportionately affecting children. They are
more vulnerable to these kind of features. They're more vulnerable

(07:11):
to the mental health implications. Instagram shared that they make
body image worse for one in three girls. How do
they do that? It's a large part in the notifications
luring girls in. And the other school that I mentioned earlier,
you know, kids are basically at the whim of all

(07:33):
of the neuroscientists hired by these these platforms. You know,
social media is not innately harmful. Just like consuming alcohol
or driving a vehicle aren't. The issue is extreme dangerous
usage with children, which children are more vulnerable to? So,

(07:53):
you know, we have rules and laws to prevent harm
to consumers of alcohol or drivers. You know, that's why
you have to be 21 years of age to drink.
You need to try and pass a driving test. So
this bill, you know, says it brings in government and
parents to have the ability to regulate protections on social

(08:16):
media apps, just like we have protections for children with
other kinds of products. So these protections are proven. To
address features that have serious mental health issues that are
devastating families.

S1 (08:35):
How does addiction defined under the bill? Because it strikes
me as that's a word that I mean, actually that
medical definition of this that I thought was really interesting
about sort of needing increasing levels of dopamine release to
get back to the same baseline levels of dopamine. But
but I think the word can be used loosely in

(08:57):
different contexts. So how does how does the build a frame?

S3 (09:01):
Right. So it kind of sets up a few definitions.
So addicted means to knowingly or negligently cause addiction. And
then addiction is defined as the preoccupation or obsession with
a product that leads to withdrawals or difficulty to cease

(09:23):
or reduce use. And then this addiction also proves to
cause mental, physical, emotional or developmental harms to a user.

S1 (09:35):
Okay. So this bill was restricted to to the annual
event we call the suspense file here in California, which
is sort of a backdoor veto process we have in
the legislature. I think most of our listeners are familiar
with it, but why don't we make sure we just

(09:56):
get it out there? Since it's is timely this time
of year, can you explain exactly what happened the other
night of the bill?

S3 (10:02):
Right. So last week what we saw were social media
companies putting their bottom line over the wellness of children,
using their deep pockets, their political sway, to make sure
that California laws benefit them. And so last week, 24

(10:24):
hour eight was the number one bill to kill. They
put every worst resource they had into lobbying against it.
And this decision fell on Senator Dino, the chair of
the Appropriations Committee, who decided to hold the bill, you know,
decided inaction was was the best way forward. Common sense

(10:48):
believes that, you know, California families deserve a reason behind
holding the bill. Right now, the decision seems to lean
heavily toward. That Senator Tina was protecting corporate interests over
children's health. Simple as that. So case in point, why
we need bills like 24, a eight to actually rein

(11:09):
in these social media companies so they don't have free
reign over over our children's psyche.

S1 (11:14):
Did he offer any public explanation for holding them?

S3 (11:18):
He did not.

S1 (11:19):
So one of the things I appreciate about your advocacy
on this is you've been willing to call him out
by name here. I think we're often too hesitant to
do that in Sacramento, in politics generally, which I think
creates a culture of non accountability. Understand the reasons people
are afraid to do it. But but that's the reasons
we asked you on the show as a think. You

(11:40):
guys have been bold here and saying that there's a
problem with this process. And we've had other guests on
totally different topics talking about the the the strange suspense.
Let me just dwell on that process for a little bit.
Can you can you explain why this is such a
strangely undemocratic vehicle that exists? I mean, I assume you're

(12:04):
generally against this process, not not just this process and
this particular bill. Is that fair?

S3 (12:09):
Yeah. I mean, like you said, democratic process seems to
kind of hinder legislative integrity almost. This is a process
where hundreds of bills are very quickly fed through with
two decisions. They're either held or moved forward to whatever

(12:31):
the assembly or Senate floor. It's. All the decisions that
happened behind closed doors. Even advocates that are very closely
tied to bills are struggling to find time to speak
with important legislators like Senator Port. You know, and we
had the same issue this year. And you're right, it

(12:52):
happens every year. So. You know, we are definitely looking
for ways to to engage more in this process. And
and hoping that this doesn't continue to happen.

S1 (13:10):
As you've met with you, your lobbying team has. What
what does he say about this bill when you talk
to him?

S3 (13:17):
You know, he has he has a young daughter. He
was very open to the idea of the bill when
we met with him, I think it was in late
June in person. It was a great conversation. We had
common sense Children's Advocacy Institute, a youth led organization called
the Log Off Movement Log Movement. We all met with him.

(13:42):
The conversation seemed to go great. So we're, you know,
confused and curious as to why that sentiment seemed to change.

S1 (13:52):
So you were surprised that it did make it out
of this, but you were led to believe was and.

S3 (13:59):
Not only religiously or otherwise, I think getting closer to suspense.
We weren't getting any feedback. So we we knew that
there were concerns.

S1 (14:09):
So let's make sure we get all the companies names
out there fighting us on the other side, because I
want to make sure everybody understands the politics the most.
The question relates estimates of this market is why is
this happening? And you've said you've articulated better and I
think a few others. But but who who's in that
coalition fighting you on this? Beyond that, Facebook, I assume
Twitter takes I assume the whole program.

S3 (14:32):
Yeah, the whole crowd. Twitter is actually not considered a
social media platform under this bill. It's more of a
information sharing resource, I think is when it's considered as so.
These are mostly the the platforms that are actively used
by children and teens. So yeah, these, these platforms along

(14:54):
with a lot of a lot of other tech industry leaders,
have a trade association known as TechNet. TechNet is the
face of our opposition. They are the ones lobbying, meeting
with legislators, attending certain tech retreats in Napa the week
before appropriate.

S1 (15:12):
Which is about that.

S3 (15:14):
We can maybe talk about that. So TechNet. Is the
voice of opposition. They argue that this bill infringes on
First Amendment rights. This is not true at all. A.B.
24 await, as I said, does nothing to limit content.

(15:34):
It simply bans the use of specific addictive app features
that internal research has shown are the leading causes of addiction.
It's funny. Their opposition, the executive of TechNet just. Flat
out threatened to ban young people from their apps. If
this bill were to pass. We see this as a

(15:56):
total bluff. I mean, can you imagine Snapchat or TikTok
banning over a third of their users? I mean, it's
not anything like.

S1 (16:05):
Spreading to ban political ads and apps and Twitter.

S3 (16:08):
Yeah.

S1 (16:09):
Yeah.

S3 (16:09):
Yeah. We know that money is all they care about
at the end, not kids.

S1 (16:14):
So I want to ask you about a related issue
beyond addiction, which is, although I think closely linked, which
is sort of the alarming rise of attention deficit disorders
and the linkage back to social media, because there's actually
a lot of data now that actually is becoming more

(16:37):
prevalent in large part because it's social media. There's a
lot of other reasons as far as nutritional issues or
environmental issues. But is that something your organization has looked at, tackled.
Been focused on at all?

S3 (16:51):
And, you know, I'm sure that we have engaged with
this a fair amount on our education side. We create
a lot of resources for families, for teachers related to
digital literacy. Being a digital citizen and even creating curriculum

(17:13):
on that front. But this is definitely something that we
could increase our engagement in. I, for one, see it
in my niece and nephew every day. This is a
growing problem and young people are they're constantly being fed
stimulus after stimulus, to the point where, you know, they're
they're numb.

S1 (17:34):
Yeah. Yeah. And it strikes me that these features are
specifically designed to break your attention. I mean, that's that's
kind of the premise, right? It's it's a very quick
a few seconds before you can even focus on that
and move on. And I think it was James Claire
who wrote Attention is a habit. And that that really

(17:54):
struck me as it's something that you can you can
either harness and you can practice it and become better
at it or you can withdraw at it. But I
think adults to that I see this not just with children.
I mean, it can happen, all of us, particularly when
a lot of bills are moving around. And I'm scrolling
Twitter to find out the latest news.

S3 (18:14):
And yeah, doomscrolling is our adult version.

S1 (18:17):
Yeah, yeah. We we all have it. It's it's a
bad time to start it at a young age. So
so what's next for the bill or these issues generally,
whether it be this bill or something else? Where does
the fight go from here?

S3 (18:30):
Right. So, you know, unfortunately, Senator Dino killed any legislative
legislative chance of kids and families being protected this year
in this legislative session, which ends at the end of August.
We see a path forward still next year, especially because
one mental bills like this, they can take multiple years.

(18:53):
You know, we we've completed the first stage of of
bringing awareness to this problem, you know, shedding light. We've
done that across California, nationwide. You know, I don't know
about you, but I can think about how many headlines,
news stories, conversations I've heard on this subject just this year.

(19:15):
So it's really gaining momentum. I think maybe 24 hour
wait laid the groundwork for this lasting conversation on tech
and social media policy. We've informed and engaged so many people,
families becoming more aware and they're seeking change. So next

(19:37):
steps for us is bringing this bill back next year
in full form. It's empowering families to engage more to
tell their legislators why their kids, their nieces and nephews,
their grandchildren need this. And we want to support that.

S1 (19:57):
So do you plan to take this message into Senator
14 district and let his constituents know that it comes from?

S3 (20:04):
I guess we were definitely chatting with them quite a
bit before Senate Appropriations, and we plan to keep that
conversation going.

S1 (20:14):
So so we are so we've invited TechNet on to
talk about this issue and some others they have not accepted.
And if anyone's listening for taking a welcome you back
to put your side of this on, maybe Kameny would
be willing to come back on for debate. But maybe
that's what maybe that's wishful thinking. Let's just let's just
if we extend that invite and because we do want

(20:37):
to hear all sides of this. But, you know, we've
had some other guests on talking about issues in this space.
And it just strikes me that California has a unique
role in dealing with a lot of issues related to
social media. And we've had, like the News Publishers Association
on talking about some of the issues with their social
media companies, taking their content and not paying for it.
Totally off topic. But. But the link, I think is

(21:01):
these are California companies, by and large, almost all of them.
And I think we have a special role here, therefore,
in California to tackle this stuff. And if we don't, eventually, eventually,
the feds are going to tackle it in terms the
people are going to like it even less. And I
think it's really important that we we get so grateful

(21:21):
for what you're doing on this side, built out that,
as you say, big things take several years in California.
And it isn't it did a great job of raising
awareness of it. And we certainly would. Welcome back anytime
you want to give us an update on what you're
working on in this space. And if people want to
find out more about your organization, get involved with your work.
Where should they go?

S3 (21:41):
Yeah, so definitely check out our Common Sense Media website.
We have kind of three different segments for educators, for
parents and families and then for advocates. So check out
our advocacy page for more information on what we're doing
next year.

S1 (22:01):
Great. Well, thanks so much for being on. It's a pleasure.

S3 (22:04):
Thanks so much.

S1 (22:10):
We invite you to share ideas for guests, ask questions
in the comments. You can find us at Neptune shops
dot com, follow us and subscribe or every listen to
your podcasts as we continue to explore the inside stories
driving California politics. This is The Nation State of Play podcast.
I'm your host, Brian Miller, and thank you for listening.

(22:33):
OLAS Media .