All the bizarre things at Houston-UCF
08.11.2025 03:26
👍 53
🔁 9
💬 1
📌 1
All the bizarre things at Houston-UCF
I have been refreshing the podcast app all day waiting to hear the @seanfennessey.bsky.social and Amanda takes on Him.
will I ever know peace
yes!! It’s so interesting to me why people on other platforms do it too. It’s just… seemingly become a norm to follow TikTok lingo?
Where is the think piece on how TikTok’s content filtering policies are shaping internet language (ex: notsee, unalive, seggs)
FPF's recently updated effective dates chart is a one-stop-shop for key dates and links to existing privacy laws, enacted amendments, and broadly applicable sectoral laws (mostly health and youth privacy focused).
⏩ Find it here: fpf.org/wp-content/u...
so... i didn't at all follow how the court distinguishes from Playboy, esp. in footnote 9.
Once again I ask why the California Privacy Protection Agency has an ordered agenda for meetings if they routinely jump around out of order. Going into the closed session right away? Perfectly fine! But then why is it Agenda Item #6? The numbers might as well be wingdings if they don't mean anything
going to repost this every month until I die
The district court in this case applied strict scrutiny to a prohibition on targeted advertising to minors, and in this instance, held that the provisions were likely to fail strict scrutiny. Seems like a big deal tbh. www.thefire.org/news/victory...
Nothing <3
i think it's maybe cringe of me to post selfies on this app, but i purchased my first ever piece of Taylor Swift merch that i debuted on a webinar today so i wanted to commemorate the moment with a zoom selfie. Happy Data Privacy Week!
I need my tech policy pals to see the movie Companion when it comes out this Thursday.
Policy wonk pet peeve: keeping count of how many bills have been introduced on a given topic!!!! This is a number that doesn’t mean much in my opinion!!
And worth noting that last summer's Moody decision came up, highlighting that NetChoice has a more difficult job now in bringing a pre-enforcement facial challenge. I think that will be a consideration in whether the preliminary injunction is granted, and which parts of the law it'll cover.
The hearing went on for 4+ hours but the sense I got is that while the entire law is unlikely to be enjoined at this stage, the severability question seems really up in the air, and there are still significant constitutional questions with the AADC.
(My two cents is that I don't think the law would have passed without the right to cure, but we'll see how this shakes out)
A key part of this hearing was getting into the severability of the statute. Bc the DPIA provision is enjoined, this means companies could not avail themselves of the 90 day right to cure. Lots of discussion of the legislative history and whether AADC would've passed without the right to cure.
State kept emphasizing that TECHNICALLY it says either estimate the age of child users "with a reasonable level of certainty appropriate to the risks that arise from the data management practices" OR apply child-friendly protections to everyone. Judge said "or" is a really bad part of the statute.
- Judge also took issue with the age estimation requirement, again unsurprising. She explicitly noted the impacts to ALL individuals, not just children.
- Judge took greatest issue with the requirement to enforce published terms and community standards. Personally, I don't find this surprising!
- And related to the record, the judge generally was interested in exploring non-social media applications of the law and it seems like the record maybe doesn't support those as well. Recall that the California AADC applies to ALL services likely to be accessed by children under 13.
- Judge explicitly noted that she's unlikely to enjoin the dark patterns provision, not necessarily on substance but that there's not enough in the record. And as a fun aside, she mentioned that "dark patterns" is a terrible word.
Reflections on today's hearing regarding NetChoice's motion for a second preliminary injunction of the California Age-Appropriate Design Code 🧵
[tl;dr: it seems unlikely the entire law will be enjoined at this stage]
@futureofprivacy.bsky.social posted a redline that compares the current COPPA Rule to the one that the FTC just finalized. You can use it to see what this 2025 update removes, adds, or otherwise changes. Hint: The security section changed a lot!
Find it here:
fpf.org/resource/uno...
This year I am frankly also struggling to keep up with how many bills there are focused on parent consent and age verification.
Two years ago, it was exclusively conservative states like Utah and Arkansas introducing legislation to require teens to get parent consent for social media. This year, I'm seeing the trend in blue, red, and purple states and it doesn't seem to be a "Republican idea" anymore.
For the Tech Policy Press podcast, Justin Hendrix spoke to Kate Klonick about the Supreme Court ruling on TikTok and Mark Zuckerberg's effort to ingratiate himself to President-elect Donald Trump. www.techpolicy.press/the-dumbest-...
Reuters headline from 2020 when TikTok challenged Trump’s original attempt to ban the app
Screenshot from 2025 of TikTok praising Trump in hopes he will save the app
How it started / how it’s going
another enforcement action in the gaming space that applies to kids AND teens 👀
bit.ly/3PCEosV