California lawmakers have amended **A.B. 1709**, a bill that seeks to ban social media access for youth under 16. However, critics argue that the core problems remain, threatening the privacy and First Amendment rights of all Californians. Proponents may frame the recent amendments as a compromise, but a closer examination reveals no fundamental changes. As the bill progresses through the Senate, the call to action remains: urge lawmakers to vote NO. ## A 'Compromise' That Still Denies Access Under the newly amended Section 22683, platforms would be prohibited from offering "addictive features" to users under 16. A platform could only allow a minor to maintain an account if these features, including "addictive feeds" and auto-play, are stripped away. The Attorney General would also have the power to designate additional features in future rulemaking. However, the bill's definition of "addictive feeds" is remarkably broad, encompassing virtually every functional recommendation algorithm. It applies to any presentation of user-generated content recommended "in whole or in part, on information provided by the user." This includes basic inputs like who a user follows, what posts they like, or their self-expressed interests. By labeling these fundamental tools as "addictive," the bill makes sweeping conclusions about the unsettled science surrounding social media use, youth, and addiction. Given that almost every major social media service relies on automated feeds to deliver content, the practical outcome of **A.B. 1709** remains unchanged: young people under 16 would be denied access to major social media services as they currently exist. Even if a platform attempts to comply by removing recommendation systems for minors, this still raises First Amendment concerns. Recommendation systems are primary tools users rely on to discover and disseminate content. Forcing young people onto a stripped-down, dysfunctional version of social media burdens their constitutional right to access information and participate in public discourse. ## AB 1709 Still Forces Invasive Age Verification The amendments do not alleviate the privacy threats inherent in age gating. While the bill references the age-signaling framework in **AB 1043**, Section 22684 explicitly states that a covered platform "shall verify the age of a user" and holds platforms liable every time a person under 16 circumvents an age check. Because **AB 1043** does not specify how verification should occur without requiring additional proof, **A.B. 1709** will, in practice, force platforms to implement the most stringent forms of age verification. Compliance will likely necessitate users uploading government-issued IDs or submitting to biometric scanning. This mandate would create massive honeypots of sensitive personal data, destroying online anonymity and exposing users of all ages to significant security breaches. Furthermore, relying on biometric systems for age verification is problematic, as these systems have historically shown high error rates in estimating ages across racial and gender lines. ## Lawmakers Must Reject AB 1709 The amendments to **A.B. 1709** also introduce legal confusion, creating provisions that conflict with already enacted legislation like **SB 976**. Instead of offering clarity or genuine protection for young people, **A.B. 1709** establishes a convoluted regulatory scheme that sacrifices constitutional rights for political posturing. Denying minors access to digital forums—or stripping those forums of the essential tools needed to navigate them—is a form of censorship. California should avoid setting a national precedent that cuts young people off from digital lifelines, communities, and speech. Continued pressure is crucial as **A.B. 1709** moves through the Senate. Contact your state senator today and emphasize that minor tweaks do not transform a flawed bill into sound public policy.