Why Is A British Baroness Drafting California Censorship Laws?

Would you be surprised to find out that the censorial, moral panic bill based on hype and nonsense, but very likely to pass in California and potentially change how the internet functions… was actually written by a British noble with a savior complex?

Yesterday I wrote about California’s AB 2273 bill and how it is impossible to comply with, censorial, and dangerous. From what I’ve heard it’s likely to pass today, and Governor Newsom may sign it soon. The bill seems to have taken many people by surprise, and at this late moment they’re asking how the hell such a bill could have come about. I’ve been wondering the same thing myself, and started digging — and am really confused. Because, as far as I can tell, THE BILL CAME FROM A UK BARONESS, and California politicians were like “ok, yeah, cool, we’ll just take your bill and make it law here.”

I know this sounds hyperbolic, but as far as I can tell, it’s exactly what happened — and it reveals something kind of insane about the California lawmaking process. If you look on the California legislature page about the bill, it includes a “bill analysis” prepared by lawyers working for the legislature. The most recent one, the “Senate Floor Analysis” from August 23rd (Tuesday of this week), lists organizations in favor of this law, two of which are listed as “co-source”. There’s a shockingly long list of organizations supporting this dreadful bill (including Roblox?!), but here is just the beginning of the list:

It’s fair to question why some of these are on the list. I mean, why is the City of Berkeley supporting a bill that will be harmful to kids and result in speech suppression? I guess it shouldn’t be at all surprising that the Privacy Law Section of the California Lawyers Association is in support. The only functional thing this bill does is increase demand (massively) for privacy lawyers. But, really, that does seem a bit unseemly.

But, I want to focus on that first organization, 5Rights Foundation. I hadn’t really heard of them before, but it turns out it’s a UK based organization with offices in London and Brussels. Just a couple months ago, they hired someone who had previously worked for the California legislature. It was founded by a Baroness with close ties to Hollywood (any time there’s an internet destructive law happening, if you scratch hard enough, you’ll find Hollywood somehow connected).

Baroness Beeban Kidron directed the second movie in the Bridget Jones’ series of movies, among a variety of other Hollywood projects. Then, somewhere along the way, she apparently decided to dedicate her attention to destroying the open internet… for the children.

Just about a week ago, the Telegraph in the UK had a fairly stunning profile on her seething hatred for the open internet. Basically, she saw that some kids liked being able to use social media to communicate with friends and have access to information and people around the world, and completely freaked out:

“All of those hundreds of hours I’d spent with them went backwards like in The Matrix. I realised that the problems they were having was because the experiences they were having assumed they could make adult discriminations, that they had the adult protection of age, maturity and so on.

“I realised that technology as a sector was pursuing a regressive set of ideas, which deprived children of rights, privileges and expectations. No one would listen and I was determined – and that was it, I ruined my career. I stopped making films and I started campaigning for children to be given a fair deal online. Cut to 10 years later, this is what I do.”

This is one of those things where the Hollywood-style narrative of the evil internet sounds good. The problem is that the actual data debunks it. Nirit Weiss-Blatt recently went through much of the research and found that the harms and risks are massively overstated. We also recently highlighted some research that suggests the claims that social media is increasing suicide rates among teens is not actually supported by the data. And, indeed, as we’ve noted countless times, the oft-quoted leaked research from Frances Haugen that showed that Instagram made some teen girls feel bad about themselves also showed that it made many more feel better about themselves. That’s not to say that this stuff shouldn’t be studied, or that companies shouldn’t be a lot more thoughtful in how their tools are to be used. But the facile narrative that social media is just bad for kids is nonsense.

The article notes that California is about to pass a law based on Kidron’s ideas, which starts to connect the dots a little bit. The UK passed a similarly named “Age Appropriate Design Code” — which the article notes was written by Kidron and her team.

Her children’s code – or Age Appropriate Design Code – was introduced through an amendment to data protection legislation in 2018 putting legal blocks on the ability of social media firms to “addict” children and extract their data. 

[….]

Hailed as pioneering and one of the most impactful examples of legislation ever to target technology firms, Kidron’s code is now being implemented globally. Later this year, a US version of it is set to become law in, of all places, California, the home of Silicon Valley. Australia, Canada and EU countries are following suit.

Okay. But here’s the thing. I started asking around about that “co-source” designation listed next to 5Rights, which is Kidron’s (again Europe-based) organization, and what I heard from two different people in Sacramento is that it almost certainly means that 5Rights is considered a “sponsor” of the bill language itself. I know this sounds insane — perhaps because it is — but California has a process in which organizations get to write their own bills and be considered official “sponsors.” As that article notes, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy, enabling organizations to effectively write bills for the California legislature officially. Sometimes it’s publicly explained, and sometimes it’s not.

Cooley is one of dozens of legislators who introduce “sponsored bills,” legislation instigated by outside groups. The term sounds benign, and it sometimes certainly is.

It’s also opaque. And optional. In fact, KQED News’ detailed review of thousands of pieces of legislation over the past three years shows relatively few sponsored bills — and staffers and lobbyists privately say that’s because legislators often refuse to publicly identify the groups involved.

[….]

A “sponsor” can be any group that pushes a legislator to introduce a bill. The designation dates back to at least the 1920s, but neither the Assembly nor Senate’s official FAQs include the term. Capitol veterans point out that’s probably because it was never meant for the public; rather, they say, it’s usually a way for political heavyweights to put a “Do Not Mess With This Bill” label on legislation that they care about.

Still, one definition seems to be universal: A bill’s sponsors are more than just supporters.

“In some cases, you’re drafting the legislation, you’re drafting talking points, you’re lobbying the bill,” said Shaudi Falamaki Fulp, a former Capitol lobbyist. “You are a partner along the way.”

What I heard from people in Sacramento is that this is the most likely connection 5Rights has to this bill: it helped draft the language.

And… while it appears that the California politicians pushing this law, Buffy Wicks and Jordan Cunningham, haven’t been willing to publicly state that they let a UK Baroness write their legislation for them, 5Rights has been kinda public about announcing that it absolutely is the “sponsor” of the bill:

The California Code is sponsored by children’s digital rights charity 5Rights Foundation, whose Chair Baroness Beeban Kidron is the architect of the UK Code.

So, what that means is that a UK Baroness with deep connections to Hollywood, a slightly creepy savior complex, and a facile but unsupported-by-the-data evil narrative of how the internet works, is literally writing legislation for California. And the California legislature is happy to run with it. For the children.

But, again, the bill will not protect children. It will create a massive headache for any website. It treats high schoolers as if they’re toddlers. It is literally impossible to fully comply with. It will create an astounding amount of busywork — with massive legal liability — for anyone operating a website. It will hand a powerful weapon to California’s Attorney General to shake down basically any company who he gets mad at.

But I guess it will make a Baroness feel good?

Why exactly are we doing this again?