News: 0181119464

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

California Bill Would Require Parent Bloggers To Delete Content of Minors On Social Media (latimes.com)

(Friday March 27, 2026 @12:00PM (BeauHD) from the parental-controls dept.)


A California bill would [1]let adults demand the removal of social media posts about them that were created by paid family content creators when they were minors. Supporters say [2]Senate Bill 1247 addresses privacy, dignity, and safety harms caused when parents monetize their children's lives online. The Los Angeles Times reports:

> The legislation would require the parent or other relative to delete or edit the content within 10 business days of receiving the notification. Petitioners could take civil action against those who fail to comply and statutory damages would be set at $3,000 for each day the content remained online. Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego), who introduced the bill last month, said it would help protect the dignity and mental health of those who had their childhood shared on social media. The measure was referred to the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Committee and is slated for a hearing on April 6.

>

> "The evolution of these applications and technology is incredible," Padilla said. "But it's changing our social dynamic and it's creating situations that, while very productive for some folks, also need some guardrails." The bill would build upon previous legislation from Padilla that was signed into law two years ago and requires content creators that feature minors in at least 30% of their material to place some of their earnings into a trust the children can access when they turn 18.



[1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-03-26/california-could-require-parent-bloggers-to-delete-content-of-minors

[2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1247



Friggin' mommy bloggers (Score:3)

by ebunga ( 95613 )

They ruined blogging.

Good! (Score:3)

by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 )

If the child mentioned didn't give you consent to share details about them, don't. I don't name my daughters on anything, I use the term "daughters", and I don't share pictures without their consent, I don't take them either. I got annoyed with my mother who kept demanding to see a picture of my kids, if they don't want to be in a picture, and have it uploaded to your digital frame, I won't force them.

Oh boy, when the school uploaded details about my kids on Twitter, that was a bad week for the school and the board. We didn't authorize the school to do that, and, we're on record telling them they can never share the girls details on social media, without their explicit consent. They need explicit consent for every upload, even it's a re-upload, and surprise, my daughters don't want to be plastered all over social media.

paid family content creators (Score:2)

by MpVpRb ( 1423381 )

WTF?

This is one of the stupidest things I've seen

How stupid can stupid get before it all collapses into a black hole of stupidity?

Why only 'paid'? (Score:2)

by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 )

> A California bill would let adults demand the removal of social media posts about them that were created by paid family content creators when they were minors.

Before I rant, I'll just say that yes, I know there's really no effective way to put social media toothpaste back into the tube. Once it's out there, it's out there - the internet can have a pretty relentless memory.

Having said that, I now ask: Why are social and reputational matters being wedged into the context of, and made contingent on, fucking commerce ?

ANY minor, upon coming of age, should be able to demand the removal of ALL social media posts made about them by ANYONE. That includes posts which they

You sure you want to be doing this right now? (Score:3)

by karmawarrior ( 311177 )

Hey CA,

Listen, I'm not saying this is a bad idea. Parents should have some control here, and yes, them having some control over their kid's blogs makes a little bit of sense though I can see occasions in which it could be abused.

But do you REALLY want to be focusing on this right now rather than undoing the giant fuck up you did with parental controls? You had the germ of a good idea there (let computers be configured to have some control over what's visible) but you mandated the wrong people - operating systems to have the functionality, instead of apps and websites using the functionality with strict privacy controls on what can be asked for and how often.

So you already did a giant fuck up, swathes of the software ecosystem are now withdrawing and blocking CA, and you want to add more laws without (1) undoing the last one and (2) having some introspection and figuring out how you managed to pass such an ill thought out law in the first place?

Knock it off! You're supposed to be the non-fascist beacon in these depressing times and you're handling Palintir your entire citizenry on a plate because you can't think further than "but the children!"

who has to do what? (Score:2)

by kencurry ( 471519 )

which parent of whose kid has to do what by when? It's got more prepositions than 8th grade language class.

<Culus> Saens demonstrates no less than 3 tcp/ip bugs in 2.2.3