California's Internet Eraser Law: Nice Idea, but It Won't Work

What Women Really Think
Sept. 25 2013 3:07 PM

California's Internet Eraser Law: Nice Idea, but It Won't Work

88847586
We were never here.

Photo by Romeo Gacad/AFP/Getty Images

On Monday the governor of California signed a bill stipulating that social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr allow kids under 18 to permanently erase their posts. Starting in 2015, these platforms must equip California's teenage users with the ability to delete video, text, and photo content forever—unless that content was originally uploaded by a third party or is subpoenaed. The law aims to protect a group of people prone to bad decisions from self-sabotage via drunken selfie, ignorant rant, overuse of #YOLO, and other Internet fouls we oldsters can only imagine (until we Google the names on the resumes). As state Sen. Darrell Steinberg told the Los Angeles Times, the new law offers "groundbreaking protection for our kids who often act impetuously with postings of ill-advised pictures or messages before they think through the consequences."

The measure seems well-intentioned and compassionate—who hasn’t been young, dumb, and online—but have the California lawmakers followed their own advice and thought through the consequences? As Gregory Ferenstein of TechCrunch observes, almost every service out there already provides a delete button. At least theoretically, teens (and adults) have long enjoyed the option to Windex away their social media indiscretions. The problem, Ferenstein continues, is that few posts exist in isolation. To have real bite, the measure would need to address content that other users have interacted with through likes, comments, and retweets. (Does it? The wording is unclear.) And now that Facebook likes are constitutionally protected speech, removing them in the process of expunging a regrettable post may provoke the First Amendment furies. SB-568 seems poised to fail as either too limited in scope or too censorial.

Advertisement

Also: “More and more of the social media world is automatically archived,” Ferenstein writes, as Internet storehouses “create copies of nearly every piece of information on the web.” Do services like Facebook or Twitter even have the reach to meddle in these independently owned digital libraries? How would a teen’s request to remove a post be enforced?

From here, the “eraser” law looks undercooked and unworkable. But let’s say it jumped through the various constitutional/operational hoops and actually succeeded in mopping up minors’ social media mistakes. Would that be a good thing? Yes, growing up is synonymous with becoming less stupid—and kids deserve the chance to shed their cauls of stupidity in private, without a world of future professors, employers, and dates looking on. But do we really want to promote a lack of accountability on the Web? Would an all-purpose undo button embolden cyberbullies? Would teens learn to be less discriminating about what they posted online—only to wake up on their 18th birthdays with delusions of Internet infallibility?

To this day, the embarrassing things I may post to Facebook or Twitter worry me far less than the embarrassing but true things my friends may post to Facebook or Twitter about me. Of course, the bill is silent (probably rightfully so) on this problem. As the Scottish thane says, I have done the deed. I wish California senators could protect me—and kids, and you, reader!—from the sad truth that actions have consequences. They can’t. Sometimes you think you want a delete button but what you really want is a time machine.

Katy Waldman is a Slate staff writer. 

TODAY IN SLATE

Frame Game

Hard Knocks

I was hit by a teacher in an East Texas public school. It taught me nothing.

Republicans Like Scott Walker Are Building Campaigns Around Problems That Don’t Exist

Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You

If You’re Outraged by the NFL, Follow This Satirical Blowhard on Twitter

The Best Way to Organize Your Fridge

The World

Iran and the U.S. Are Allies

They’re just not ready to admit it yet.

Sports Nut

Giving Up on Goodell

How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.

Chief Justice John Roberts Says $1,000 Can’t Buy Influence in Congress. Looks Like He’s Wrong.

Farewell! Emily Bazelon on What She Will Miss About Slate.

  News & Politics
Politics
Sept. 16 2014 2:11 PM Spare the Rod What Charles Barkley gets wrong about corporal punishment and black culture.
  Business
Moneybox
Sept. 16 2014 2:35 PM Germany’s Nationwide Ban on Uber Lasted All of Two Weeks
  Life
The Eye
Sept. 16 2014 12:20 PM These Outdoor Cat Shelters Have More Style Than the Average Home
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 15 2014 3:31 PM My Year As an Abortion Doula
  Slate Plus
Slate Plus Video
Sept. 16 2014 2:06 PM A Farewell From Emily Bazelon The former senior editor talks about her very first Slate pitch and says goodbye to the magazine.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 16 2014 1:27 PM The Veronica Mars Spinoff Is Just Amusing Enough to Keep Me Watching
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 16 2014 1:48 PM Why We Need a Federal Robotics Commission
  Health & Science
Science
Sept. 16 2014 1:39 PM The Case of the Missing Cerebellum How did a Chinese woman live 24 years missing part of her brain?
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 15 2014 9:05 PM Giving Up on Goodell How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.