I was interested, Adam, to read through, not just the content of the bill and what it will provide for, but also the idea that New York did this first. What do you make of it? Well, what I make of it, as we know, there's concern among parents about kids and teens and social media, and I think that's understandable. Unfortunately, I think that in this case, they went after the wrong target, which was algorithms. I think they got into their head. And a variety of critics have focused on algorithmic feeds as being kind of a problem here. And so the bill, as you said, bans algorithmic feeds and services like Tik Tok and Instagram, YouTube by default for teenagers unless their parents opt them into those algorithmic feeds. And just the problem with this is that I think that chronological feeds are actually going to be a worse experience for teenagers. They're more likely to surface the last post that might be spammy clickbait, hate, harassment.

And algorithmic algorithms are actually providing a pretty important role in making these feeds better for teenagers. Usually, they're allowing them to curate their experiences and common sense media, which actually, ironically, is in support of this bill. Actually, had a survey of teenagers about two weeks ago where they said the teen most teenagers are liking or actually use curation in their feeds. And unfortunately, this bill will kind of get will do away with that completely by default. So unfortunately, it's well-intentioned, but it goes after the wrong target, in my view, and I think is likely to make feeds worse for teens. At the Chamber of Progress, of which you lead, is basically an industry group. But your work is to look at public policy and make sure that it is impactful to society in a fair way. So you think that they went about this in the wrong way. How would you have done it differently?

Well, I think what we're starting to see is, for example, this week in California, the governor, Governor Newsom, talked about, well, maybe schools should have a blanket rule against phones in school. They're proving to be a distraction. I think there's pros and cons of a policy of like that. But one thing about those policies is they're not getting involved in regulating platforms at the speech level. One of the things we've seen and again, New York's not the first state to do a bill related to social media and kind of content they've done. They've gone about a little bit differently. But one of the problems, all of these loss of face and now this has happened in California and Arkansas and Ohio, every single time state legislators say, well, no, we're not we're not regulating the content of these services. We're regulating their design. Right. And that's different that therefore, it

doesn't run afoul of the First Amendment
every single time. So far, courts have said, no, that's
actually not true. You are regulating the platform speech,
and I expect the same will be true here. So I think we're in that we have kind of
this dynamic where this bill feels really great to Governor Hochul and
policymaker to push it, but it will, in my view, inevitably be struck down in
court. And then I think we'll be right back
where we started from. So unfortunately, I don't see a lot of
legislators saying, look, how can we approach this in a way that is really
like constitution proof, legally sound? They've asserted that it is, but I don't
think this will be in the end. Adam, I want to go back to the latest on
Tick Tock that that our editor, Mike Sheppard, was giving us from D.C.
a few minutes ago.

This is not a new conversation for you
or I. The idea that, you know, Tick Tock and
its users have frustrations that they feel they put forward technological and
policy solutions that would have allowed TikTok to continue to operate in this
country. And they feel the only option that they
were given by Congress was a ban. What did you make of the court filing
which hit last night? Well, I think what TikTok is trying to do
in their court filing is they're trying to address what's called sort of the
least restrictive means to say that if you're concerned about TikTok and
Chinese connections, for example, is there some other way the government
could have gone about addressing that concern short of passing the law that
did? And that's what their project Texas is
all about. And that is legally relevant at this
stage because that is an actual principle under the law.
And so I completely understand why Tik

Tock is doing I have a concern about
tick tock in China. Chinese control, but I understand that.
And ultimately, I actually think it's kind of a jump ball.
I think whether or not Tick Tock succeeds in this in its legal challenge
is truly a legal jump ball. And so I don't it complete
understandable to me that they would make that argument.
But what is the chamber progress is position on whether tick tock should be
able to operate in the United States. We haven't taken an organizational
position on it. I think that I share a lot of concern
that this is a really unprecedented situation where an app that is so
popular, you know, frankly has this nexus and really is obligated to advance
the Chinese government's interests. That's always been a concern for me more
than the data concerned. More just kind of like the idea that,
like, look, after Russia invaded Ukraine, we look back and say, why did
we allow R.T., Russia's propaganda.

network on our cable systems?
And I think I feel the same way about this.

New NY Law Restricts Social Media Feeds for Teens

Welcome to the Bloomberg Technology YouTube channel. Subscribe for original series and mini-docs on game-changing technologies, profiles on innovators, live conversations with experts, and breaking technology news & analysis from Bloomberg TV.