Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s from User-Generated Content Services

blog.ericgoldman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 180 posts

Re: Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s from User-Generated Content Services

#41

Post by JohnWhigham »

_gabe_ wrote: post #19
JohnWhigham wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny thing is that I guarantee a lot of the parents in support of dumb shit like this lose their minds at sexual education classes in public schools. Just shows that most people don't have the IQ necessary to be competent parents.

If you lose your mind about a sexual education class, I agree that's misguided, but saying they have a low IQ because of that? Maybe a low EQ if they can't control their emotions, but it's absurd to automatically equate emotions with intelligence. We've all acted stupidly because we've been emotionally invested in an idea. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best, and probably indicative of a low IQ at worst ;) A…

Don't think you got my point. I'd wager most parents that don't like sexual education courses don't see the hypocrisy in supporting this bill. They're essentially letting the state do the parenting for them.

Re: Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s from User-Generated Content Services

#42

Post by manicdee »

Robotbeat wrote: post #15

This would effectively ban minors from the Internet. And many walled gardens. EDIT: There’s a case to be made for it! The Internet, especially social media, is as powerful as illicit drugs and probably impacts development. But IMHO, this should be up to parents to decide, and I think the lawmakers probably have no clue the extent of this kind of rule would be.

This won’t ban minors from the Internet, it will go a long way to helping avoid bad habits like catching up on social media turning into a three hour binge.

Re: Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s from User-Generated Content Services

#43

Post by encoderer »

joshstrange wrote: post #5

Anyone voting for this is clearly not fit to hold their position. Aside from the stupidity of thinking this is enforceable, it's hamfisted and misguided. When they propose such open-ended legislation there should be an ability for an outside party to make every single one of them fill out a survey of "Would this be allowed/disallowed under the new law?" with a bunch of examples. If the people who voted for it don't h…

Yes it’s hard to imagine who would enforce this and how.

But the reason it’s being discussed is that social media like instagram and TikTok is toxic to teenagers. Something does need to be done, society is not enslaved to the aims of mid grade social media product managers.

Re: Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s from User-Generated Content Services

#44

Post by [deleted] »

encoderer wrote: post #43
joshstrange wrote: post #5

Anyone voting for this is clearly not fit to hold their position. Aside from the stupidity of thinking this is enforceable, it's hamfisted and misguided. When they propose such open-ended legislation there should be an ability for an outside party to make every single one of them fill out a survey of "Would this be allowed/disallowed under the new law?" with a bunch of examples. If the people who voted for it don't h…

Yes it’s hard to imagine who would enforce this and how. But the reason it’s being discussed is that social media like instagram and TikTok is toxic to teenagers. Something does need to be done, society is not enslaved to the aims of mid grade social media product managers.

[deleted]

Re: Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s from User-Generated Content Services

#45

Post by _gabe_ »

JohnWhigham wrote: post #41
_gabe_ wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you lose your mind about a sexual education class, I agree that's misguided, but saying they have a low IQ because of that? Maybe a low EQ if they can't control their emotions, but it's absurd to automatically equate emotions with intelligence. We've all acted stupidly because we've been emotionally invested in an idea. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best, and probably indicative of a low IQ at worst ;) A…

Don't think you got my point. I'd wager most parents that don't like sexual education courses don't see the hypocrisy in supporting this bill. They're essentially letting the state do the parenting for them.

Ah gotcha. Yep I agree with that completely and must have misread your original sentiment :)

Re: Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s from User-Generated Content Services

#46

Post by gilmore606 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #15

This would effectively ban minors from the Internet. And many walled gardens. EDIT: There’s a case to be made for it! The Internet, especially social media, is as powerful as illicit drugs and probably impacts development. But IMHO, this should be up to parents to decide, and I think the lawmakers probably have no clue the extent of this kind of rule would be.

> effectively ban minors from the Internet.

Oh no! Anyway...

Re: Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s from User-Generated Content Services

#47

Post by colechristensen »

joshstrange wrote: post #5

Anyone voting for this is clearly not fit to hold their position. Aside from the stupidity of thinking this is enforceable, it's hamfisted and misguided. When they propose such open-ended legislation there should be an ability for an outside party to make every single one of them fill out a survey of "Would this be allowed/disallowed under the new law?" with a bunch of examples. If the people who voted for it don't h…

Why would it be difficult to enforce?

>In addition to other damages, the PRA authorizes statutory damages of $1k per violation, capped at $100k per account holder per calendar year.

There are 1.3 million under 18 in MN, some percentage of those have social media accounts, let's just guess 500k, so a maximum statutory fine for non-compliance of $50 billion per year per social network. All sorts of ways to adjust that down but still a substantial motivation to turn on the "chronological only in Minnesota" feature. Or are you assuming a state court can't fine a social network?

It makes me wish Republicans were a little more sane so I could justify voting for some of them in Minnesota.

Re: Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s from User-Generated Content Services

#48

Post by thethirdone »

manicdee wrote: post #40
joshstrange wrote: post #5

Anyone voting for this is clearly not fit to hold their position. Aside from the stupidity of thinking this is enforceable, it's hamfisted and misguided. When they propose such open-ended legislation there should be an ability for an outside party to make every single one of them fill out a survey of "Would this be allowed/disallowed under the new law?" with a bunch of examples. If the people who voted for it don't h…

Yet here I am deliberately avoiding the features that Minnesota wants to ban. There is nothing hamfisted and misguided about this, the point is simply to ban the social media equivalent of casinos where the entire point of certain features is to stop you leaving by distracting you from the rest of your life.

Do you think HN would be banned for minors according to this law?

I think it would, and I don't think HNs algorithm for ranking is abusive or toxic at all.

Re: Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s from User-Generated Content Services

#49

Post by csense »

So how exactly would this be enforced? Would every website need to have you click a box that says "Are you over 18? Click [Yes] or [No]" and then if you click "[No]" it takes you about:blank or something?

That might work for babies, but wouldn't most people over the age of, say, 7 simply lie and click "[Yes]"?

Re: Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s from User-Generated Content Services

#50

Post by Ekaros »

Robotbeat wrote: post #15

This would effectively ban minors from the Internet. And many walled gardens. EDIT: There’s a case to be made for it! The Internet, especially social media, is as powerful as illicit drugs and probably impacts development. But IMHO, this should be up to parents to decide, and I think the lawmakers probably have no clue the extent of this kind of rule would be.

I'm all for banning minors from internet if that means we can get rid off content gates in general...

Or maybe we should built them some sort of walled gardens. Only allow ISPs to link to certain sites.

Post reply on HN