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

Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

dallasnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 195 posts

Re: Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

#21

Post by MisterBastahrd »

neilv wrote: post #6

> A North Texas Republican wants to ban social media for Texans under the age of 18. But wait, there's more: > State Rep. Jared Patterson, R-Frisco, filed House Bill 896 this week that would require social media users to show two forms of photo identification to verify their age. Now all services considered social media would have to collect two forms of photo ID from all users, if they didn't want to be illegal in T…

This is a galaxy-brained idiot who is known for coming up with ridiculous, non-starter bills.

Here's another recent hit:

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/state-rep-for-frisco-has....

That's right. Since Austin is a big city and left-leaning, the clear and logical thing to do is to take away all representation and agency from its residents. /s

Re: Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

#23

Post by Minor49er »

jleyank wrote: post #3

TV? Radio? One could argue that some stations/networks are quite comparable to social media.

FTA:

> In a statement, Patterson compared social media to cigarettes.

> "Once thought to be perfectly safe for users, social media access to minors has led to remarkable rises in self-harm, suicide, and mental health issues." Patterson said. "The Texas legislature must act this session to protect children because, thus far, the social media platforms have failed to do so."

TV and radio have not been able to claim these same effects

Edit: Formatting

Re: Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

#24

Post by daveslash »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #20

What is a social media site defined as? In California, the definition includes any online forum and majority of sites allowing user-submitted content. (Granted, California has a minimum revenue requirement.) Under a similar definition, this block anyone under 18 from having any accounts on the vast majority of popular sites. Also, if you squint at it, this could equally apply to any video game company allowing commun…

Not to mention, what does it mean to use? Is passively consuming content without contributing or even creating an account using? Because, if so.... this means that YouTube gets turned upside down in this case.

Re: Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

#25

Post by ketralnis »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #22

Some folks on HN will hate this idea due to the genetic fallacy, but I think we'll end up feeling about social-media the way we currently feel about smoking: it is something that obviously requires protections for minors.

> HN will hate this idea due to the genetic fallacy

That's extremely condescendingly reductionist. Surely I'm allowed to hate this idea because it's a bad idea.

Re: Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

#27

Post by LatteLazy »

warning26 wrote: post #2

This…actually seems like a good idea, at least in principle. Pretty much all research seems to be more or less unanimous that social media, as bad as it is, is even worse for younger users. My key concern would be that this legislation could effectively outlaw any anonymous account on any website.

You might want to cite some decent quality research for that, so far the only things I have seen are vague association studies or anecdotal examples...

The BBCs conclusions:

>It’s clear that in many areas, not enough is known yet to draw many strong conclusions. However, the evidence does point one way: social media affects people differently, depending on pre-existing conditions and personality traits.

>As with food, gambling and many other temptations of the modern age, excessive use for some individuals is probably inadvisable. But at the same time, it would be wrong to say social media is a universally bad thing, because clearly it brings myriad benefits to our lives.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180104-is-social-media-...

Re: Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

#28

Post by daveslash »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #22

Some folks on HN will hate this idea due to the genetic fallacy, but I think we'll end up feeling about social-media the way we currently feel about smoking: it is something that obviously requires protections for minors.

Well, the idea in the link is total bunk (IMHO), but I agree with you. Social Media's turned out to be something with an ugly side, but Pandora's Box is open now and it's here to stay. I would completely agree that we need some protections for minors. Hell - some protections for all of us! I just have no real, viable, solutions come to mind.

Re: Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

#29

Post by version_five »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #11
neilv wrote: post #6

> A North Texas Republican wants to ban social media for Texans under the age of 18. But wait, there's more: > State Rep. Jared Patterson, R-Frisco, filed House Bill 896 this week that would require social media users to show two forms of photo identification to verify their age. Now all services considered social media would have to collect two forms of photo ID from all users, if they didn't want to be illegal in T…

1. Show != collect 2. It doesn’t say who should see the ID, could be a specialized and regulated 3rd party as well.

What does this change? If anything, supporting a specialized 3rd party that exists to collect IDs seems even worse

Re: Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

#30

Post by Dalewyn »

frob wrote: post #16
neilv wrote: post #6

> A North Texas Republican wants to ban social media for Texans under the age of 18. But wait, there's more: > State Rep. Jared Patterson, R-Frisco, filed House Bill 896 this week that would require social media users to show two forms of photo identification to verify their age. Now all services considered social media would have to collect two forms of photo ID from all users, if they didn't want to be illegal in T…

> ...two forms of photo ID... I have one valid photo ID. Most people have only one valid photo ID. How is this supposed to work?

For some governmental (aka official) examples:

* State-issued ID card (aka the lesser equivalent to a driver's license card)

* Federal-issued passport

* Federal-issued passport card (yes, these are a thing)

For some informal examples (if they have a photo):

* Company ID card/documentation

* Library card

* Medical card

----

Everyone always has access to a state-issued ID card (or driver's license) and a passport issued by the federal government. Most people satisfy the "two forms of identification" requirement found in many situations with them.

Post reply on HN