151–160 of 719 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure our parents would have all let us sign up for a programming site. This bill still allows for that.
You underestimate how hard it might be to get your parent to sign some weird consent form from a "github" site, especially if it asks for a picture of the parent's ID (to ensure the kid isn't accepting the terms on their own behalf).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just more of the unintended consequences we all know will come from this.
There won’t be any. Look, it’s fun to imagine these shitty lawmakers getting bit by their own laws applied to the letter but that’s not how it will go. The law will only ever be enforced against social media platforms they see as threatening their ability to shelter their kids. I think it says a lot about any politician that pushes for laws that are meant to be selectively enforced.
Picture a GitHub.io site that hosts images of nude art.
> The bills also impose a social media curfew that blocks children's access between 22:30 and 06:30, unless adjusted by their parents. The main bill is a possibly a bit overreaching but I’m fully in favour of this part. There’s a huge problem where I live with kids just not going to school and many of those same kids are staying up until 1am each night doom scrolling or watching YouTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but are they made available by a "social media company"? and should that be relevant?
Well, here’s their definition of such a company (from the same link): 155 (9) "Social media company" means a person or entity that: 156 (a) provides a social media platform that has at least 5,000,000 account holders 157 worldwide; and 158 (b) is an interactive computer service. So, size is really the only relevant discriminator.
No, its not, see the vast horde of use/function based exclusions starting at line 165 comprising code section 13-63-101(10)(b).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If that means your startup idea no longer scales - good riddance. And if that means no startup can possibly compete against the existing players in the industry that have the bandwidth and resources to implement the regulation?
After reading this thread I realized that's exactly what people (in this thread) want. They want "the old internet" back, whatever it means. Of course it means no more startup. Startups change things and we don't want that! We want the exact internet from 1998.
When I was 13 I was playing CS 1.6 on dedicated servers with a small number of strangers that were like 30, I was also on I don't even know how many random forums with small numbers of users.
It's like a 13 year old hanging out at some random adult's house vs walking around a mall.
I can't see how a bill limiting access to websites with more than 5M users is going to reduce paedophilia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this the opposite though? They're not telling people how to live their lives. They're taking away the power Facebook has over many people's lives so people might enjoy their lives in more social and healthy ways again.
They’re also taking away the support some marginalized people may get from social networks (eg LGBT, uncommon religions for the area) that their local community doesn’t provide/discriminates against/their parents hate. Social networks, for all their faults, are not pure evil. They can be beneficial for some people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Call their bluff - don’t make your service available in Utah.
I live in Utah. If that's what happens, that would be awesome! "Sorry kids, no fb/tiktok/insta and there's nothing I can do about it. None of them work where we live" Would be a huge win for all parents. No social media, and we don't have to be the bad guys taking it away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You underestimate how hard it might be to get your parent to sign some weird consent form from a "github" site, especially if it asks for a picture of the parent's ID (to ensure the kid isn't accepting the terms on their own behalf).
Ok, a picture of parent id is ridiculous. I didn't know that part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in Utah. If that's what happens, that would be awesome! "Sorry kids, no fb/tiktok/insta and there's nothing I can do about it. None of them work where we live" Would be a huge win for all parents. No social media, and we don't have to be the bad guys taking it away.
Hopefully this is hyperbole. Seems a bit extreme to hope the government legislates away industries because you don't want to handle the parenting yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"any legislation restricting behavior actually frees people to do what they always wanted (the government knows best what that is) but just couldn't because of all these other possibilities misguiding them"
"there should be no laws against tobacco, alcohol, drug abuse, gambling because people can't possibly be misguided by powerful corporate interests for profit or otherwise"