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

Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 719 posts

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#211

Post by kortilla »

smooth_remmy wrote: post #169
monksy wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not surprising at all for Utah. That is a highly Mormon run state that has strong stances on how you should live your life. Even if you are a "goi" (I use the word loosely to illustrate the cultural metaphor in a us v them mentality) to them. What is amazing is that they have this strong stance on how to restrictively govern the people inside their borders, but yet expect to have a western lifestyle support them…

> That is a highly Mormon run state that has strong stances on how you should live your life. Even if you are a "goi" (I use the word loosely to illustrate the cultural metaphor in a us v them mentality) to them. I think you're crossing a line here. You are accusing the Mormons in Utah of having a us-versus-them mentality. But your own comment tries to turn readers against Mormons. Never forget: The Missouri Executiv…

Being through some shit isn’t a reason to alienate everyone else though.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#212

Post by bawolff »

raincole wrote: post #103
holmesworcester wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read the bills yet but according to the article it applies to children under 18. 17-year-old me would have considered this draconian bullsh*t, for the same reasons I would now. (So does dad me, incidentally. My kid's messages have always been her business, not mine.)

I'm sure many of us wouldn't have been a programmer if we hadn't had access to SO/Github around 17.

Oh i feel so old.

I probably wouldn't be a programmer without sourceforge.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#213

Post by srcreigh »

judge2020 wrote: post #172
falcolas wrote: post #62

Is it a bad time to mention that sites like stack overflow, discord, sub stack, medium, Reddit, hacker news, GitHub, YouTube, and so forth have the same traits - the same identifying markers - as what we consider traditional social media sites? How the bill defines social media: 10) (a) "Social media platform" means an online forum that a social media company 160 makes available for an account holder to: 161 (i) crea…

> There’s exceptions for email, Netflix, Amazon, news, traditional media kinds of sites. The fact that there are 20 categories of services exempted shows that this is a terrible bill that is based on punishing specific actors and not regulating data privacy or child wellbeing in a meaningful way. for reference, line 165 to 224 of that link are the exceptions: "Social media platform" does not include an online service…

This seems like a reasonable list.

I’m not opposed to the idea of whitelisting healthy online activities and limiting anything else. They could go further and whitelist sites like HN, arch forums etc where it’s educational

Sibling comment mentioned how group chats aren’t exempted. I’ve seen group chats get very unhealthy before. 2 is low, maybe 5 or 8 participants max would be ok.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#214

Post by gtop3 »

krapp wrote: post #19

I assume by default the true motive behind this is surveilling and outing gay and lgbt youth, thought-policing and suppressing progressive political speech and activism. I don't trust the motives of any red state in this regard.

Teenagers need access to social activity and information outside of their parent's view to form their own identity and ideas. This is very healthy and natural. I understand social media is having a negative impact on teenage mental health, but so is having your parents listen in on every conversation.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#215

Post by bawolff »

ajhurliman wrote: post #39
MBCook wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly this seems like the best idea. You can’t get accused of letting a kid access outside approved hours if you don’t allow people in Utah on. What about adults? They may be lying kids. So either no access (safer) or strict age checks involving checking licenses and stuff. But that’s expensive. No Utah is easier. How do you know they’re in Utah? IP addresses. Blocks people outside Utah? Sorry, our lawyers made us…

I’m sure you’re writing all of this in a “yeah, that’ll teach em” voice, but this all sounds amazing. Please, let social media block everyone, become irrelevant, then bring back the old internet.

Wouldn't web forums, usenet, etc all be considered social media under this bill?

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#216

Post by bdw5204 »

falcolas wrote: post #143
swader999 wrote: post #123

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.

Who will pay GitHub to not only install age validation but parental bypass (also with validation)? I don’t believe they even allow under-13 today due to COPA laws. Of course this focus on the age 13 is completely missing the point that the actual age gate is 17.

The good part about the COPPA law is that it's an IQ test. If you're under 13, you have to be smart enough to understand that it's a "don't ask don't tell" situation and know to keep quiet. I did when I was 10 and joined Yahoo (the most popular social media site at the time) so I could have a Geocities web site and play fantasy baseball.

I'd suggest that teens in Utah just use a VPN but social media sites have been cracking down on VPN users for years and many of those sites now require phone number verification to sign up. This law illustrates yet another reason why that's a bad idea.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#217

Post by shampto3 »

As much as I dislike social media sites and think there is sufficient evidence of their harm to teens, I don’t think these bills have any legs.

There are already people in law that are pushing back on the legality of this in regards to violating first amendment rights. [1]

1. https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TechFreed...

EDIT: pluralized bills, after realizing that there were two related bills regarding this.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#218

Post by ryanfreeborn »

Buttons840 wrote: post #205

A Utah resident connects to a server in California, controlled by a company in California. This seems like interstate commerce to me, and is thus regulated by federal law, not the laws of individual states. Consider Wickard v. Filburn[0], in which the courts ruled that a farmer growing crops on his own land, to feed to his own animals, all within a single state, was participating in "interstate commerce". Given this…

Yup. Federal law enforcement uses interstate nexus via server locations to establish jurisdiction.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#219

Post by LouisSayers »

raincole wrote: post #103
holmesworcester wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read the bills yet but according to the article it applies to children under 18. 17-year-old me would have considered this draconian bullsh*t, for the same reasons I would now. (So does dad me, incidentally. My kid's messages have always been her business, not mine.)

I'm sure many of us wouldn't have been a programmer if we hadn't had access to SO/Github around 17.

You have no idea.

Before StackOverflow it was PAINFUL. Staring at "Reached end of file while parsing" errors and wondering wtf that even means...

Then finding out after 5 hours that you missed a semicolon.

Oh, and forget rounded borders, what a f@#%king nightmare.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#220

Post by Dylan16807 »

raincole wrote: post #107
t-writescode wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you may not like the current method of communication and congregation, you must understand _why_ we have the first amendment, right? Congregating together and discussing ideas of (nearly) any sort is an absolutely vital part of democracy and a free society

People (like the one above you) don't care about the first amendment as long as their favorite things aren't affected. ...and that's why the first amendment exists.

They're excited about the idea of those sites blocking users in general. It's not really a first amendment thing. That comment isn't focused on the broader context.
Post reply on HN