241–250 of 719 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>(F) interactive gaming, virtual gaming, or an online service, that allows the creation and uploading of content for the purpose of interactive gaming, edutainment, or associated entertainment, So Roblox, arguably quite harmful to children, is specifically carved out. That's great.
Twitch as well
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it puts the burden of enforcement on tech platforms rather than the kids' parents What else do you expect? When tech companies make phones secure enough for the NSA, every app has passwords, and most apps have disappearing messages, how exactly do you expect parents to monitor what their kids are doing? All the "parental monitoring" apps do is check how much time kids are using the phone. They give zero info on wha…
You don't have to give your kids a phone...
Try it if you don't believe me. You can't even ride the bus without a phone because bus stops no longer display schedules and routes.
Want to go trampoline jumping? It's impossible without a phone because they want you to sign a waver in advance using your phone.
Pay Phones are no longer a thing. The "phone behind the counter" in restaurants and shops is no longer a thing.
Even grade school children are staring to have trouble navigating the world without a phone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>(F) interactive gaming, virtual gaming, or an online service, that allows the creation and uploading of content for the purpose of interactive gaming, edutainment, or associated entertainment, So Roblox, arguably quite harmful to children, is specifically carved out. That's great.
Whats going on at Roblox? Curious, as a parent myself.
Most of the harm from FB, TikTok, etc stems from a non-chronological algorithmic “amplification”.
Otherwise this is clearly 1st amendment bait.
(Honestly headline should be: “Utah bill gives parents full access to their children's online accounts, including posts and private messages”)
So this is like... let's introduce these concepts at a certain age level ("think of the kids") to normalize control over a population, eventually expanding it to undesirables? This is dangerous. Just like the groomers thing. The best thing about the internet has been unadulterated, unrestricted access to information. Parents should be more involved with what their kids are seeing, but kids seeing anything (from neope…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>(F) interactive gaming, virtual gaming, or an online service, that allows the creation and uploading of content for the purpose of interactive gaming, edutainment, or associated entertainment, So Roblox, arguably quite harmful to children, is specifically carved out. That's great.
Whats going on at Roblox? Curious, as a parent myself.
Unfettered social interaction with other participants in an unmonitored environment that superficially 'looks' like a video game. This social interaction leads to bullshit purchases. Not purchasing the bullshit leads to peer pressure and bullying.
Is it a technical problem? is it lack of content moderation? or do social networks that are catered towards children simply lead to a toxic environment? I can't say if it's more one or the other, which makes it a challenge to try and fix.
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…
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…
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…