Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

Post by kube-system » Sun, Mar 26, 2023, 4:51 AM UTC

syklep wrote: post #187

kube-system wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like it is a universally constant thing for some subset of people to want their government to “force those other people to do what I think they should be doing”. The only the US does relatively well is to provide mechanisms to reverse course when these things happen. Which is also why a lot of changes end up in gridlock. Which I suspect will happen soon in this case.

I'd guess it's more of a "make sure our children grow up into healthy working adults, instead of more minimum wage tech addicts".

Post by monksy » Sun, Mar 26, 2023, 4:55 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #178

anon291 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large numbers of states actively monitor (via swiping IDs) your alcohol purchase history. Many states have entire bureaus whose job it is to keep this information.

Interesting, I did not know that, and that is disappointing to find out.

Post by prpl » Sun, Mar 26, 2023, 4:55 AM UTC

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…

Post by rhn_mk1 » Sun, Mar 26, 2023, 4:57 AM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #175

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.)

> 17-year-old me would have considered this draconian bullsh t, for the same reasons I would now. If anyone thinks that this bill is going to keep 17 year olds from accessing everything from Reddit to GitHub, they are going to be very disappointed. It's kind of wild to see so much of these comments insisting that anyone under the age of 18 be locked up and prevented from accessing basic internet sites and* encouragin…

Post by chudmeister » Sun, Mar 26, 2023, 4:57 AM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #183

arpowers wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media, crypto, gambling and the cigarette industries should be legislated away. Yes.

> Social media, crypto, gambling and the cigarette industries should be legislated away. Yes. Ironically posted on a social media site (Hacker News has the characteristics of "Social Media Site" under this definition). Reddit would also be gone. It's funny to read all the comments from people who think "social media" just means "sites I don't like"