321–330 of 719 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming they acknowledge this at all, more and more laws are being written and passed knowing full well they violate federal law and will be challenged. The intent is not regulation of society, it’s political visibility and winning “points” among your electorate. Whether the law stands scrutiny is irrelevant
Don't forget trying to tee things up for our extremist leaning SCOTUS bench.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I don't know how to judge a bill, but I read this, and it seems that the intent is to broadly ban everything first and then carve out exceptions for almost everything except for a single category: Direct messaging (^B) between MORE than two users for non-creative, non-commercial, non-educational purposes. AKA forums and memes. Is that a fair analysis? [edit] : per privacy advocates - no, I don't think it's okay to st…
Does HN have more than 5 million user accounts?
The Democrats have their own flaws certainly, but I’m having such a hard time finding a consistent ideology among conservatives. Free speech absolutism, mixed with parent choice, no choice for women, censorship for some kinds of speech, anti-regulation limited government but strong regulation of tech products. I just can’t square any of this.
It’s confusing because they aren’t unified. I was a Democrat until 2015, when it felt like both sides had lost their mind and I voted libertarian. It seemed like there was no place for free speech advocates in the Democrat party anymore.
Eventually, my wife and I decided to become officially Republican when we realized that the Libertarians were totally ineffective as a party (the libertarian convention is literally just an excuse to have orgies and do drugs) and couldn’t fight back against the progressive ideology that we see as harmful towards successful child rearing, as well as us retaining a principled moral stance for free speech against the primarily leftist ideologies that had become so pervasive in social media circles. We feel like Elon Musk purchasing Twitter was one of the most important positive events of 2022, and a huge win for free speech.
There’s a lot of weird transition going on in the Republican Party because of this new group of “former Democrat refugees” who tend to be libertarian and free speech supporters are trying to integrate with the old guard republicans. We roll our eyes at this kind of stuff, but figure “it’s better than the crazy stuff going on these days on the other side”. Republican is turning into a much wider tent.
The idea that nobody is entitled to privacy until they turn 18 is crazy. I shudder for all the LGBT kids whose parents all now have a (state enforced!) right to snoop on them. (Honestly headline should be: “Utah bill gives parents full access to their children's online accounts, including posts and private messages”)
I see no problem with that.
Parents, as legal guardians, are legally liable for their childrens' actions. Parenting also necessitates having privileged knowledge of their childrens' circumstances and situations.
So no, I see no problem with parents having "full access to their children's online accounts". That is simply part of the duties and responsibilities as parents, and whether the parents exercise their authority is also their decision to make as they raise their children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be nice wouldn't it - mental health would improve so much.
There are plenty of people it would help. But there are likely quite a few it would really hurt, losing access to distant family or support.
The Democrats have their own flaws certainly, but I’m having such a hard time finding a consistent ideology among conservatives. Free speech absolutism, mixed with parent choice, no choice for women, censorship for some kinds of speech, anti-regulation limited government but strong regulation of tech products. I just can’t square any of this.
Look, I’ll take a risk here and speak my thoughts, assuming you genuinely want to learn more about Republicans in 2023. It’s confusing because they aren’t unified. I was a Democrat until 2015, when it felt like both sides had lost their mind and I voted libertarian. It seemed like there was no place for free speech advocates in the Democrat party anymore. Eventually, my wife and I decided to become officially Republi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say that anonymity on social media currently has a serious, real-world price to pay. Teen girls and Instagram don’t mix - the numbers reporting depression and suicidal thoughts since it took off is heartbreaking. They made us wear masks due to a threat to our physical health. Social media is currently having extremely acute effects on the mental health of a generation. It may have reached the point that losin…
Is anonymity the key issue for your example of Instagram and teen girls? I'd guess that a lot of the pressures come from their peers and professional users who are quite openly using their own identity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to give your kids a phone...
Yes you do. You can't live in the modern world without 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I don't know how to judge a bill, but I read this, and it seems that the intent is to broadly ban everything first and then carve out exceptions for almost everything except for a single category: Direct messaging (^B) between MORE than two users for non-creative, non-commercial, non-educational purposes. AKA forums and memes. Is that a fair analysis? [edit] : per privacy advocates - no, I don't think it's okay to st…
My experience regulating my daughters internet access is that interactions with other kids have the highest potential for toxicity.
They seem ok with kids passively consuming a stream of adult generated content.
They’re also excluding SaaS which just emulates desktop software.
I think that’s about right.