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

361–370 of 719 posts

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

#361

Post by jandrese »

dragonwriter wrote: post #322
noduerme wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> HN appears to be totally banhammered under this since /the mods/ don’t post the news. Does HN have more than 5 million user accounts?

I guarantee that there are more than 5 million bot accounts alone.

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

#362

Post by nodemaker »

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 is a point to be made that anything coming from Meta is just designed by its makers to destroy your mental health for ad clicks. Other companies do not have such toxic business model even Tiktok.

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

#363

Post by xg15 »

noduerme wrote: post #252
judge2020 wrote: post #172

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…

> (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,

Doesn't this loophole even defeat their own hidden agenda? Almost every online game today features a chat function.

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

#365

Post by morbia »

heavyset_go wrote: post #306

I feel like this is a response to the exponential popularity of sites like r/exmormon among younger generations. For example, look at these exceptions. It seems like organic, unapproved discussion between users is what the bill is trying to stifle: > (D) news, sports, entertainment, or other content that is preselected by the provider and not user generated, ... (Q) to permit comments on a digital news website, if th…

Gay guy here.

I have always said that these sort of laws designed to protect children will do precisely the opposite. An LGBTQ child is effectively forcibly outed by this law, potentially before they've come to terms with their sexuality / gender themselves.

Whilst I don't doubt social media causes a lot of harm on children growing up, giving parents full access to your messages is not the solution. In my opinion, based off a scale of a child's age and maturity, children are entitled to some privacy. Clearly a 4 year old shouldn't be left alone with unfettered access to the Internet, but equally a 16 year old shouldn't have to feel like their parents are watching everything they do or say. Both can cause long term psychological harm to a child.

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

#366

Post by throwawaysleep »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #180
judge2020 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From other comments, it seems the definition is not "what you assume is a social media app" but "any service with over 5 million users that facilitates chat via posts". I am 99% certain this includes Hacker News, Steam, probably also bugs.chromium.org and bugzilla.mozilla.org, and maybe even any website that allows user comments if they happen to have over 5 million users.

> From other comments, it seems the definition is not "what you assume is a social media app" but "any service with over 5 million users that facilitates chat via posts". It's baffling to read all the HN comments encouraging draconian restrictions and forced PII collection on websites, all with the assumption that it will only apply to websites I don't like . Laws like this, if enforced, would make a lot of the sites…

I support it because I want to see the Silicon Slopes destroyed and young people abandoning Utah.

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

#367

Post by throwawaysleep »

kepler1 wrote: post #292
blintz wrote: post #245

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”)

Why are LGBT youth for some reason the special subgroup of people against whom every concern about rights being tested against? More so than anyone else's rights? It's like they somehow occupy a privileged position in your mind that everyone has to watch out for this group. Why is that?

[flagged]

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

#368

Post by komali2 »

hayst4ck wrote: post #338
komali2 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation? The USA government already makes the incorrect decision regarding these substances by criminalizing them, banning them, and throwing users in prison. Evidence shows that legalizing these substances and providing addiction care and universal healthcare, as well as tackling homelessness with empathetic solutions (literally just give them housing, it's that…

I agree with the first half. TikTok is a national security issue and a reciprocity issue and for that reason it was a bad choice of example. You can look at other social media as a morality problem. I could see why someone would think of it that way, but we are literally quite governed by our neurotransmitters, and these companies literally have "engagement" (read: addiction) engineers. There are literally addiction…

I agree with you that social media is a social toxin. Kind of like alcohol or heroin.

The solution for all three I think is the same. Don't allow the government to pass laws criminalizing these things, because that has bad outcomes. It's a lot easier to say "the government isn't allowed to restrict bodily autonomy" than it is to for example try to write into law the 800 different specific exact scenarios where society thinks abortion is ok. In this case, "the government isn't allowed to pass laws restricting access to information" or something along those lines.

Certainly we should allow our government to offer alternatives, information on the negative effects of a toxin, treatments, and use our governments to ensure good social safety nets that prevent people falling into toxin abuse as their only escape.

I'm talking about the problems of using the State to enforce whatever given values or ideals. The State is at best completely imperfect, at worst, it's fascist and trying to kill you and people like you. Don't let it get to that point, don't let it ban what it today defines as "social media."

There are better ways to protect society from these harmful things. Mostly I think solutions around good public education.

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

#369

Post by 8note »

bradford wrote: post #247
okhuman wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats going on at Roblox? Curious, as a parent myself.

Highly addictive to my kids for reasons that I can't grok. 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 child…

Roblox is neopets afaict

There's a game engine/a large variety of games combined with a common community. The games can be silly, but they're silly with other people who recognize they're silly, and others who aren't in on the joke yet

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

#370

Post by brabel »

raincole wrote: post #360
brabel wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool... it's just that your comment seems to imply that a lot of programmers were learning their basics when SO was already there to help us... that's only true for those of us lucky enough to be really young, like in their 20's :D. Hope you understand many of us are well past that and watched GH and SO take over the world as a very recent phenonenom.

Uh, yes, this is why I said "many of us" not "most of us". (not sure why i need to repeat this...) Of course I know people who are in 20s are not necessarily the absolute majority of HN. But there are still many of them.

> I said "many of us" not "most of us". (not sure why i need to repeat this...)

We understood it. Not sure why you think we didn't.

Post reply on HN