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

371–380 of 719 posts

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

#371

Post by 8note »

hattmall wrote: post #224
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL, according to this, my family's group text thread is illegal under this law, as DMs can only be between 2 people. EDIT: serious question; would Slack be professional networking or, how does that work under this bill? It's DMing for business, but it isn't really networking.

Group chats wouldn't be illegal, that's not an online service where you sign up and make a profile etc. This applies only to sites that would serve you random content from random users... i.e. Social Media.

That would not need a carve out for private messages between two profiles

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

#372

Post by 8note »

hackmiester wrote: post #320
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…

(J) applies to Facebook as well. edit: This is false as of 22 Feb, when Facebook Jobs was discontinued. I didn't realize.

If you've got professional contacts on Facebook, or if you're following businesses, I think it would count?

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

#373

Post by MisterBastahrd »

mvnuweucxqokii wrote: post #259
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"

I'm always very unimpressed by this kind of argumentation. There's a clear difference in kind between Hackernews, Reddit, Instagram, and TikTok. Sure, they all feature user-submitted content, but to pretend that there is any meaningful similarity beyond that seems silly.

I'm always very unimpressed by people who believe that politicians have the intellectual capacity to differentiate between HN and Reddit.

They don't, especially when they're throwing their weight around after screaming about internet boogeymen for years.

Go watch the Tiktok hearings. They were losing their minds because filters could track your eyes and your cell phone could use the internal wifi network in order to access the internet.

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

#374

Post by johnchristopher »

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…

> If this law was in place when I was growing up, my life would probably look very different, and not for the better. My interests, hobbies, profession, my sense of humor etc, all have deep roots in the online communities I participated as a kid. More importantly, those communities gave me a sense of hope when I didn't have much.

There's not enough details but I take it online communities were social networks of that time ?

I understand self-hosted boards would still be available to teens under this law.

Otherwise, I don't see how algorithmic generated content benefits teens if the goal is to participate in a community.

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

#375

Post by EGreg »

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?

What does it matter whether it has more than 5 million accounts? Why not 50K accounts?

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

#376

Post by EGreg »

pyuser583 wrote: post #330
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…

It seems they’re worried about peer to peer interactions. 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.

Apparently videoconferencing with kids is AOK while chats are not?

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

#377

Post by watwut »

morbia wrote: post #365
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, ba…

They are not designed to protect kids. There is always campaign designed to elicit fear and contempt and then they take controlling laws.

Talking about it as if safety was a goal instead of control is just falling into their lie.

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

#378

Post by EGreg »

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…

Seems that forums are exempt, look:

content that is generated by an account holder, or uploaded to or shared on the 270 platform by an account holder, that may be encountered by another account holder;

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

#379

Post by [deleted] »

komali2 wrote: post #368
hayst4ck wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 societ…

[deleted]

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

#380

Post by McSwag »

komali2 wrote: post #307
McSwag wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m kind of surprised but also not surprised in the outrage over the “draconian bulls*t.” The problem I have as a parent is that I can see it causing real social damage to adults around me, my own kids, and kids around my kids. Anti-social behavior, Disrespect for authority, extreme violence is easy to see and normalized (stuff that would normally be considered traumatic), wokeness and anti-wokeness is normalized (mu…

Regardless of your ethical stance on the subject, it would be a good exercise to consider who you're ok with determining what kind of content your children can view. Allowing a government to step in to pass laws like this is a draconian step too far. As a parent do you not already have all the tools you need to ensure your children don't use tik Tok? From the light touch and mundane, using the built in features of th…

I do think this a reasonable rebuttal, but there must be some middle ground here. Generally speaking, I can block TikTok sure, but because it’s so ubiquitous, my kids are ostracized because all their friends have access to it, they still pass around the content like drugs, alcohol and tobacco. It almost becomes one of those things that because they’re not allowed to have access to it, it does just as much damage, socially.

There are three general categories of parents on this, and to be clear, I don’t think any of these are bad parents: 1. Those who are extremely weary and tech savvy, like myself 2. Those who are weary but have no earthly idea how to set up these controls effectively. 3. Those who don’t give a f*all about it at all.

I tend to believe it’s just as bad but it’s about as misunderstood as tobacco used to be. The industry KNOWS it’s bad for kids, it’s been proven bad for kids but it’s peddled to them anyway.

All that aside, let’s just say hypothetically I wanted to manage this all myself and wanted the government out of it, sounds good in theory. The tooling around limiting inappropriate content is mind-blowingly inadequate. At the very least this should be mandatory and more concretely standardized. I’m not flatly against giving kids some access to it but it’s reached a point where my kids can’t even do their homework at all without full access to all of Youtube which by itself has loads of content not remotely appropriate for elementary school kids. Youtube kids is a joke.

It’s pretty frustrating as a parent to manage content restrictions for the 3-4 major browsers, search engines, youtube, messenging apps, iphones, macbook, windows app store, and so on. This could be a full time job. Then, the kids bring home a school provided chromebook or login to chrome with a school account which has no content restrictions at all and I have zero control over anyway. Honestly, parental controls in the current state is largely a waste of time.

Post reply on HN