Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Arkansas bill to keep minors off social media exempts most social platforms

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 132 posts

Re: New Arkansas bill to keep minors off social media exempts most social platforms

#51

Post by ruune »

nverno wrote: post #42
vhold wrote: post #33

I think people may be overlooking a bigger story here: https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/FTPDocument?path=%2FBil... Reasonable age verification methods under subdivision (c)(1) of this section include providing: (A) A digitized identification card, including a digital copy of a driver's license under § 27-16-601 et seq.; (B) Government-issued identification; or (C) Any commercially reasonable age verification meth…

Yea that's BS. I didn't have any ID till I was 16 and got a driver's license. A lot of kids, like city kids, don't get one till years later. Are they planning to create a new type of ID for children? I wouldn't want my kids anywhere near social media either, but I wouldn't want to rely on the state to track and police their behaviour.

Another reason why a simple ID which only purpose is being an ID might be useful. No more non-driver drivers licenses

Re: New Arkansas bill to keep minors off social media exempts most social platforms

#52

Post by whitemary »

ericmay wrote: post #18
nequo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes lobbying to regulate your competitors out of existence neoliberal?

Further, what exactly does this have to do with capitalism? This is strictly a failure of government, and by extension the people.

As Karl Marx correctly illustrated 150 years ago, a state under capitalism is merely a capitalist state.

Re: New Arkansas bill to keep minors off social media exempts most social platforms

#53

Post by bcrosby95 »

ericmay wrote: post #18
nequo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes lobbying to regulate your competitors out of existence neoliberal?

Further, what exactly does this have to do with capitalism? This is strictly a failure of government, and by extension the people.

It's a natural extension of capitalism into government.

Is that a failure? When you have no strong barriers keeping people and organizations from being able to buy politicians, practically no one with any power looking to change it, I would say that it isn't - at that point it's just working as intended.

Re: New Arkansas bill to keep minors off social media exempts most social platforms

#54

Post by dragonwriter »

dylmarcor wrote: post #30
ericmay wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further, what exactly does this have to do with capitalism? This is strictly a failure of government, and by extension the people.

It’s predatory incumbent firms and industries that seek to manipulate thru regulation, so it’s private sector first coming to utilize public sector for protections. So I’d say it’s pretty capitalist initially, and then a failing of government second.

> it’s private sector first coming to utilize public sector for protections. So I’d say it’s pretty capitalist initially, and then a failing of government second.

I’d say its just capitalist, period. The owners of capital, collectively and individually, using government as a vehicle to advance their interest is the whole origin and nature of capitalism.

“free markets”, etc., are post hoc idealistic rationalizations that were created to defend those interests by selling people on capitalism well after it existed, and do not reflect the reality of capitalism.

Re: New Arkansas bill to keep minors off social media exempts most social platforms

#55

Post by nverno »

ruune wrote: post #51
nverno wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea that's BS. I didn't have any ID till I was 16 and got a driver's license. A lot of kids, like city kids, don't get one till years later. Are they planning to create a new type of ID for children? I wouldn't want my kids anywhere near social media either, but I wouldn't want to rely on the state to track and police their behaviour.

Another reason why a simple ID which only purpose is being an ID might be useful. No more non-driver drivers licenses

A lot of people do get those currently, just ID cards for non-drivers, also issued through the DMV. Adults need them for various things like voting, food stamps, etc. But I've never heard of a child needing an ID card (aside from travelling abroad), although they could probably (?) get one if they needed - maybe they don't issue them to people under 18 cause there hasn't been any need

Re: New Arkansas bill to keep minors off social media exempts most social platforms

#56

Post by rvz »

vhold wrote: post #33

I think people may be overlooking a bigger story here: https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/FTPDocument?path=%2FBil... Reasonable age verification methods under subdivision (c)(1) of this section include providing: (A) A digitized identification card, including a digital copy of a driver's license under § 27-16-601 et seq.; (B) Government-issued identification; or (C) Any commercially reasonable age verification meth…

Yes. YouTube already does this KYC verification with age restricted content. Not a big surprise reveal here.

Meta will probably follow suit with Meta Verified as well for both Facebook and Instagram.

Re: New Arkansas bill to keep minors off social media exempts most social platforms

#58

Post by [deleted] »

ericmay wrote: post #18
nequo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes lobbying to regulate your competitors out of existence neoliberal?

Further, what exactly does this have to do with capitalism? This is strictly a failure of government, and by extension the people.

[deleted]

Re: New Arkansas bill to keep minors off social media exempts most social platforms

#59

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

keiferski wrote: post #5

Is there a formal name to describe incumbents pushing for regulations in order to keep out new competitors? Something more specific than just “anti-competitive, monopolistic,” etc. This seems like such a common tactic that I’d expect there to be academic studies about it.

For fun, look up what Ronald Reagan did to protect car dealerships, specifically incumbent dealerships in California.

Re: New Arkansas bill to keep minors off social media exempts most social platforms

#60

Post by cratermoon »

simonjgreen wrote: post #15
keiferski wrote: post #5

Is there a formal name to describe incumbents pushing for regulations in order to keep out new competitors? Something more specific than just “anti-competitive, monopolistic,” etc. This seems like such a common tactic that I’d expect there to be academic studies about it.

Yes, the term you're looking for is "regulatory capture." Regulatory capture is a phenomenon where incumbent firms or industries manipulate regulations and regulatory bodies to create barriers to entry for new competitors, thereby maintaining or increasing their market power. This concept was first introduced by the economist George Stigler in his 1971 paper, "The Theory of Economic Regulation." Regulatory capture ca…

Known as barriers to entry: "Barriers to entry is an economics and business term describing factors that can prevent or impede newcomers into a market or industry sector, and so limit competition. These can include high start-up costs, regulatory hurdles, or other obstacles that prevent new competitors from easily entering a business sector." https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/barrierstoentry.asp
Post reply on HN