111–120 of 720 posts
> The social media platforms the bill would target include any site that tracks user activity, allows children to upload content or uses addictive features designed to cause compulsive use. That does not appear to be correct. It says it applies if any of 3 conditions hold. The bill text says all of the conditions must hold (and there are 5, not 3). Here is what the current text says social media platform means: There…
a lot of loopholes there
This is good. Seriously, the damage it does is massive, kids should not be on Instagram, Snapchat, or Tiktok.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parents don’t have the right to get their kids a tattoo, vote or buy alcohol before a regulated age. Is this different?
So your answer is yes? Your position is that decisions about youth access to social media should be fully taken from the parents and made by govs instead. Penalties can be assumed from your examples. This is the reality that you want imposed on parents and children - yes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your answer is yes? Your position is that decisions about youth access to social media should be fully taken from the parents and made by govs instead. Penalties can be assumed from your examples. This is the reality that you want imposed on parents and children - yes?
Is your position that no age limits should exist for anything?
As a Floridian and someone in IT - I'm curious how this will be implemented I can't remember the last time I signed up for a new social network; do they ask age? Is it an ask to Apple / Google to add stronger parental approval? Verify drivers license #? We heard about this days ago on local news and I've been struggling to figure out short of are you 16 years or older how this is gonna get done and how do you fine so…
Yes, they always ask your date of birth and generally won't allow sign ups for under 13s, it's been that way for almost 20 years.
the government shouldn't take the place of the parents.
I think the real reason is they don't like how tiktok is creating activists out of the next generation of voters.
we should demand better from big tech but banning does nothing to improve platforms.
so many adults here were on forums, 4chan, mmos, ventrilo growing up, even Facebook which was useful keeping in touch as a kid.
I might be the only one here in favor of this, and wanting to see a federal rollout. It is not reasonable to expect parents to spontaneously agree on a strategy for keeping kids off social media- and that kind of coordination is what it would take, because the kids + social media companies have more than enough time to coordinate workarounds. Have the law put the social media companies on the parents side, or these k…
I’m normally anti-regulation as well, but as a parent I’m fully on board with this. The amount of peer pressure to be on social media is insane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m normally anti-regulation as well, but as a parent I’m fully on board with this. The amount of peer pressure to be on social media is insane.
Are you asserting that parents should not have the rights to determine this for their own children?
There's extensive evidence that social media is exceptionally harmful to people, especially children. And in this case there's also a major network effect. People want to be on social media because their friends are. It's like peer pressure, but bumped up by orders of magnitude, and in a completely socially acceptable way. When it's illegal that pressure will still be there because of course plenty of kids will still use it, but it'll be greatly mitigated and more like normal vices such as alcohol/smoking/drugs/etc. It'll also shove usage out of sight which will again help to reduce the peer pressure effects.
This will also motivate the creation/spread/usage of means of organizing/chatting/etc outside of social media. This just seems like a massive win-win scenario where basically nothing of value is being lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Children don't have the same standing with the constitution as adults. I don't remember the exact term but children have their rights restricted all the time. They do not have free speech in school for instance. They certainly have limits to their second amendment freedoms. So I don't think this bill will have constitutional issues. Personally, I'm all for a federal restriction on addictive social media for kids.
So, a law preventing children from receiving religious instruction would also be constitutional, in your mind?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in favor of kids not using social media, but not of the government forcing this on people nor spinning up whatever absurd regulatory regime is required. And the chance of actually enforcing it is zero anyway. It's no more realistic to expect this to work than to expect all parents to do it as you say. It's just wasted money plus personal intrusion that won't achieve anything.
Several governments have already effectively banned sites like Pornhub by creating regimes where people have to mail their ID to a central clearinghouse (which creates a huge chilling effect.) The article talks about “reasonable age verification measures” and so saying it’s unenforceable seems a little bit premature. Also, you can bet those measures won’t be in any way reasonable once the Florida legislature gets thr…