Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16

Post by bilsbie » Mon, Jan 29, 2024, 4:09 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #96

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm curious how this will be implemented The only way to determine age is to compile a database of gov-issued IDs and related data. Which is an unconstitutional barrier to speech. Which is why this will get struck-down like each similar law. The part about ID data eventually being shared with 3rd parties, agencies - and/or leaked - is a bonus.

It sounds like you are envisioning age verification that involves just two parties: the user and the site that they need to prove their age to. The user shows the site their government issued ID and the site uses the information on the ID to verify the age. That would indeed allow the site to compile a database of government issues IDs and give that information (willfully or via leaks) to third parties. Those issues…

Post by manicennui » Mon, Jan 29, 2024, 4:12 PM UTC

Post by akerl_ » Mon, Jan 29, 2024, 4:13 PM UTC

ratg13 wrote: post #3

akerl_ wrote: post #2

This makes me think of how, as a child, every site asked “are you over 13”, and I diligently clicked “yes”. Some more clever sites asked for my birth year… forcing me to do the arduous work of taking the current year and subtracting 14. Though I suppose the real plan here is to pass the law and then have the government selectively prosecute social media companies for having users under 16.

Just a guess .. but I get the feeling the 'law' is more to get this in the mind of the parents. It gives parents tools and guidelines that can help them direct their children. Whether this is a good approach or not, is a whole other argument.

Post by Clubber » Mon, Jan 29, 2024, 4:15 PM UTC

light_hue_1 wrote: post #67

Clubber wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>children are having their youth, innocence and brains destroyed by tiktok For one, ease up on the hyperbole if you want to be taken seriously. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because the news is nothing but hyperbole these days, so it's easy to pick up the habit. Second, most kids aren't having "their youth, innocence and brains destroyed." The news takes the edge cases, amplifies them and presents it as the…

Don't minimize what's going on. There's a massive rise in depression in young children. The teen suicide rate has almost doubled. The idea that you know what's going on, on their social media is pretty funny. Certainly what every adult always assumed about me. And now that I have kids, I can see how easily other kids fool their parents all the time. And what's overly malicious? It may be social media itself without a…

Post by yew » Mon, Jan 29, 2024, 4:16 PM UTC

andy99 wrote: post #49

causal wrote: post #36

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 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.