16 seems ridiculously old for such a ban. Especially if sites like YouTube count as social media (and I can't imagine how it wouldn't, given most of the content is identical between the short video platforms).
Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
301–310 of 720 posts
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the only way to do this is to require ID checks, effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet (and probably unconstitutional under the First Amendment, to boot.) It's the same problem with requiring age verification for porn. It's not that anyone wants kids to have easy access to this stuff, but that any of these laws will either be (a) unenforceable and useless, or (b) draconian and…
Yes, this isn't the right solution. The power needs to be given to the users. A better solution is more robust device management, with control given to the device owner (read: the parent). The missing legislative piece is mandating that social media companies need to respond differently when the user agent tells them what to send. I should be able to take my daughter's phone (which I own), set an option somewhere tha…
Exactly, any design for this stuff requires parental-involvement because every approach without it is either (A) uselessly-weak or (B) creepy-Orwellian.
If we assume parents are involved enough to "buy the thingy that advertises a parental lock", then a whole bunch of less-dumb options become available... And more of the costs of the system will be borne by the people (or at least groups) that are utilizing it.
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
A data breach where? The central authority should be someplace that already has your non-anonymous ID data, so using your ID for age verification doesn't give them any new ID information. The only new thing that them doing age verification adds is that they might keep a list of verification tokens they have issued. Someone who obtained copies of the verification tokens you requested might go to various social media s…
> The central authority should be someplace that already has your non-anonymous ID data, so using your ID for age verification doesn't give them any new ID information. The only new thing that them doing age verification adds is that they might keep a list of verification tokens they have issued. But the central authority, a third party, will get a heads-up every time someone - whether child or adult - logs into the…
> But the central authority, a third party, will get a heads-up every time someone - whether child or adult - logs into the social media site.
Why? i imagine this could be a "they've signed my key" situation, no requests needing to go up the tree further then necessary...
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this isn't the right solution. The power needs to be given to the users. A better solution is more robust device management, with control given to the device owner (read: the parent). The missing legislative piece is mandating that social media companies need to respond differently when the user agent tells them what to send. I should be able to take my daughter's phone (which I own), set an option somewhere tha…
Another option that allows for better privacy and versatility is the website setting a MIN_USER_AGE header based on IP geolocation.
Geolocation to that degree not that reliable and not necessarily 1:1 with jurisdiction or parental intent.
If we're already trusting a parental-locked device to report minor-status, then it's trivial to also have it identify what jurisdiction/ruleset exists, or some finer-grained model of what shouldn't work.
In either case, we have the problem of how to model things like "in the Flub province of the nation of Elbonia children below 150.5 months may not see media containing exposed ankles". OK, maybe not quite that bad, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#305I feel like I can almost guarantee that this bill has nothing to do with protecting children and has more to do with brainwashing children and restricting their access to opposing viewpoints, especially given this is Florida. That being said, I am not strictly opposed to a bill like this. But 16 is way too old. I feel like likely somewhere within the 10 to 13 range since most don't allow for under 13 anyways would be…
Restricting social media use is tantamount to brainwashing? I don't see the connection.
As for restricting access to "opposing" (opposition to what?) viewpoints, what children can be exposed to has long been restricted.
But since there isn't a syllabus for what children will be presented on social media, I don't see the viewpoint restriction angle either.
In fact, that position is illogical to the point that it raises the question of whether or not people concerned with it have an agenda to expose kids to "viewpoints" that their parents would disapprove of. Under the radar of supervision.
Going only on my experience with social media, a valid and more plausible reason for this restriction would be that social media seeks to optimize the feed of users for engagement. In a manner that "hacks" psychology in a way that makes it difficult for even adults to disengage. Given that minors do not have fully developed brains, the ability to disengage may be even more hindered.
Television programing has long sought this goal as well and with some success. While that use isn't restricted, there is theoretically a red line. Florida may see it in social media use.
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#306I 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…
But the only way to do this is to require ID checks, effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet (and probably unconstitutional under the First Amendment, to boot.) It's the same problem with requiring age verification for porn. It's not that anyone wants kids to have easy access to this stuff, but that any of these laws will either be (a) unenforceable and useless, or (b) draconian and…
"probably unconstitutional under the First Amendment, to boot"
Probably not. Minors have all sorts of restrictions on rights, including first amendment restrictions such as in schools.
"(And if it is, let's start talking about gun ownership first...)"
Are you advocating for removing ID checks for this? If not, it seems that this point actually works against your argument.
Not saying that I agree with a ban, but your arguments against it don't really stand.
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#307A much better better move in my local state, they banned all phones in school up to year 10.
https://www.act.gov.au/our-canberra/latest-news/2023/decembe...
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#308I feel like I can almost guarantee that this bill has nothing to do with protecting children and has more to do with brainwashing children and restricting their access to opposing viewpoints, especially given this is Florida. That being said, I am not strictly opposed to a bill like this. But 16 is way too old. I feel like likely somewhere within the 10 to 13 range since most don't allow for under 13 anyways would be…
Its should be categorized in the same way as gambling. Its addictive and useless in any form. The whole world would be better off without any social media. Including the most anti social people.
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#309I 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 might be the only one here in favor of this, and wanting to see a federal rollout.
I'm not American, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ban kids from the internet just by applying the logic used for film classification. Even just the thumbnails for YouTube (some) content can go beyond what I'd expect for a "suitable for all audiences" advert.
This isn't an agreement with the specific logic used for film classification: I also find it really weird how 20th century media classification treated murder perfectly acceptable subject in kids shows while the mere existence of functioning nipples was treated as a sign of the end times (non-functional nipples, i.e. those on men, are apparently fine).
Also, I find it hilariously ironic that Florida also passed the "Stop Social Media Censorship Act". No self-awareness at all.
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#310I feel like I can almost guarantee that this bill has nothing to do with protecting children and has more to do with brainwashing children and restricting their access to opposing viewpoints, especially given this is Florida. That being said, I am not strictly opposed to a bill like this. But 16 is way too old. I feel like likely somewhere within the 10 to 13 range since most don't allow for under 13 anyways would be…
Restricting social media use is tantamount to brainwashing? I don't see the connection. As for restricting access to "opposing" (opposition to what?) viewpoints, what children can be exposed to has long been restricted. But since there isn't a syllabus for what children will be presented on social media, I don't see the viewpoint restriction angle either. In fact, that position is illogical to the point that it raise…
> opposition to what?
This is coming from the state that is trying to ban books based on some backwards concern of a white kid feeling bad. (for the record I am white).
I don't care what side of politics you are on... you know what opposition I am talking about. Whether you are for or against it.
> not people concerned with it have an agenda to expose kids to "viewpoints" that their parents would disapprove of.
Yes! Because otherwise the parents are brainwashing their kids into their viewpoint not allowing them to see the real world.
This isn't a hard concept to understand here.
I mean I am liberal and atheist. But even I have wondered if I ever have kids if I don't expose them to the choice of religion if that is brainwashing of its own. I may try to justify it with the harm that religion has caused, but I am still denying my kid another prospective that is different than my own.
Edit:
To clarify here. If this was a state that was not actively removing opposing viewpoints from their libraries and teachings than I may buy that they actually care about their kids. But it's not, it's Florida. The beacon of being scared of their kids knowing anything about the real world and daring to have compassion for someone different than them.