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

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

abcnews.go.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 720 posts

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

#311

Post by dylan604 »

nerdjon wrote: post #266

I 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…

> what is the point of the bill?

This is a valid question for pretty much all legislation. It serves by allowing the congress critters to toot their horns as doing something for those that only pay attention to news bites while doing no harm by doing nothing

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

#312

Post by jlokier »

hn_acker wrote: post #197
tzs wrote: post #165

Earlier 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. That's a privacy violation. Even if the verification system were set up in such a way that the third party wouldn't be able to know which exact website I'm trying to visit, the third party would be able to track how frequently I visit websites that require age verification.

It doesn't have to work like this.

It's technically possible to do verification such that the authority (probably the government which already has a database with your age), doesn't get any communication when verification takes place. They'd have no idea which sites you visit or join, or how often.

And the site which receives the verification token doesn't learn anything about you other than your age is enough. They don't even learn your age or birthday. They couldn't tell the government about you even if subpoenaed.

(But if you tell them on your birthday that you are now old enough, having been unable to the day before, they'll be able to guess of course so it's not perfect in that way.)

Using modern cryptography, you don't send the authority-issued ID to anyone, as that would reveal too much. Instead, on your own device you generate unique, encrypted proofs that say you possess an ID meeting the age requirement. You generate these as often as you like for different sites, and they cannot be correlated among sites. These are called zero-knowledge proofs.

They work for other things than age too. For example, to show you are an approved investor, or have had specific healthcare or chemical safety training, or possess a certain amount of credit without revealing how much, or are citizen with voting rights, or are a shareholder with voting rights, without revealing anything else about who you are.

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

#313

Post by mrangle »

nerdjon wrote: post #310
mrangle wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!…

[flagged]

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

#314

Post by nerdjon »

dylan604 wrote: post #311
nerdjon wrote: post #266

I 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…

> what is the point of the bill? This is a valid question for pretty much all legislation. It serves by allowing the congress critters to toot their horns as doing something for those that only pay attention to news bites while doing no harm by doing nothing

I really hate how right you are. And that meaningless thing will be all over ads and or your opponent voted against it (since it was meaningless and shouldn't be on the books) that turns into an attack on them.

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

#315

Post by dylan604 »

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.

There is a societal problem that is beyond just parenting. The peer pressure for kids to feel left out and ostracized because they are the only ones not on the socials is something a teen is going to definitely rebel against their parents on. It's part of being a teen. I'm guessing the other parents would even put pressure on the parents denying the social access.

To me, the only way out of this is by changing one nightmare for another giving the gov't the decision of allowing/denying access. Human nature is not a simple thing to regulate since the desire for that regulating is part of human nature

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

#316

Post by qwertox »

lukev wrote: post #210
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…

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…

Lately I'm repeatedly reminded of how in Ecuador citizens, when interviewed during a protest, see it as a normal thing to tell their name as well as their personal ID number into the camera when also speaking about their position in regards of the protest. They stand to what they are saying without hiding.

Since about half a year I've noticed the German Twitter section getting sunk in hate posts, people disrespecting each other, ranting about politicians or ways of thinking, but being really hateful. It's horrible. I've adblocked the "Trending" section away, because its the door to this horrible place where people don't have anything good to share anymore but disrespect and hate.

This made me think about what we're really in need for, at least here in Germany, is a Twitter alternative, where people register by using their eID and can only post by using their real name. Have something mean to say? Say it, but attach your name to it.

This anonymity in social media is really harming German society, at least as soon as politics are involved.

I don't know exactly how it is in the US but apparently it isn't as bad as here, at least judging from the trending topics in the US and skimming through the posts.

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

#317

Post by giancarlostoro »

lukev wrote: post #210
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…

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…

> But the only way to do this is to require ID checks

COPPA has entered the building. If you're under 13 and a platform finds out, they'll usually ban you until you prove that you're not under 13 (via ID) or can provide signed forms from your parent / legal guardian.

I've seen dozens of people if not more over the years banned from various platforms over this. We're talking Reddit, Facebook, Discord and so on.

I get what you're saying, but it kind of is a thing already, all one has to do is raise the age limit from 13 to say... 16 and voila.

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

#318

Post by freetanga »

delichon wrote: post #284
jlokier wrote: post #249

Earlier 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 That seems intuitive, but it's not actually true. I suggest looking up zero-knowledge proofs. Using modern cryptography, it is easy to send a machine-generated proof to your social media provider that your government-provided ID says your age is ≥ 16, without revealing anything else about…

[flagged]

You are free to express yourself in a park.

You are not free to enter the White House to express yourself.

Enforcing a property owners right to refuse entry (digital or physical) does not prevent you from expressing yourself, but rather from doing it that specific property.

Social Networks are not a public space

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

#319

Post by CJefferson »

1shooner wrote: post #117
brightball wrote: post #58

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.

Because regulation worked so well in eliminating peer pressure for drinking, smoking, and drugs.

I'm fairly sure more 13 year olds are on social media, than are drinking, smoking, or on drugs.

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

#320

Post by nerdjon »

mrangle wrote: post #313
nerdjon wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!…

[flagged]

I stand by what I said.

And judging by the quite fascinating trend of voting up and down I am noticing on my comment most people understand exactly what I am referring too. Whether they agree with those actions or not.

Post reply on HN