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

331–340 of 720 posts

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

#331

Post by pohuing »

qwertox wrote: post #316
lukev wrote: post #210

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 (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…

Plenty of hate under plain names on Facebook, been that way for a decade and I doubt it will change with ID verification.

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

#332

Post by simmerup »

qwertox wrote: post #316
lukev wrote: post #210

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 (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…

Attach their pictures too, so you can see the ghoul spouting hate is a basement dweller

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

#333

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

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, effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet

Ban portable electronics for children. Demand that law enforcement intervene any time it's spotted in the wild. If you still insist that children be allowed phones, dumb flip phones for them.

It could be done if there was the will to do it, it just won't be done.

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

#334

Post by Tadpole9181 »

CaptainFever wrote: post #280
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about this: I don't want every little thing I do on the internet tracked and tied to my real identity? Is the CCP conducting a psyops on HN right now or something? Since when were we all for every tiny interaction you have on the internet requiring you to look in the scanner and say "My name is X and I love my government and McDonalds"?

HN seems to have become a lot more mainstream, in comparison to the old cyberlibertarian "privacy and piracy" days.

Where's the new hangout?

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

#335

Post by o11c »

paulddraper wrote: post #291
lukev wrote: post #210

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 (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…

> destroying the anonymous nature of the internet (and probably unconstitutional under the First Amendment, to boot.) The First Amendment guarantees free expression, not anonymous expression. For example, there are federal requirements for identification for political messages. [1] These requirements do not violate the First Amendment. [1] https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/advertisi...

In particular, "anonymous speech is required if you want to have free speech" is actually a very niche position, not a mainstream one. It just happens to be widely spammed in certain online cultures.

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

#336

Post by tzs »

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…

An example of the kind of token transformation I'm thinking of follows.

Assume RSA signatures from the site that looks at your ID having public key (e,m) where e is the exponent and m is the modules, and private key d. The signature s of a blob of data, b, that you give them is b^d mod m.

To verify the signature one computes s^e mod m and checks if that matches b.

Here's the transformation. You generate a random r from 1 to m-1 such that r is relatively prime to m. Compute r' such that r r' = 1 mod m.

Instead of sending b to be signed, send b r^e mod m.

The signature s of b r^e is (b r^e)^d mod m = b^d r mod m.

You take that signature and multiply by r'. That gives you b^d mod m. Note that this is the signature you would have gotten had you sent them b to sign instead of b r^e.

Net result: you've obtained the signature of b, but the signing site never saw b. They just saw b r^e mod m.

That gives them no useful information about b, due to r being a random number that you picked (assuming you used a good random number generator!).

For any possible b, as long as it is relatively prime to m, there is some r that would result in b r^e having the same signature as your b, so the signing site has no way to tell which is really yours.

b is unlikely to not be relatively prime to m. If m is the product of two large primes, as is common, b is relatively prime to it unless one of those primes divides b. We can ensure that b is relatively prime to m by simply limiting b to be smaller than either of the prime factors of m. Since those factors are likely to each be over a thousand bits this is not hard. In practice b would probably be something like a random 128 bits.

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

#337

Post by a_victorp »

djfdat wrote: post #203
thsksbd wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Putting aside if the law is good or bad and the constitutionality of it.) Put criminal penalties to the directors if no reasonable attempt to keep kids out. Plus corporate death penalty if they purposely target kids. Then how they enforce it doesn't really matter as long as there are periodic investigations. The personal risks are too great and the companies will figure it out.

Excessive punishment with arbitrary enforcement? What could go wrong?

You forgot selective punishment as well

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

#338

Post by nkohari »

tstrimple wrote: post #295
ryandvm wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you also think that children should be allowed to buy cigarettes? I'll be honest, I am not certain that social media is any less deleterious than tobacco. I'm a pretty pro-market guy, but there are times when the interests of the market are orthogonal to the interests of mankind.

I can pretty confidently say that the half a million deaths a year attributable to smoking is a little more deleterious than getting bullied online and the suicides which follow. Many orders of magnitude more.

Just because one thing is worse than the other doesn't mean the less-bad thing is suddenly good.

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

#339

Post by o11c »

tedajax wrote: post #60
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…

Answering a problem with unenforceable garbage like this doesn't seem like a very sound strategy.

It doesn't have to be perfectly enforceable to have a positive effect.

Even just making illegal the promotion of social media toward children would have a huge effect.

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

#340

Post by delichon »

riversflow wrote: post #328
delichon wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> There is no age limit to that restriction Wrong I’m afraid. Minors don’t have full rights, that’s why their bag/locker/car can be searched randomly, why they can have speech abridged, why they can’t see NC-17 movies(edit: scratch that one). The supreme court has weighed against minors many times.

> why they can’t see NC-17 movies

The first amendment is a restriction on Congress, and does not apply to the private Motion Picture Association that maintains the film rating system.

> why they can have speech abridged

I don't think that's true of federal law. There are cases, such as in school, where more restrictions are permitted to the school. But those restrictions are not based on age.

Post reply on HN