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

391–400 of 720 posts

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

#391

Post by datavirtue »

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.

”that’s why their bag/locker/car can be searched randomly"

This has always disgusted me about public school.

No better way to erode rights and democracy than ingraining absolute tyranny in children. I was never search but I was convicted and punished many times on zero evidence, just some authority assuming I did something.

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

#392

Post by soared »

solarpunk wrote: post #342
soared wrote: post #286

Technical implementation looks like a good use case for this, morals/etc aside - https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/protections/pr... Private State Tokens enable trust in a user's authenticity to be conveyed from one context to another, to help sites combat fraud and distinguish bots from real humans—without passive tracking. An issuer website can issue tokens to the web browser of a user who shows that th…

you've posted this in a few threads, but i dont think i understand what the scenario it is used in would be? every user of social media in florida now has to visit a third party (who?) that sets a cookie (private state token?) on their browser that verifies their age?

Correct - ISP requires you to visit Florida.gov (or realistically a company the government trusted to set up verification) to set your token if you’re an adult. Then each social media site checks whether a visitor is from Florida, and then if they have a valid token. If valid, load like normal. If not valid, don’t load the site.

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

#393

Post by aow83u45oaw23u »

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.

[flagged]

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

#394

Post by jcranmer »

scythe wrote: post #323
jcranmer wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The definition seems narrowly tailored The fact that are well over a dozen exceptions carved out strongly suggests that the definition is anything but narrowly tailored, and the authors of the bill preferred to add in exceptions to everyone who objected rather than rethinking their broad definitions. 1a-c will be trivially satisfied by anything that "has user accounts" and "allow users to comment". 1e is clearly me…

>Discounting 1d, this means that virtually every website in existence qualifies as social media sites Most websites would not satisfy 1e. Hacker News, for example. Traditional forums do not satisfy 1e. >1e is clearly meant to cover "algorithmic" recommendations, but it's worded so broadly that a feature that includes "threads you've commented on" would satisfy this prong. There could be some haggling over this, but I…

> Most websites would not satisfy 1e. Hacker News, for example. Traditional forums do not satisfy 1e.

Hacker News has a page that lets me see all of the replies from comments I've posted. Posting is clearly "activity of an account holder", and that means there is "at least part of the content" being "control[led]" by that activity.

> If "threads you've commented on" is content that the user has to request, e.g. by viewing a profile page or an inbox, that might not be considered "offering".

You're the one who's criticizing me for "least reasonable possible way", and you're trying to split hairs like this? (FWIW, an example that would qualify under your more restrictive definition is that the downvote button is not shown until you receive enough karma.)

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you think, nor what I think, nor even what a court will think. What matters is how much it will constrain the government using this law to harass a website. And 1e isn't going to provide a barrier for that.

> Yes, the definition is excessively broad if you ignore the majority of the text in the definition. This is a circular argument.

No, it's not. The definition boils down to "everything on the internet is social media, except for these categories we've thought of" (or more likely, had lobbyists who pointed out that the definition included them and so we through them into the list of exceptions). That the majority of the text of the definition is a list of exceptions doesn't make it a narrow definition; indeed, it just highlights that the original definition sans exceptions is overly broad.

> Probably qualifies under 2s or 2m

Definitely not 2s, it's not "a classified ad service". I'm not sure there are any classified ad services are "used by or under the direction of an educational agency", but that's what you have to be to qualify under 2s. (This makes me think someone did a bad job of splicing in the exception, and the second half of 2s is supposed to be 2t. Just goes to show you the level of quality being displayed in the drafting of this bill, I suppose.)

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

#395

Post by huytersd »

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.

Absolutely. Almost no kids smoke cigarettes (vaping non flavored varieties have almost no risk associated with it) and drunk driving is a shadow of what it used to be. Getting alcohol for someone under 21 is not child’s play either.

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

#396

Post by huytersd »

LynxInLA wrote: post #155
ceejayoz wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A massive, decades-long decline in the habit? Stemming from ad restrictions, warning labels, media campaigns, taxation, legal action by states/Feds, etc.

Have you not seen people vaping at a young age now?

Vaping (non flavored) vapes has basically a negligible impact on your health.

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

#397

Post by huytersd »

lbhdc wrote: post #188
ceejayoz wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaping isn't the same thing as smoking.

They are consuming nicotine, and tobacco companies are invested in / are the companies producing products in that space. It seems functionally to be the same.

Nicotine by itself is harmless besides the addictiveness. A nicotine addiction is not going to drastically affect your mental state or cause socially disruptive behavior like domestic violence or armed robbery so it’s really nothing to be concerned about.

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

#398

Post by munificent »

bentt wrote: post #382

I am here to report as a parent of children that I have been able to keep them off of social media by not getting them phones, controlling the Internet in the house, and paying close attention.

How has it impacted their social life?

My experience with my kids (middle and high school age) is that online is "where" most kids socialize today and if I don't let my kids go there, I am socially isolating them.

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

#400

Post by WindyLakeReturn »

ajhurliman wrote: post #186
andy99 wrote: post #49

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.

We have a ban on gambling for minors, so if you see social media as more harmful than gambling (personally, I do) it probably makes sense.

The ban we have on gambling seems weak. From trading card games to loot boxes to those arcade games that look to be skill based but are entirely up to chance, children are allowed to do all. The rules feel very inconsistent to the point that they appear arbitrary in nature.
Post reply on HN