Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you not seen people vaping at a young age now?
Vaping isn't the same thing as smoking.
Vaping is way cooler than smoking.
Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
511–520 of 720 posts
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#512Yet they just eased restrictions on child labor
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#513Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#514I 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 don’t think so. There’s nothing about social media that makes me feel like kids need it. Hell, if we could ban it for adults that would be an unmitigated good.
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#515And we still have film ratings. A kid isn't supposed to go to R rated movies if they're under 17....
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#516Earlier 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…
Emancipation of children is also a thing, where a minor may petition the court to be treated as an adult. This also falls afoul of a blanket age restriction. https://jeannecolemanlaw.com/the-legal-emancipation-of-minor...
I think there's an ambiguity here. Even on this page, talking about "for all purposes". This seems to mostly refer to parental decision making and rights.
i.e. even as an emancipated minor, being treated as a "legal adult" does not mean you can buy alcohol or tobacco.
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#517I 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…
> Restricting social media use is tantamount to brainwashing? I don't see the connection.
The idea is that social media exposes kids to viewpoints that they wouldn't otherwise be exposed to, so parents who want their kids to be a certain way would not want this, as they cannot easily control what viewpoints their kids are exposed to online.
Of course, every parent wants their kid to be a certain way, whether or not this is negative is dependent on how narrow that certain way is. The same applies to restricting what kids are exposed to: it is good to restrict exposure to some things, but too much restriction becomes bad.
The Florida legislature has recently been restricting the education system's ability to talk about gender and race, and pushing for more Christianity in schools. This makes some people feel there is an implied extension to the apparent "This is to protect kids" message: This is to protect kids (by making them conservative and Christian)
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#518Earlier 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…
> 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…
We did a hackathon at work and one of the guys from one of my project teams covered this stuff as his project.
I trust that it _would_ work 100%,but what I don't trust is that a government would implement it properly and securely, because no government works like that lmao (even NZ's great one).
I mean living in the UK now I got like a dozen different fucking gov numbers for all manner of things, dvla, NHS, nin, other tax numbers, visa, etc...why isn't there just one number or identity. Gov.uk sites are mostly pretty stellar besides.
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#519I 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…
IMHO the general idea isn't terrible the implementation is, suppar. But hy that's why it's good that's it's not yet US wide as it means there is time to make improvements. - I'm not the biggest fan of hard cutoff - addictive dark patterns which cause compulsive use should be general banned or age restricted no matter where they are used, honestly just ban most dark patterns they are intentional always malicious consu…
>addictive dark patterns which cause compulsive use should be general banned or age restricted no matter where they are used, honestly just ban most dark patterns they are intentional always malicious consumer deception not that far away from outright committing fraud.
How would you write a law that accomplishes your goal?
Re: Florida House of Representatives approves bill to ban social media for kids < 16
#520Earlier 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…
Already exists, simply include the header Rating: RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA in HTTP responses that include adult content, and every parental controls software in existence will block it by default, including the ones built into iPhones/etc and embedded webviews. As far as I know all mainstream adult sites include this (or the equivalent meta tag) already. In general, I don’t think communicating to every site you vi…
That's a much better approach in general.
It's much easier to regulate and enforce that websites must expose these headers so that UAs can do their own filtering. Adult Content = headers in response, no ifs, ands, or buts
Response headers are encrypted in the context of HTTPS, so there's no real sacrifice in privacy. Implementation effort about as close to trivial as can be. No real free speech implications (unless you really want to argue that those headers constitute compelled speech). All in all, it's a pretty decent solution.