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

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

#641

Post by tnbp » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 8:58 AM UTC

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #459

tnbp wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds nightmarish. I don't want the verifier to know what porn sites I visit. Someone else proposed the following system to me: a third party authority issues a certificate which I can then use to prove I'm 18. The CA cannot see where I use the certificate, though.

Er... The CA needs to be used to verify the certificate by the third party, ergo it will know the websites. It's virtually impossible to make a verification system that's anonymous. Somewhere the third party and authenticator will need to share a secret that you cannot touch. Furthermore, you would need the government to agree to this system and mandate this system universally and pay for the authentication services…

I can show my government-issued ID to any third party without the government knowing about whom I've shown this ID to. The third party needs to trust the government and the authenticity of the ID.

The problem is that my ID contains too much information; I would prefer a document (i.e. digital certificate) that only certifies my age, not my name, address etc.

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

#642

Post by bloqs » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 9:07 AM UTC

EasyMark wrote: post #406

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 can't agree. This teaches kids that the government is the answer to everything. this should 100% be the responsibility and decision of parents. Kids are different, and these one-size-fits-all authoritarian tactics that have become a signature of the current GOP Floridian government are just the beginning of the totalitarian christofascist laws that they want to implement. Before you ask, I am a parent, and my kid's…

The libertarian equivalent is the model we are currently running and it hasn't worked. It's psychologically addictive, harmful and has parallels with smoking in a way. If the evidence for its harm was less robust.

Do you think simply labelling it as bad is sufficient? Parents have no idea.

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

#643

Post by jijijijij » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 9:08 AM UTC

trogdor wrote: post #524

jijijijij wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am an adult and I wish someone would take social media away from me. Honestly, I think social media has done more harm than good and I wish it would just cease to exist. However, especially in Florida, social media may be the only way for some teens to escape political and religious lunacy and I fear for them. I think it's not wise to applaud them taking away means of communication to the "outside", in the context…

>I am an adult and I wish someone would take social media away from me. Why don’t you take it away from yourself? Just delete your account.

I tried but then got betrayed by myself.

Addiction mechanics are a real thing and sooner or later social media will pop into your life again. For me it's Reddit, not Instagram or Twitter. Luckily, HN makes me always ragequit at some point, cause y'all are a bit special.

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

#644

Post by ben_w » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 9:19 AM UTC

protocolture wrote: post #577

ben_w wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 classif…

Film classification is also dumb. In Australia Margaret Pomeranz used to run banned film viewing sessions that ended up in cops wrestling them for dvds. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/31/margaret-pomera...

Hence my second paragraph.

The first is saying that no matter what your rules are, the internet may at any time show you a clip from the highest rated category and should be treated as such.

The internet may also at any time show you outright banned content, but that's often treated as a separate battle no matter if that's Tiananmen Square (or "content promoting terrorism", although now I'm wondering if the Chinese Communist Party think the former is a subset of the latter?) or sexual acts you're not allowed to show in film (varies by jurisdiction).

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

#645

Post by lelanthran » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 9:26 AM UTC

diputsmonro wrote: post #427

blitz_skull wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I'm not really sure that requiring IDs for access to porn / social media is a terrible idea. Sure it's been anonymous and free since the advent of the internet, but perhaps it's time to change that. After all, we don't allow a kid into a brothel or allow them to engage in prostitution (for good reasons), and porn is equally destructive. But with the topic at hand being social media, I think a lot of the sam…

The biggest problem with this is how we would define "porn". Some states are currently redefining the existence of a transgender person in public as an inherently lewd act equivalent to indecent exposure. I have no doubt that if your proposal were to pass that there would be significant efforts from extremist conservatives to censor LGBT+ communities online by labeling sex education or mere discussion of our lives as…

> The biggest problem with this is how we would define "porn". Some states are currently redefining the existence of a transgender person in public as an inherently lewd act equivalent to indecent exposure.

This is the first I've heard about this. Link?

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

#646

Post by lelanthran » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 9:37 AM UTC

blitz_skull wrote: post #264

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…

You're not the only one! I also believe that this is a Big Deal™ that we need to take seriously as a nation. I have yet to see any HN commentator offer a robust pro-social media argument that carries any weight in my opinion. The most common "they'll be isolated from their peers" argument seems pretty superficial and can easily be worked around with even a tiny amount of efforts on the parents' part. As an added bonu…

> The most common "they'll be isolated from their peers" argument seems pretty superficial and can easily be worked around with even a tiny amount of efforts on the parents' part.

This is so incorrect it makes the flat earth theory look good.

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

#647

Post by tzs » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 11:38 AM UTC

kaibee wrote: post #218

hn_acker wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Why would you do age verification on login? It only needs to happen once on account creation.

I think you’d want to also reverify now and then. People only rarely create accounts, which I think would make de-anonymizing someone from simultaneous breaches of site and verifier logs easier.

If you have to verify often enough, and age verification is required on enough sites that are widely used by the general public so that the mere fact that you are using sites that require age verification is not something you might need to hide, I think it would make it much harder to get useful information from log comparisons.

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

#648

Post by 15457345234 » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 12:00 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #439

diputsmonro wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is talking to other people online really so bad that we need the government to step in and tell us who we can and can't talk to? How quickly will that power expand to what we can and can't talk about? I agree that neither solution is perfect, but exchanging an imperfect but undoubtedly free system of communication for one that is explicitly state-controlled censorship is an obvious step backwards. "Thinking about the…

I think you are willingly playing this down as "talking to people online" to make some point. However, it is beyond what one kid online says to another online. It is what predators say to those kids online. I don't just mean Chester and his panel van. I'm talking about anyone that is attempting to manipulate that kid regardless of the motive, they are all predators. Social media has long since past just being a means…

> I think you are willingly playing this down as "talking to people online" to make some point.

They won't engage on this topic in a fair and balanced manner. I've tried. They want unlimited ability to push agendas and incite strife and they just throw out keywords and thought-terminating cliches when criticised; diversity, marginalisation, fascism, they just gaslight and gaslight and gaslight.

I mean, don't stop trying, but you'll be very frustrated

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

#649

Post by Clubber » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 12:21 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #181

Clubber wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>children are having their youth, innocence and brains destroyed by tiktok For one, ease up on the hyperbole if you want to be taken seriously. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because the news is nothing but hyperbole these days, so it's easy to pick up the habit. Second, most kids aren't having "their youth, innocence and brains destroyed." The news takes the edge cases, amplifies them and presents it as the…

> For one, ease up on the hyperbole if you want to be taken seriously. That is the kind of swipe the HN guidelines ask people to edit out of their comments ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html : " Edit out swipes. "), so please don't post like this. Your comment would be fine without that sentence and the one after it. (I'm not saying the GP comment is particularly good—it was pretty fulminatey—but it w…

>so please don't post like this.

Ok.

>because yours got personal

In my defense, I made an effort to attacking the person's statement, not the person themselves.

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

#650

Post by basil-rash » Tue, Jan 30, 2024, 12:25 PM UTC

joshyeetbox wrote: post #531

basil-rash wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is not a response header. It's a meta tag that's added to a websites head element to indicate it's not kid friendly. The individual payloads returned from an adult site don't include this as a header.

That'd be the "equivalent meta tag" I mentioned. And this site claims the header works too, though I haven't tested it myself. https://davidwalsh.name/rta-label