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

701–710 of 720 posts

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

#701

Post by nkohari »

tstrimple wrote: post #375
nkohari wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The original statement was: > "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." To which I pointed out that cigarettes kill far more people than social media. And your response was somehow that I'm implying that a less-bad thing is good? Are you sure you're following the conversation? It's really not clear th…

I was following the conversation. You seemed to be implying that social media restriction was unnecessary.

If you weren't, then I think you were being a bit pedantic, because I don't think the person you were replying to was literally suggesting that millions of smoking deaths were equivalently bad to social media. Context matters, and the context of the conversation is legal restriction of social media.

Either way, feel free to ignore my comment if it bothers you.

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

#702

Post by AlecSchueler »

aidenn0 wrote: post #494
AlecSchueler wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think enforcement actually needs to be very tightly controlled. The barriers that are put in place like the one you describe are already enough to create a social milieu where parents and kids with think twice about these things and understand that there is a recognised harm potential. There's nothing stopping you pouring your youngsters a glass of wine with dinner, but as a society we've made the dangers of…

Judging by how many of my kid's friends under 13 have various accounts already, I'm not sure that's the case.

A lot of kids are given alcohol as well but I'm still happy to say that as a society we understand the danger of underage drinking.

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

#703

Post by sangnoir »

mirekrusin wrote: post #698
sangnoir wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but I bet a dollar that NSA isn't just going to collectively fold hands and say "These schemes and implementations are too good and too secure for us to break. We'll ignore the meta data, network analysis, side channels and our data centers that can store 2 days worth of internet traffic; we'll give up and focus on defensive security only"

Your argument applies equally to any initiative ever made by humans that mentions "internet". Yet it appears quite few things exist on the "internet". We do have cryptography with good guarantees available.

My argument is not that those things don't exist - its just that to my knowledge, I never heard of any real-life implementation that's guaranteed to be NSA-proof[1] - you're welcome to offer a counterexample.

1. Your fancy encryption scheme is pointless if your plaintext can be acquired at either endpoints, of if a bug in the implementation leaks data. The security of the whole matters a lot more than the individual parts as attackers go for the weakest link.

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

#704

Post by Aerbil313 »

jlokier wrote: post #249
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…

> 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…

Thanks for bringing this solution up. Many people are unaware of Zero-Knowledge proofs are actually possible. Probably because it's very counter intuitive.

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

#705

Post by Aerbil313 »

jcranmer wrote: post #552
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…

> 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 you to the service provider (not even your age), and without having to communicate with the government either. There's just one problem. How does the machine proving your age know that you are who you say you are? Modern c…

> the closest thing that people can think of to a solution is "biometrics," which immediately raises lots of privacy concerns.

Is using FaceID a privacy concern? This mechanism can be built into phones much like passkeys.

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

#706

Post by Aerbil313 »

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. However, it is beyond what one kid online says to another online. It is what predators say to those kids online.

No, it's not about that either. It's the algorithmic nature of social media apps which rewire the brain's mechanisms in unnatural and unhealthy ways. Predators are a minor concern besides this one. See https://www.afterbabel.com/archive?sort=top

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

#707

Post by mirekrusin »

protocolture wrote: post #697
protocolture wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You very obviously have to reveal your identity to some party or other, otherwise 12 year olds wont be excluded.

Let me expand on this because Digital Identity proponents tend to try and oversimplify everything and then act surprised when their favorite cryptos implode. There are 2 situations. 1. Everyone who wants to access restricted content needs to access a government or corporate tool to generate their wallet or keys or whatever you want to call it. 2. Everyone in the jurisdiction is required to sign up for the tool. 1. Is…

Government already has all information about you, they put on your passport when they print it for you. Zero knowledge proofs allow you to generate attestation about some facts (ie that you are above 21 years) where 3rd party can verify it, where proof itself doesn’t reveal your identity or any other information - just the fact that you’re passing this check is revealed.

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

#708

Post by mirekrusin »

sangnoir wrote: post #703
mirekrusin wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument applies equally to any initiative ever made by humans that mentions "internet". Yet it appears quite few things exist on the "internet". We do have cryptography with good guarantees available.

My argument is not that those things don't exist - its just that to my knowledge, I never heard of any real-life implementation that's guaranteed to be NSA-proof[1] - you're welcome to offer a counterexample. 1. Your fancy encryption scheme is pointless if your plaintext can be acquired at either endpoints, of if a bug in the implementation leaks data. The security of the whole matters a lot more than the individual…

You're not transmitting sensitive information in the first place.

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

#709

Post by protocolture »

mirekrusin wrote: post #707
protocolture wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me expand on this because Digital Identity proponents tend to try and oversimplify everything and then act surprised when their favorite cryptos implode. There are 2 situations. 1. Everyone who wants to access restricted content needs to access a government or corporate tool to generate their wallet or keys or whatever you want to call it. 2. Everyone in the jurisdiction is required to sign up for the tool. 1. Is…

Government already has all information about you, they put on your passport when they print it for you. Zero knowledge proofs allow you to generate attestation about some facts (ie that you are above 21 years) where 3rd party can verify it, where proof itself doesn’t reveal your identity or any other information - just the fact that you’re passing this check is revealed.

Yes and you can consider the passport office a list of everyone who wants to travel overseas.

Ditto, if you apply for internet porn license, you will be on a list of internet porn enthusiasts. Its non trivial information that its largely in your best interest not to provide the government.

Again this all happens before your zero knowledge check.

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

#710

Post by apapapa »

djfdat wrote: post #657
apapapa wrote: post #602

I think that instead of banning it all together, they should ban practices within those platforms.... Wtf Florida, this sounds life something CA would do... It's almost as if they banned all speech because some speech is hurtful

How does this sound like something CA would do? This sounds exactly like something Florida would do.

Because CA bans everything?

Pretty much every causes cancer in Cali, for example.

Post reply on HN