Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 783 posts

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#21

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

pjc50 wrote: post #12
edgyquant wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes we already restrict children from doing a ton of things e.g. buying or making pornography

Separate question, though - that's particular kinds of material (and for some reason US caselaw basically doesn't regard anything pornographic as "speech"), while this is a blanket restriction.

If you're 15, you're not allowed in a bar, and you're not allowed on a porn site, and you're not allowed to buy cigarettes.

The list goes on and on.

I fail to see how not being allowed on Facebook is different.

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#23

Post by dotnet00 »

justaman wrote: post #4

I grew up as social media came into being(mid 2000s). When I was 13, I got Myspace. When I was 16, I got Facebook. It wasn't until well into college that I realized the impact social media had on my mental health. I would go further and say nobody until 18 should have social media, but that may be unrealistic in 2024.

Setting it to 18 is obviously pretty ridiculous. That's just going to continue the weird trend of infantilizing people by pushing back the age at which they learn to deal with things that require self control.

At 16 there are at least 2 years where parents have the ability to actually interfere and help bring any negative effects under control.

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#24

Post by newhotelowner »

margorczynski wrote: post #15

People might see it as harsh but looking at reality and the hard numbers collected about the gigantic negative impact it has on kids and teenagers this is the right move, would even push it till 18.

Why 18 and not 25?

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#25

Post by aurareturn »

>Critics have said the bill violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections for free speech and that parents, not the government, should make decisions about the online presence of their children of all ages.

It's extremely difficult for parents to stop their children, especially early teens from using social media. This law should make it easier and it would put the work on Meta, Snap, Tiktok, Pinterest, Twitter to help parents.

I'm personally glad that I grew up without social media but I worry about the kids growing up now. The amount of random junk young kids are exposed to on social media is worrying.

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#29

Post by Dalewyn »

pjc50 wrote: post #12
edgyquant wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes we already restrict children from doing a ton of things e.g. buying or making pornography

Separate question, though - that's particular kinds of material (and for some reason US caselaw basically doesn't regard anything pornographic as "speech"), while this is a blanket restriction.

COPPA, a US federal law, has mandated that websites operating under US jurisdiction receive parental consent prior to collecting online information from children under age 13.[1][2]

As far as I'm concerned, this Florida state law practically extends it to children age 16 and under specifically with regards to social media websites and services.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Online_Privacy_Prot...

[2]: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C...

Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

#30

Post by seanhunter »

pjc50 wrote: post #6

Is there a canonical decision of SCOTUS that children don't have First Amendment rights, and therefore it's OK to restrict their ability to post? (note that rules which require proof of age tend also to turn into rules that end anonymity, because it's more work to separate the proof systems) Edit: I ask a question about caselaw and end up at -3? Yes, I know, don't complain about downvotes, but I don't understand thes…

Looks like Bethel v. Fraser. 478 U.S. 675. 686 (1986) is the case you're looking for, in which case the court ruled that a school had the right to restrict speech of students (specifically to prevent them from swearing I think).

Here's a discussion of US law as it pertains to children that you might find interesting. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

"Don't complain about downvotes" I think means what it says. Don't complain about them. I have been downvoted when posting a correct solution to a persons technical problem before. It happens. Take it on the chin and move on.

Post reply on HN