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

101–110 of 783 posts

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

#101

Post by ProllyInfamous »

justaman wrote: post #44
capybara_2020 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, how did it affect your mental health?

I would sit on facebook, refreshing and doom scrolling endlessly. When fb messenger came out I was monitoring facebook messenger when it first came out to see who was online. I was always a pretty lonely kid, and I thought social media would connect me with people. It didn't really.

This reminds me of sitting around on AOL Instant Messenger, summer afternoons pre-2000.

Facebook came out when I was in college, and I resisted for one semester; then if felt "inevitable" [that I join] since almost all classmates were on thefacebook.

----

At present, I do not carry a cell phone nor use email [it is heavenly, a rare gift]. When somebody is more than ten minutes late for a planned meetup, I depart.

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

#102

Post by jl6 »

vsnf wrote: post #89
2024throwaway wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Riiiight. Because four year olds have a strong grasp on current events and deserve a say, and totally wouldn’t just become an extra vote for whomever their parents are voting for.

Yep, I understand the practical issues with my position. But I can’t ethically condone saying “you have no voice” to a fellow citizen, so I prefer no restrictions.

There are plenty of unethical outcomes available in the "let babies vote" scenario, to weigh against the allegedly-unethical scenario of having a voting age.

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

#103

Post by thrownaway561 »

The biggest thing about social media is that it NEVER stops. Growing up, if you had trouble with bullying at school, it ended when you went home, your home was your safe zone. Now there are no safe zones.

not only that, but i fully believe that kids are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to impressionable and influenceable. there is a reason kids can't do a lot of things until 18 (even through the brain doesn't fully develop till 25). kids should not be influenced by social media to be doing permanent things that could harm themselves (like gender transitioning, getting a tatoo or piercing, or doing something dangerous challege) or their future careers (like breaking the law so they have a criminal record).

honestly social media is a wonderful thing, but something has to be done. i personally believe that parents need to have more power in discipling their children. i don't like the fact that laws like this have to be created, but i see that they have to exists with the more power they take away from the parents.

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

#104

Post by e_i_pi_2 »

awkward wrote: post #49
newhotelowner wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why 18 and not 25?

Because at 18 people are responsible for their own actions, and restricting them after that is unreasonable and contrary to personal freedom. There's a consistent factoid going around that brains aren't done developing until the age of 25. It's frequently used as an argument to restrict young people. Looking at performance by age in fields like math and music, declining brain plasticity seems more like a reason to im…

> Because at 18 people are responsible for their own actions

This is only because we arbitrarily picked an age - we used to consider people responsible for their own actions at much younger ages, it makes sense to change the number when we get new science supporting that. If the argument is that we shouldn't use brain development as a reason to restrict young people, then why not lower the drinking age again or get rid of it?

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

#105

Post by KaiserPro »

Cheer2171 wrote: post #60
edgyquant wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These critics have no understanding of the law. We’ve been making exceptions for children for decades at least, probably since the beginning of the republic

I assure you I have an understanding of the law. This is such a a rude and preposterous assertion in bad faith. This is a law mandating ID verification for all children and adults. If you require controls for everyone below a certain age, you de facto require controls for everyone of every age who does not prove they are over the minimum age. In other words, even if you can legally discriminate against children, my r…

But you have that for many things in the states.

If you subscribe to cable, you need to prove your financial record, which excludes most people under 18. if you want to buy the special channels, you have to go through an extra set of hoops.

Buying actual real media porn in stores or mail order, require(d) some level of age verification. If it went to a minor, massive fine and or a criminal record.

You need to prove your age to drink(or buy) alcohol and drive a car, and vote. Minors are treated differently in most common law countries.

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

#106

Post by freedomben »

aurareturn wrote: post #74
reacharavindh wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not speaking from personal experience. My kid is only 4. Your argument seems like exactly what my parents would have said about me spending so much time on TV, computers and electronics instead of studying, playing outside, sports etc. Almost exactly like your last paragraph.. “I’m personally glad that I grew up without infinite channels on TV, computers and its games, cell phones and your SMSes. I’m worried about yo…

I think there are magnitudes and cliffs for this stuff. TV --> has quality control, professionally done, goes through a team of editors/creators before making it onto the screen Early internet --> Mostly harmless content, can find dark stuff if kids look for it but it's pretty hard to find. More dangerous than TV but not too bad. SMS --> just chatting with people you know. Not afraid. TikTok, IG Reels, Youtube Shorts…

You make a fair point. I think you have won me over philosophically. However, there is still the pragmatic and realistic approach to consider. Personally, I think moving to a world where internet content is gated behind ID checks is a terrible and horrible precedent to set that is going to have ramifications far beyond simply protecting teens who are under 16.

As a parent of teenagers who are falling into this trap right now, it is something I am gravely concerned about. I am no tech, lightweight, and blocking and even regulating. This stuff is pretty much impossible. Short of helicopter parenting your child at all times. Nor do I think that sort of heavy-handed regulation is necessarily healthy, although that depends very much on the age in my opinion.

But what does a world look like where every website and app has to, for liability reasons alone, assume that everyone is underage before proving that they are not?

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

#107

Post by jl6 »

II2II wrote: post #64
demondemidi wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Young people? I’d say people in general.

Perhaps that is part of the problem with these laws: we are playing a game of whack-a-mole instead of tackling the issue of mental health. While I personally avoid social media due to privacy concerns, I have encountered other adults my age who have expressed that they avoid social media for reasons related to mental health. While walking through my neighbourhood, it is clear that there are many people with mental he…

> tackling the issue of mental health

What if reducing social media usage was a good way of tackling mental health issues?

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

#108

Post by bart_spoon »

internetter wrote: post #41

I agree with Meta that this should be implemented at an app store level

That seems ridiculous considering virtually all social media is available both as an application, and as a website. App Store controls won’t do anything in regards to usage through the web.

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

#109

Post by kjkjadksj »

KaiserPro wrote: post #98
reacharavindh wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not speaking from personal experience. My kid is only 4. Your argument seems like exactly what my parents would have said about me spending so much time on TV, computers and electronics instead of studying, playing outside, sports etc. Almost exactly like your last paragraph.. “I’m personally glad that I grew up without infinite channels on TV, computers and its games, cell phones and your SMSes. I’m worried about yo…

I understand what you are getting at, but to inject some nuance: TV, print, radio, music and to a lesser extent games are all subject to some level of industry or statutory content regulation. For example, in America, you're very unlikely to have a kids TV channel suddenly switch to videos of people being killed in industrial accidents. new media, not so much. Watershed, age constraints and company ending fines exist…

25 years ago us kids were watching viral content on the internet that wasn’t even acceptable to go on youtube then or now. Still today, we are now your young doctors and lawyers and young business executives, despite all the quite disturbing viral content that characterized the early 2000s internet. I think we did fine and I think the kids will be alright too.

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

#110

Post by e_i_pi_2 »

itsoktocry wrote: post #48
newhotelowner wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why 18 and not 25?

Because you have to draw the line somewhere, and 18 is considered when someone is capable of their own adult decision making.

This is the number we've been using recently, but it's been different in the past and there's no reason to keep using it, especially when we have data showing that 25 is the age your decision making faculties are generally fully developed
Post reply on HN