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

181–190 of 783 posts

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

#181

Post by bequanna »

toyg wrote: post #151

It was already de-facto illegal for people under 13 to have social accounts. Do you know any kids younger than that on social media? I do. This is the equivalent of paper bags for beer cans - it will do nothing to fix the problem, but it will make children slightly more secretive about their internet usage, which will make some situations (grooming, bullying) even worse.

> Do you know any kids younger than that on social media? I do.

That isn't really how laws work. You don't say: "Driving under the influence is illegal, but I totally know people who drink and drive so the law is useless".

A solution doesn't need to be 100% effective for it to be hugely beneficial to society.

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

#182

Post by Hugsun »

redserk wrote: post #173

I think this adds an incredible amount of risk to almost any US-based social media site, big or small, regardless of which state you're in. You can't 100.0% block all Floridians from accessing your site, especially with GeoIP databases. This means someone who is close enough to the border of Alabama or Georgia with an IP address reportedly in another state could easily find reason to sue you. And because you're in th…

The bill seems to be targeting certain types of social media platforms. I'm not sure everyone is at risk. What small/medium sites do you have in mind? HN doesn't seem to be a target for example.

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

#183

Post by 2024throwaway »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #178
jl6 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so uncomfortable though? We routinely stop children doing all kinds of things, for exactly the same reason (lack of maturity in decision-making).

Maybe that's an opportunity to reevaluate those restrictions rather than make the argument that because restrictions exist that one is as good as another. It's about as logical as saying, "we put people in jail, therefore it's ok that you go to jail." The nuance and reasoning is the point.

Alright let's do that. Is disallowing children from driving vehicles or purchasing and consuming alcohol a bad idea?

My conclusion: No. Children should not be able to do those things. Therefore, there are likely other things they should not be allowed to do.

I honestly can't believe we're even having this discussion.

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

#184

Post by bequanna »

bvasilchenko wrote: post #36

Ah! The good old party of small government, individual liberties and free market. Well done sticking to your principals sirs and madams!

"Small government" doesn't mean what you imply, it means that government exists to fill the gaps and clean up some of the "messiness" created by free markets.

Reasonable regulation and public safety is part of that.

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

#186

Post by hgomersall »

geraldhh wrote: post #164
luplex wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the main problem with social media is the occasional inappropriate content. The main problem is that most of the "appropriate" content is soul-sucking, biased, addictive and empty of substance.

> most of the "appropriate" content is soul-sucking, biased, addictive and empty of substance sounds a lot like tv

We carefully vet what our 6yo watches on TV. You're right - not much passes muster.

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

#187

Post by jl6 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #178
jl6 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so uncomfortable though? We routinely stop children doing all kinds of things, for exactly the same reason (lack of maturity in decision-making).

Maybe that's an opportunity to reevaluate those restrictions rather than make the argument that because restrictions exist that one is as good as another. It's about as logical as saying, "we put people in jail, therefore it's ok that you go to jail." The nuance and reasoning is the point.

That’s not the argument. The argument is: restrict children from voting due to their lack of maturity in decision-making.

We apply this argument in all kinds of cases that are super-uncontroversial so it’s surprising to hear that it makes someone uncomfortable in this particular case.

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

#188

Post by oliwarner »

alphabettsy wrote: post #81

The biggest problem I see is that we’re now essentially requiring ID to use substantial parts of the internet. So many business only have a Facebook page, Google maps has social features. I already didn’t want a Facebook account just to see a businesses specials, now I’ll need to present ID too? Certainly interested to see how all this plays out.

H.B.3 only prohibits these minors holding accounts on social media. They can still browse, as can anyone without an account and age verification. You'd be able to view a business's information, watch videos, etc etc etc, just not create your own.

It also has conditions for which sites are affected by this law. The site has to have doomscroll and already be popular with kids. Google Maps isn't what they're targeting.

Honestly, mixed feelings. I'm in no rush to show Zuck my passport but the flagrant grooming comments on every kid's TikTok account is enough to show there's a significant problem, even if this isn't the right answer.

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

#189

Post by indigo0086 »

reacharavindh wrote: post #58
aurareturn wrote: post #25

>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…

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…

Agree and disagree. Kids can't really understand the negative impact of the things made to alter their mind, and since their parents are responsible for them, it's their job not to just explain, but to do their best to limit or participate in their usage. This is only difficult if your children are not in your presence 24/7 (public school, hanging out at malls, etc).

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

#190

Post by jl6 »

itishappy wrote: post #168
jl6 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We have laws about how our elders with Alzheimer's and dementia vote, but self-sufficient 17 year olds have no say in how their lives will be managed for the next 4 years. There's nuance you're glossing over.

Unless you’re going to allow babies to vote, we have to draw the line somewhere. It’s also not true that a 17 year old is disenfranchised for 4 years - they can engage with the political process as an adult as soon as they turn 18. Presidential elections aren’t the only feature of democracy. They aren’t even the only vote.
Post reply on HN