211–220 of 783 posts
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Just look at birth rate, depression, etc. You will see we are in a dead end. I don't think this law will change the trend unless there is major concerted effort. Boys have access to so much porn and gaming that they are checking out of real life. Girls have their problems too with social media.
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.…
The bill summary on the Florida senate webpage says:
> Such commercial entities must verify, using either an anonymous or standard age verification method, that the age of a person attempting to access the material harmful to minors satisfies the bill’s age requirements.
It sounds to me like “anonymous age verification method” could just mean that the website asks how old you are? What constitutes verification here? That sentence makes it sound like they can choose to use whatever feeble method they want.
At face value this law seems like political points being scored by passing a widely popular law that changes very little in practice (bumping the minimum age from 13 to 14).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And 40 years ago kids were watching bootleg copies of Faces of Death. Yes, kids get to that stuff. The problem is FoD doesn't even hold a candle to the manipulative shit that social media does to kids.
But agree…even that exposure to violence now pales in comparison to the amplification of the negative peer pressures that kids today experience due to social media. At least back in the day when you were away from your peers you could escape it and gain respite. Now its constant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if it was the town square many actual town squares require adults to accompany minors. Sure enough if you had a bunch of unattended 12 year olds hanging out the cops would be called and parents asked to be parents. Even worse would happen if you left your 6 year old wonder around the town square unattended while you went to a movie.
The issue here has absolutely nothing to do with how it affects kids, it has to do with how it affects adults. Again: "States are basically requiring identification to speak or criticize government in the town square." The fact that the legislation is intended to affect kids is irrelevant if the only legally permitted way to comply damages the individual liberties of adults.
>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…
I'm trying to decide whether it's "extremely easy" or "extremely difficult" for parents to stop their children from having a cell phone. One the one hand, all you have to do is not spend money and not buy a phone, easy. And yet, almost every kid has a cell phone, so evidently it is hard for parents to say no.
This law will put social media in the same situation. It will be "extremely easy" for parents to simply not give permission, but, like cell phones, I think most kids will end up having social media accounts anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The driving example is a bit disingenuous because, in the US at least, driving isn't conceptualized as a "right" - it's formulated as a privilege. The drinking example is closer, but that's the right to self-determination. I don't suspect that you believe children have zero self-determination, nor do I suspect that you believe that one person's right to vote should be based on everyone in a particular class.
It would be unconscionable to say, "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because some women can't make good decisions." I simply extend the same unconscionablity to children.
>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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. We've been round this when Facebook etc (most recently Glassdoor) instituted "real name" policies. I'm rather confused about HN's response to this because normally when a media platform voluntarily tries to censor certain kinds of bad behavior there's a massive backlash here, and now there's seemingly overwhelming support for simply removing a whole category of people from being able to speak at all, along wi…
> a whole category of people from being able to speak at all Hot take but I can go without the opinions of children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why let someone who isn’t responsible for their own actions drive a car then, or have a checking account.
> Why let someone who isn’t responsible for their own actions drive a car then, or have a checking account. In many jurisdictions you cannot do those things without adult supervision.