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

441–450 of 783 posts

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

#441

Post by Solvency »

serial_dev wrote: post #431
Brybry wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get a religious exemption[1] and Florida was in the news recently about a measles outbreak where their Surgeon General advised parents of unvaccinated kids to make their own choice on sending their kids to school or not. [2] You can also google Florida student MMR vaccination rates and most results are closer to 90% than 100%, so clearly people are taking advantage of exemptions. [1] http://www.leg.state.fl.u…

Religious exemption does not seem to be unique to Florida, quite the opposite, basically all states grant them. > There are 45 states and Washington D.C. that grant religious exemptions for people who have religious objections to immunizations. https://www.ncsl.org/health/states-with-religious-and-philos...

Why do you say "all states" when that's not true, and when California is one of the most populated states in the country and has zero exemptions?

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

#442

Post by handoflixue »

antegamisou wrote: post #406
gnicholas wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Justice Brandeis, who coined the term "laboratories of democracy", felt otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy

Ah yes, I almost forgot we're talking about the US where it was OK for the state to secretly conduct mind control human experimentation for over 20 years.

Could you explain a bit more about how Brandeis' philosophy relates to that case? Was he actively arguing for this sort of experiment, or are you just trying to imply that "experimentation"/science means you lack any morals?

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

#443

Post by handoflixue »

antegamisou wrote: post #378
LVB wrote: post #360

Let the experiment take place, I say. Just like Oregon’s now-repealed drug use decriminalization bill. It didn’t achieve its intended goals, but there is now a mass of data about what assumptions were wrong, implementation issues, etc. IMO there is real value in letting states put such changes into play to get beyond the debate and actually test the hypotheses.

Policy-making isn't supposed be, at least shouldn't be, some lab experiment. The hey at least we tried isn't the best reasoning for the lack of insight of those in charge.

How else are we going to find out which policies work, if we can't perform experiments? The experiment is the basic tool of science.

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

#444

Post by d0gsg0w00f »

maximinus_thrax wrote: post #438
LVB wrote: post #360

Let the experiment take place, I say. Just like Oregon’s now-repealed drug use decriminalization bill. It didn’t achieve its intended goals, but there is now a mass of data about what assumptions were wrong, implementation issues, etc. IMO there is real value in letting states put such changes into play to get beyond the debate and actually test the hypotheses.

> Let the experiment take place, I say. I think the experiment is more about the judiciary and about tribal politics. There's ample case law against something like this, so to me this seems unconstitutional, and I doubt it will stand. But DeSantis will win some more heart and minds of the folks who secretly do want big government protecting them from the boogieman. Regardless of anyone's views about social media, the…

Laws are often just social signals in writing. A law indicates that a large group agrees that something is bad. Often times people find it easier to just agree with a law rather than navigate the mental gray area around behaviors that aren't black and white.

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

#445

Post by Clubber »

singleshot_ wrote: post #356
Clubber wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>PruneYards was found not to be significantly harmed by the expressive activity, because the goal of the commercial activity is to sell stuff. But the goal of an online social media platform is to curate a coherent speech product, and allowing people to insert themselves unwanted into that product is a very significant imposition on the platform. That is true but unrelated to the DeSantis law. The social media compan…

It is related. One poster suggested that the online platforms (which are, for a number of reasons previously noted, not town squares) are actually more like shopping malls. Another post noted that shopping malls (in California) can be subject to requirements to allow someone else’s speech in their area of commerce. But online platforms are not like shopping malls, because online platforms sell advertiser access to a…

>But online platforms are not like shopping malls, because online platforms sell advertiser access to a coherent speech product, which is distinct from the sale of goods in ways that profoundly affect first amendment protection of their business.

But the social media companies aren't the ones who want age verification and to kick people off their platforms, the government is. The companies want kids in their audience, kids want to be in their audience, many parents are fine with kids in their audience, it's the government of Florida who wants to ban kids.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding but you seem to be arguing that social media companies should be allowed to kick people off their platforms, which would trump the individual's free speech. That isn't the issue here.

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

#446

Post by ricardobeat »

wvenable wrote: post #433
spicykraken wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children aren't allowed to play slot machines either and that's what TikTok (and Youtube Shorts, etc) sure feels like to me.

It might feel that way but what's the real difference between TikTok and watching TV? Society has always restricted children's access to specific content but now we're restricting children's access to specific mediums regardless of the content itself. Why is TikTok or YouTube shorts not a valid way to consume media? It's a bit like arguing graphic novels are acceptable to children but short comics are not.

The difference is massive.

Your weird neighbour who has a feet fetish would never get to be a TV star, but he can amass 50k followers on TikTok, and request feet pics via private messages to them. Including underage children.

Now multiply that by ten thousand.

TV, by nature of being a group effort and holding a sliver of a monopoly for your attention, had a natural content filter (based on societal standards, for bad and good).

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

#447

Post by maximinus_thrax »

d0gsg0w00f wrote: post #444
maximinus_thrax wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let the experiment take place, I say. I think the experiment is more about the judiciary and about tribal politics. There's ample case law against something like this, so to me this seems unconstitutional, and I doubt it will stand. But DeSantis will win some more heart and minds of the folks who secretly do want big government protecting them from the boogieman. Regardless of anyone's views about social media, the…

Laws are often just social signals in writing. A law indicates that a large group agrees that something is bad. Often times people find it easier to just agree with a law rather than navigate the mental gray area around behaviors that aren't black and white.

Is that the case here? What is that large group and what is it comprised of? Does it represent all Floridians?

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

#448

Post by stonogo »

adventured wrote: post #427
ksherlock wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, in the US, contracts with minor (< 18) are voidable, that is, at any time the minor can break the contract. This creates a situation where no one would ever contract with a minor, which is obviously bad (how is an emancipated minor supposed to rent an apartment?) so there are statutory exceptions where the contract will be enforced.

The minor gets a co-signer for the apartment. Why would anybody rent to a minor otherwise, regardless of the contract breaking issues. They are unlikely to have much credit history. To say nothing of the maturity / responsibility and income (+ wealth / cash savings) problems.

The whole point of emancipating a minor is to empower them with legal decision-making power, in particular the ability to earn and retain wages.

Furthermore it's really hard to interpret your sentence with a meaning other than 'poor people do not deserve housing,' which I have to assume is not your intent.

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

#449

Post by handoflixue »

wvenable wrote: post #433
spicykraken wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children aren't allowed to play slot machines either and that's what TikTok (and Youtube Shorts, etc) sure feels like to me.

It might feel that way but what's the real difference between TikTok and watching TV? Society has always restricted children's access to specific content but now we're restricting children's access to specific mediums regardless of the content itself. Why is TikTok or YouTube shorts not a valid way to consume media? It's a bit like arguing graphic novels are acceptable to children but short comics are not.

> what's the real difference between TikTok and watching TV?

One is a heavily regulated medium where people spend millions of dollars and work together in teams of hundreds. It's content is overseen by numerous regulatory agencies before it airs. Tons of powerful people stand to lose a lot of money if anyone screws up and sneaks porn onto the news - even a nip slip on live TV can become a major scandal that's remembered years later.

The other relies on a team of inconsistent, overworked moderators to delete a deluge of inappropriate content in a vaguely timely manner.

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

#450

Post by honeybadger1 »

lupusreal wrote: post #368
AlexandrB wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And in 2024, it’s far more likely to encounter something you had no intention of seeing. Strongly disagree. I haven't stumbled on "goatse" level shock imagery in years. Sure you might encounter stuff you had no intention of seeing, but that's only because you're being funnelled into link farms or other for-profit crapware flooding the internet. It's very rare to stumble on something disturbing.

Goatse is tame as fuck by modern internet standards.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN