Earlier quoted context omitted.
Goatse is tame as fuck by modern internet standards.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
481–490 of 783 posts
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
> I'm in no rush to show Zuck my passport I agree, but I think your problem isn't Zuck, it's with passports. Government issued licences aren't fit for purpose any more. They were when all you did with your paper drivers licence is show it to the police, but now they've become a form of ID you show man+dog who gets to scrape a whole pile of into from it that can be used to track you. For example, they can follow your…
Hard agree. I think making significant progress on this problem would be time consuming - but ultimately a significant win for society.
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#483"I don't want my kids using social media without my permission" is a problem that already has a solution: put parental controls on your kids devices. We don't need Daddy Government to make decisions that can and should be made by parents.
> put parental controls on your kids devices We did that. My kids (twins) pooled their allowance money for a few months and had a friend at school buy them an old iPhone that they shared in a locker at school. They went wild on social media once they were set loose, to the detriment of everyone involved. There was a government report in the last couple years that concluded (paraphrasing) “the ideal amount of social m…
> They went wild on social media once they were set loose
Do you think keeping them away from it initially drove them to this faster?
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder what the people who were forcibly sterilized after Buck v Bell thought of Brandeis' philosophy.
[flagged]
What about them? They’re not being forced into that, most are having to fight tooth and nail to be heard and to get access to the treatment. You very clearly have no idea what’s going on with trans kids. Modern trans healthcare has nothing to do with people in the past being sterilized as punishment.
OTOH, this law is actually being forced on minors, even if they’re not in what you consider a punishable minority.
Also, presuming you’re an adult, do you mind telling me exactly why you care so much about children being sterilized? It is a shockingly disturbing concern and makes me question your intentions in white knighting for the childbearing capability of children you do not know.
The only people on earth that should matter to are the kids themselves, their parents, or their future partners, whom they will be able to choose, based on a willingness to beget children.
Unless you are their parent (their parent, NOT _A_ parent) or a minor’s future partner, in which case you are a groomer, you should really stop caring about what minor children you don’t know are doing with their body. It’s fucking creepy.
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#485Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#486Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Let the experiment take place, I say It is an unconstitutional law; it is following the path of similar unconstitutional laws¹²³. Where is the experiment? ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan... ² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberti... (sections about minor access to indecent material struck down) ³ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/ohio/oh...
These rulings are 13 and 27 years old (the third is in progress), so I'd argue that revisiting the legal analysis of the laws and precedents is useful here in itself.
What's changed in 27 years to make you say this? Certainly not the Constitution. The last amendment was passed over 30 years ago.
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#487>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…
> It's extremely difficult for parents to stop their children, especially early teens from using social media. 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…
From personal experience with a teenager - you can't stop it. They get a device from their friend, they are easy to find. They keep them hidden, and you only find them by being a total snoop and seeing new devices popup on your wifi network. Or, they only use them at friends houses on their wifi, etc.
I don't think half the people commenting in this thread have even one single clue about any of this, from real world experience. You can do everything right on your end, but they sit with their friends on their devices when not around your house.
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#488Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a collective action problem here, though. Some parents are willing to do the hard thing and tell their kid no over and over and over. Most aren't. The result is that kids don't hang out in person any more and so the only social outlet left is digital, which makes the decision to ban it at the family level even harder because you may actually do more harm than good by forcing your child to not participate with…
Every parenting problem has the same collective action problem. It's called peer pressure. The only effective response I'm aware of is a collective one. This is not that. This is fascism.
> This is not that. This is fascism.
fascism is when no kids on the internet
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ba…
> Your weird neighbour who has a feet fetish would never get to be a TV star Look up Nickelodeon and Dan Schneider my man.
Haha, I was sure someone would make a comment like this. The point is that that his fetish would not be the show’s content :)
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#490Earlier quoted context omitted.
These rulings are 13 and 27 years old (the third is in progress), so I'd argue that revisiting the legal analysis of the laws and precedents is useful here in itself.
What's changed in 27 years to make you say this? Certainly not the Constitution. The last amendment was passed over 30 years ago.
27 years ago we didn’t have children spending 90% of their waking hours staring at network connected devices.
Only the nerds did that and it was in a computer lab. And they knew enough about keeping up appearances to hit Alt-Tab when an adult was getting close.