541–550 of 783 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m struggling to parse anything you said.
I'm arguing for a completely separate kindernet. While on packed public transportation.
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 Just like Oregon’s now-repealed drug use decriminalization bill.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.
Earlier 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.…
How many social media sites allow you to do anything without an account? Twitter used to be wide open but X competely locked down. Instagram lets you click 2 things and then the paywall pops up. I'm not sure about Facebook but it isn't much better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait you can buy heroin in Florida if you’re over 16?
There are some things society thinks people should not be allowed to be legally tempted with. Some people think one of those things is social media for people under a certain age.
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 Just like Oregon’s now-repealed drug use decriminalization bill.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.
Hopefully the courts cut this down in the cradle. It's clearly an attack on 1st amendment rights and state laws can't supersede the 1st amendment. Whether your kid is online on social media or not is the responsibility of parents. Conservatives rail against the "nanny state" and then pull this junk? I'm glad it will most likely be shot down in court quickly and decisively. Laws like this are toes in the water to see…
Really ?
I mean the entire point of the nanny state argument is to not act as a nanny toward ADULT citizen. Minor should still be protected, especially under 16
I'll be the odd guy out and say it should probably be illegal to attempt to enter a contract (AUP, privacy policy, etc) with a minor anyway (for a lot of reasons around exploitation), so I don't _really_ have a major issue with this at face value. I know the devil is in the details though, so kinda curious what the actual provisions are. The alternative is a free internet, where we don't need accounts to do things, b…
Plenty of other goods and services are used by children, even targeted at them, without them needing to enter a contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Big government forced licensure upon motor vehicle operators because early on they demonstrated a tendency to cause societal harm. There is a place where libertarian ideals have to be curtailed for the greater good.
You didn’t answer the question. It’s one thing for the government to have your ID and tied to a physical activity. Do you want Facebook to have a copy of your ID? Do you want the government to be able to ask Facebook who said something that offended them for your real ID? There have been cases where the cops arrested someone for criticizing them on Facebook https://theconversation.com/mocking-the-police-got-an-ohio-m…
For reference: https://flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/3/billtext/er/pdf
The Texas porn law similarly required no records be retained, with pretty steep penalties ($10k per record) for noncompliance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re assuming the politicians enacting this law care about such data much less learn anything from it.
No he's not because the experiment doesn't depend on them. Social science researchers use these kinds of sudden differences in laws all the time to study their effects. People in general can look at the outcomes too if they're obvious enough.
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.
I feel it's more likely that the long game is ultimately about de-anonymizing the Internet.
This particular objective is a solid plausible explanation of so many initiatives over the last few years. Perhaps not full public de-anonymization, but at the very least to make it easier for things like CALEA to exist in these spaces as well. The public is constantly shown techniques in whodunnit TV shows where the good guys can instantly look up an IP address or other identifying log entry and associate it with a name/address/etc.
IMHO, the plan is to make Business As Usual untenable and make it cheaper and financially safer for tech companies to give in and identify everybody as a survival mechanism. When its safer to record a passport/realid/etc as a legal defense then at some point it'll be done.
After that happens then it's easy to plug in something like CALEA. The public is already being primed to accept it with the benefits being constantly shown on the likes of CSI/NCIS/etc/etc/etc shows.
Of course, from a profit perspective, it certainly wouldn't hurt that all this valuable user data that is being being compiled is finally cross checked and validated.
Or maybe I'm completely wrong and there's no ulterior motive and there's nothing more to it than politicians trying to be seen to be doing the right thing. Hah! I'm way too cynical for that.