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

561–570 of 783 posts

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

#561

Post by 0x5f3759df-i »

fulafel wrote: post #299
ericmcer wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a 14 year old and the content of social media seems to be what bums her out. She seems to be ingrained with the idea that she will never own a home, environmental disasters will be constant and the economy will be in shambles by the time she reaches adulthood. Maybe America just has a uniquely depressive social media environment? I have not read any kind of large scale studies examining the "tone" of social me…

Not sure we should be trying to fix away awareness of the climate crisis, which seems to be a blind spot for most older people preventing the democratic process from taking the needed drastic actions. (Same could be said for the increasing economic inequality despite record GDP, though it's more survivable near term)

There's a big difference between awareness and filling young people with so much doom that they lose hope about their lives. Far too many young people have sacrificed their mental health at the altar of the climate crisis and it doesn't help make anything better if you just end up depressed and hopeless.

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

#562

Post by autoexec »

llm_trw wrote: post #553
exabrial wrote: post #333

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…

>The alternative is a free internet, where we don't need accounts to do things, because we're not building or storing advertising profiles on users. Hmmmm... imagine that. Sure, so long as you pay for the service you're using. 10c per HN post, 50c per facebook photo.

That's a false dichotomy. The internet has and has always had plenty of sites (including social ones) that didn't charge money or spy on users. Just because many website would prefer to exploit their users for profit today, that doesn't mean that the internet can't exist without every website creator stuffing their pockets with cash.

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

#563

Post by Clubber »

singleshot_ wrote: post #454
Clubber wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

This discussion has gotten a bit convoluted. I apologize for not being clear. Original idea was that the government can’t kick every kid off social media because social media is the public square and kicking people out of the public square is wrong. The reason why this argument is bad is that online social media platforms aren’t the public square. They’re not the public square because they are something else: a coher…

Thanks for clarifying.

>the government can’t kick every kid off social media because social media is the public square and kicking people out of the public square is wrong.

I think kicking kids off isn't the primary complaint. I think that to enforce kicking kids off requires social media platforms to ID everyone to ensure they aren't kids. That's the chilling effect. Fewer people will post their true feelings (good or bad), which lessens citizen discourse (which IMO is bad).

>They’re not the public square because they are something else: a coherent speech product.

How do you define a coherent speech product and what makes it unable to also be a public square?

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

#564

Post by ricardobeat »

ok_dad wrote: post #496
ricardobeat wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Well… there are some examples of them filming some very inappropriate stuff with the child actors [0]. There are other examples but I’m not on here to talk about this anymore, I just happened to learn about this subject recently and it was topical. I think it’s disgusting anyone takes advantage of others, TikTok stars or otherwise. 0 - https://youtu.be/nc-ZT4Ty05o

I mean, that’s also kind of the point. Something like that on TV that generates worldwide commotion, gets people fired etc, is actually very mild when put near the stuff children can find online.

It’s also more of an abuse on the actors, and might pass unnoticed by young viewers, while a lot of the content on tiktok and YouTube is actively harmful, trying to indoctrinate weird ideas or stimulate inappropriate behaviour. With an audience of other kids and creeps cheering on and competing for likes in the comments. I don’t think it’s possible to overstate how much more dangerous social media is.

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

#565

Post by Nathanba »

notyourwork wrote: post #559
darkhelmet wrote: post #550

I don't think this is really about protecting minors, or hurting big tech, or scoring some short term votes, or anything like that. 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 thi…

Although I don't support it, would the internet be a better place with people being identified? For this to be a constructive discussion, can we assume companies have a proper and secure way to validate identities and store your data? A lot of the extremism we see online is because people hide behind their keyboard. I sometimes wonder if the internet as we know it and social medias pervasive influence would be much d…

People will be even less likely to tell you their real opinions online if a data breach can uncover the real identity behind all their posts

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

#566

Post by lupire »

Paul-Craft wrote: post #486
LVB wrote: post #477

Earlier 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.

Maybe those rulings were wrong. The Constitution says to "promote the general welfare".

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

#567

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

d3nj4l wrote: post #537
koolba wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As society changes, it’s reasonable for a court to re-examine the effects of previously decided legislation to gauge whether the impact and societal cost can be justified. It’s not like we don’t have other laws that restrict what we can do or where we can do it.

How would that change the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the matter?

Rulings on the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of laws are issued by a body of people which changes over time, and have been known to be overturned or updated.

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

#568

Post by scarface_74 »

knightoffaith wrote: post #414
scarface_74 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you would be okay giving your ID to Facebook or any other site before you can access it?

No, I wouldn't. I'm just wondering if we have to accept the consequences for children or if there's some alternative solution.

How do you propose that social media sites verify your age without showing them your ID?

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

#569

Post by llm_trw »

autoexec wrote: post #562
llm_trw wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The alternative is a free internet, where we don't need accounts to do things, because we're not building or storing advertising profiles on users. Hmmmm... imagine that. Sure, so long as you pay for the service you're using. 10c per HN post, 50c per facebook photo.

That's a false dichotomy. The internet has and has always had plenty of sites (including social ones) that didn't charge money or spy on users. Just because many website would prefer to exploit their users for profit today, that doesn't mean that the internet can't exist without every website creator stuffing their pockets with cash.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

If you're not paying for a service you are the product.

It just happens that for a bunch of old/small sites you were the product that the admin consumed to boost her ego when she banned you.

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

#570

Post by autoexec »

alectroem wrote: post #379
tremon wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of other goods and services are used by children, even targeted at them, without them needing to enter a contract.

I think the OP was saying that having minors agree to a social media sites terms and conditions is them entering a contract. So if you're against minors entering contracts, its logically consistent to also be against holding minors to a websites terms.

> I think the OP was saying that having minors agree to a social media sites terms and conditions is them entering a contract. So if you're against minors entering contracts, its logically consistent to also be against holding minors to a websites terms.

In which case we should ban children from using game consoles, computers, cell phones, ISPs, TVs, or anything that else that comes with a ToS/AUP/T&C

Post reply on HN