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

591–600 of 783 posts

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

#591

Post by autoexec »

fragmede wrote: post #578
autoexec wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Since when can children agree to legal contracts? don't you have to be 18 to get a cellphone plan or sign a contract with an ISP?

Yet children have cell phones and use the internet right? Nothing (as far as I know) will stop a child from walking into a walmart and buying a pre-paid phone or a TV or a computer but all of those things will force you agree to their terms.

How enforceable all of that is legally would be up to the courts, but that's true for social media sites too. If a 15 year old signs up for a social media site they're forced to agree to terms that might not hold up in a courtroom. None of that protects the child from having their data harvested, sold, and used against them for the rest of their lives.

If we agree to ban kids from using social media on the basis of them not being able to legally enter into a contract, we'll have to ban kids from a whole lot more that social media since so many things in our lives require one. Even things explicitly made for children.

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

#592

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#593

Post by moomoo11 »

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.

[flagged]

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

#594

Post by jimkleiber »

moomoo11 wrote: post #593
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.

[flagged]

I don't do hard drugs and I still think decriminalizing drugs might be helpful, because I think people often do drugs because they're feeling pain and shame, and I don't think punishing them for doing drugs alleviates the pain and shame.

Now, if you want to criminalize drugs but focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, I'd probably be more aligned with it.

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

#595

Post by autoexec »

llm_trw wrote: post #569
autoexec wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's no doubt that a lot of free sites were put there because it gave something to the creator. Maybe it gave them an ego boost, maybe they felt a sense of accomplishment for creating something that became popular, or they got warm fuzzies from sharing something with others that they have a passion for.

Free internet sites that don't exploit users don't require pure altruism. I assume nobody is paying you to contribute to this site, and I assure you that I'm not being paid for it, yet here we are. Sharing and offering something without hurting anyone or taking from them.

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

#596

Post by MeImCounting »

moomoo11 wrote: post #593
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.

[flagged]

Thats just really not true. Many of the most vocal advocates for decriminalization of drugs are people who have managed to get clean. There are also many people who have lost loved ones who have seen the statistics from more successful programs like Portugal's and want to save other people from the fate that befell their loved ones.

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

#597

Post by MeImCounting »

anon373839 wrote: post #495
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #434

Earlier 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...

I only see these as approximate precedents in the rough sense that they involve limiting minors’ access to speech. Otherwise, factually, I can see several distinguishing features: - social media being optimized for addiction - social media potentially compromising minors’ physical safety - social media use having documented adverse mental health outcomes for minors - the fact that social media use requires an ongoing…

Only that last feature seems relevant IMO.

I think that the rest of the points you brought up are cultural problems and therefore not in the purview of legality

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

#598

Post by wvenable »

scarface_74 wrote: post #535
wvenable wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS parental controls are awful. The only way to get any decent control for my concerns that the moment is using the downtime features all day long. Effectively I've told iOS that he should be in bed for 23 hours and 55 minutes a day. It's ridiculous and extremely limiting. Microsoft's parental controls are sort of ok. I also have separate control software for Windows and I have controls at the router. Of course, non…

iOS controls effectively block adult sites and you can manually add sites to block and not allow apps being installed without your permission. What else do you need?

Some control over when certain apps can be used.

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

#599

Post by xyst »

On one hand: social media preys on people of all ages to collect precious data points, know your habits, sell your profile to advertisers which then is used to deliver “targeted ads”. The algorithm then picks up on your habits, and recommends shit you would interact with. The more you interact with “x” content, the more the algorithm tests you with related content or worse (ie, anti abortion ads, aLpHa MaLe content, “own the libz”, “let’s Go BrAnDoN”). Echo chambers formed. The country becomes further divided. Adversaries of the US inch closer to disrupting a “super power” as the country implodes from within (it nearly happened on January 6th, 2021).

Social media is like a drug. And should be treated as such. I would kind of support this legislation.

BUT, at the same time. Why is the state government mandating this? Where are the parents? Maybe they are also dazed by the drug of social media. ItS jUsT aN aPp, mentality. Yet what they don’t realize is these companies spend billions of dollars to fine tune the algorithm to build profiles on all of their users. Focus grouped to help. Decades of psychology used against the mind of a pre-teen, elderly, or the uneducated. They stand no chance.

I’m also concerned at where this stops. First its to protect the children. Then it progresses to full blown censorship of the internet (ie, “Great (fire) Wall of china”). The so called “small government party” is pushing this as well, which is concerning.

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

#600

Post by janalsncm »

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…

> A lot of the extremism we see online is because people hide behind their keyboard.

Maybe this is true, but we also have to think about the perfectly reasonable things we nevertheless wouldn’t want pinned on us. Political opinions, of which many of mine are half-baked and I am writing to test with other smart people, but I don’t want to necessarily be associated with them forever. I don’t want to worry that simply saying tech workers should unionize will impact my employability in the future.

Post reply on HN