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

601–610 of 783 posts

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

#601

Post by Terretta »

xyst wrote: post #599

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,…

> The so called “small government party” is pushing this as well, which is concerning.

Is there any such thing as a small government party, or only parties that want any parts of government they disagree with to be non-existent*?

An examination of the past several years in Florida may shed light on this.

* And often more of the parts they like.

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

#602

Post by t-writescode »

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…

> would the internet be a better place with people being identified?

No.

Marginalized groups __need__ their anonymity to be safe.

Should a teenager in Utah be doxxed by a message board where they're working through their gender identity?

What about a kid in Georgia that's working through whether or not they believe the religion they were raised in?

How about a wife who is beginning the research process and asking questions about whether what she's experiencing at home is spousal abuse or not?

Anonymity protects those of us most in danger.

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

#603

Post by gumby »

maroonblazer wrote: post #555
Beldin wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes (at the very least) that any data gathered from such an "experiment" would be representative of what the effects of such legislation would be elsewhere. Perhaps... but my guess is that repeatability wouldn't depend on the children but on the wants and needs of the governing politicians. That is, the data would, in my view, likely be worthless for its purported goal, but can give some insight into some po…

I don't follow your logic. The legislation is designed to minimize the negative effects of social media on teens. This can be measured and compared to states other than Florida. How do 'the needs of the governing politicians' confound that data?

It can be measured?

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

#604

Post by gnicholas »

I recall hearing Professor Haidt (NYU) describe an experiment he ran with teenagers. He asked them how much they'd have to be paid (per month?) to not use some social media site. The typical answer was ~$40.

Then he said that they were going to get all the other kids in the school off the social media site, and asked again what the student would want to be paid to be off the site. The answer was that students would actually pay to be in that situation.

For some kids at least, this is a coordination problem, where they'd all rather not be on social media, but assuming others are, they want to be there. I could be getting the details/dollar values wrong, and I don't know that this bill is the right way to address the issue.

But it's pretty clear that social media is something that many teens wish they could avoid, but currently feel they can't. That doesn't mean we need to Do Something™, but it does mean that we're not currently in the optimal situation.

Edit: found the experiment. Haidt wrote about it, but it was done by University of Chicago economist Leonardo Bursztyn. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/teen-...

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

#605

Post by killjoywashere »

My kids are 19 and 22. I saw them go through this at a time when we just didn't know. Now, I advise friends with young children: you don't want your kids to be the last to get phones, or the first to get phones. But you should be in explicit competition with your fellow parents to be second-to-last. Sort of a Dutch auction situation.

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

#607

Post by anon373839 »

MeImCounting wrote: post #597
anon373839 wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, the test courts use when they evaluate the constitutionality of a law that curtails a fundamental right (such as speech) is twofold: 1) Does the law serve a compelling government interest? 2) Is the law narrowly tailored to serve that interest?

The features I listed all relate to “protecting the children” in some way, which is why I thought they could be the basis for courts to distinguish previous case law regarding the first part of the test.

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

#608

Post by justrealist »

killjoywashere wrote: post #605

My kids are 19 and 22. I saw them go through this at a time when we just didn't know. Now, I advise friends with young children: you don't want your kids to be the last to get phones, or the first to get phones. But you should be in explicit competition with your fellow parents to be second-to-last. Sort of a Dutch auction situation.

> you don't want your kids to be the last to get phones

Why? Other than maybe bitching and moaning about it, what's the actual harm?

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

#609

Post by dpkirchner »

sib wrote: post #557
dpkirchner wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's a leader in the party of big government -- but I doubt he would admit it. At least the other side doesn't hide the fact that they're in favor of regulations.

He's a leader in t̶h̶e̶ a party of big government FTFY In the US, at least, all significant parties are parties of big government...

There's degrees, though. One party wants government to be so large that it won't allow you to get certain forms of standard medical care, after all.

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

#610

Post by petesergeant »

b112 wrote: post #524
rhelz wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMO there is real value in letting states ... test the hypotheses. "Experience is a dear teacher, but fools will have no other" -- Benjamin Franklin

Experience keeps a dear school, yet Fools will learn in no other. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/05/25/dear-school/

> The adjective “dear” means high-priced, costly, or expensive in the context below

To save someone else a click

Post reply on HN