Apparently it wasn't "ok" if it had to be done secretly...
It's not as if the US government can't do something secretly then declare that it was perfectly legal after they get caught. Just because they don't want to have to go through to trouble of justifying their actions to the public that doesn't mean they must consider their actions inappropriate
History is full of governments overthrown by a dissenting populace. The US itself broke out of the British empire when they didn’t like the government anymore.
If they do something egregious, then people revolt.
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…
"Whether your kid is online on social media or not is the responsibility of parents" 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
If you can't keep your 14 year old off social media then your 14 year old is out of control, I had no such problem with my children. Their devices were locked down and they knew repercussions and grounding would be in order if they didn't listen. Once they hit 16 I didn't mind as much, and they had some SM freedom. They're both well adjusted adults now and in college, and I'm very proud of them. We're still close as ever, nothing bad happened as a result of them having guard rails as tweens and teens.
if we really wanna get the kids off social media, we need to bring back thrid places. kids need places where they can meet in person. we dismantled those and the kids went to social media to meet each other.
getting rid of social media without letting them hang out in person is just goin to create an epidemic of social lonliness
That's because the logical fallacy is the last paragraph in the comment.
Oh, who is different in the last paragraph? It's your own list from your own comment and you are so knee-jerk defensive that you don't even realize what you wrote.
Why do you need them to have a website? A thing that has no traffic, no discoverabilty, needs to be updated, paid for, etc? All the information is already on google maps and IG/Facebook. They have 2-3 billion people in their target audience.
Well presumably a website would be accessible to everyone, account login and government ID or not.
I guess that’s my point though. isn't it a very rational BUSINESS decision to go some where 80% of people and probably 99% of their target market are on these platforms that provide them with free distribution? Outside of the moral qualms of that 1% of people that don’t have a social media account or use google?
I'm an Oregon resident. I disagree to an extent. Oregons drug decriminalization failed because of a few reasons that are plain to see: - The people who wrote the measure did not prescribe how it should be done, just what it should achieve. - The measure demanded changes be immediate, which didn't jive with a very slow running, heavy bureaucracy like Oregons government. More importantly, time was not given for the soc…
Yeah, I'm saddened that everyone is jumping on the "whelp, back to the war on drugs" band wagon... This is a thing we can do and make work, plenty of other places have had success with it, we just keep doing things in the most Kafka-esque way possible.
> plenty of other places have had success with it
Which places, and what do you call success?
The only place in the world that seems to have drugs handled properly is Singapore.
Pretty wild to watch the basic rights of people in red states backslide in real time. Now there is the (what should be unnecessary) legal question of whether you can even run a social media platform with anonymous users in the state of Florida. Needing de facto governmental verification to communicate with people on the internet is something I had hoped I would never live to see in America. Hopefully it will not be f…
The biggest problem I see is that we’re now essentially requiring ID to use substantial parts of the internet. So many business only have a Facebook page, Google maps has social features. I already didn’t want a Facebook account just to see a businesses specials, now I’ll need to present ID too? Certainly interested to see how all this plays out.
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.…
But current trend is websites closing up for browsing without an account, because of AI.