This won't work, 99.9% of parents will just consent. Also, they'll just find another way around it or like I've already seen where they have large imessage groups going.
Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
711–720 of 783 posts
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#712This won't work, 99.9% of parents will just consent. Also, they'll just find another way around it or like I've already seen where they have large imessage groups going.
or use something like internet forums etc.
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#713Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every parenting problem has the same collective action problem. It's called peer pressure. The only effective response I'm aware of is a collective one. This is not that. This is fascism.
> This is not that. This is fascism. fascism is when no kids on the internet
You don't have to do something all the way, for it to be that thing. A hop still qualifies as a jump. Demanding adults ID-verify their age is still fascism.
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#714Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're criticizing the lack of moderation. So let's make a law about that ! Adults can be traumatized, too. Making this about children has us putting up barriers in the wrong places.
I've seen the First Amendment used as an argument against the US government determining what should and shouldn't be moderated by private companies operating on private infrastructure serving private citizens. Unless we're talking about unprotected speech?
You've seen an argument, therefore I'm making it? That's not how it works.
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#715Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keep in mind that social media is pretty much the only outlet you have for social signalling as a teenager. Disconnecting from it at that age is social suicide. Disconnecting as an adult is much easier/worthwhile because you now have other means of signalling.
They don't hang out in real life like we used to. TicTok or whatever is the house in the neighborhood all the kids hung out at.
Eh, as a “youth” (23) who wasn’t so long ago in high school, people still hang out plenty. They just document it more (for better or for worse. I suspect worse.)
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#716Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you imagine that will be enforced? Perhaps by... ID? Do you have another method to prove age? One that doesn't require ID, and can be implemented as of today?
> How do you imagine that will be enforced? Perhaps by... ID? Emphasis mine. It's that that which I'm disputing. This law does not require you to have an account to go onto a website . It is a law that requires you are age-checked to hold an account on social media platforms. These are different things. Holding an account —broadly speaking— allows you to post, like, comment, follow and be profiled in an enduring fash…
When you buy alcohol, it’s very easy to see whether they are taking and storing your picture. You can also buy alcohol with cash leaving no digital footprint.
And is AI the new blockchain that will magically solve every problem? And most children over 14 don’t have government IDs either.
If you don’t want your kids to be on Facebook, use parental controls. It’s the parents responsibility.
I live in Florida for context. The same government officials talk out of the left side of their mouths about “parental choice” and now this law says children can’t be on social media even with parental consent.
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#717Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you know any kids younger than that on social media? I do. That isn't really how laws work. You don't say: "Driving under the influence is illegal, but I totally know people who drink and drive so the law is useless". A solution doesn't need to be 100% effective for it to be hugely beneficial to society.
The point is that the pre-existing law was already completely ineffective. This one will be no better. One can restrict consuming a resource only if one has means to police such restrictions. Unless you agree to draconian measures, like having all browsers under police control at all times, there is no real way to police web access by age.
So, we shouldn’t make laws even if we think they are good because we aren’t exactly sure exactly how we will enforce them?
The legislative and executive functions are separate in our system. The former passes laws and the latter figures out how to enforce them.
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#718Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how web3 operates. A post cost a bit of gas (usually a penny or less) and that pays for the infrastructure (data processed and stored in the smart contract. Each user paying for their own actions prevents the need for advertisers.
Also conveniently prevents having to hear those pesky poor people complain. Back to work!
If you're too poor to pay a penny for a post you don't really have anything of value to add to a conversation.
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#719Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't hang out in real life like we used to. TicTok or whatever is the house in the neighborhood all the kids hung out at.
Eh, as a “youth” (23) who wasn’t so long ago in high school, people still hang out plenty. They just document it more (for better or for worse. I suspect worse.)
I'm 35 and I'm telling you that you didn't/don't do it as much as we did.
From about 13 on we were trusted to just leave the house and go wherever we wanted on our bikes, little to no questions asked. City, rural, suburbs this was a pretty universal experience. One kid in the group might of had a early cell phone and that gave our parents more than enough peace of mind, but no location tracking and it would lose service enough that you didn't have to answer if you didn't want to.
You could meet dates at the mall without mom hassling you about them, you'd often work a part time job rather than playing soccer or similar so you'd have your own money. We were free. You guys grew up in a prison comparatively but since you haven't seen anything else it seems normal. It's also why you guys are less independent, you never had a chance to be.
(E.T. or another period film might be good to watch to understand the independence and agency kids had in this time)
Re: Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16
#720Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a parent, I’m concerned about social media, and it has been more or less impossible to stop my teens from using it. They were jailbreaking and using VPNs and bypassing my parental controls a lot earlier than I expected. I did notice that whenever my kids didn’t have access to phones and games for several days for whatever reason, they were less grouchy and more willing to engage with us and do family or social act…
Yeah, what a weird spooky coincidence that someone like DeSantis would make a move that’s cut off kids’ means to countermand their parents’ information lockout. Send them to a private school, or even better, homeschool, control what kind of people they make friends with, keep them busy with church and Sunday school and bible study, burn the books and defund the public libraries, control what music they listen to and…
I’m not in favor of the DeSantis law for the above reasons. You appear to be against this law as well, so I’m a little baffled why you’ve turned that on me and imagined a whole lot of stuff I didn’t say. Am I correct in deducing that you are not a parent yet? I’m not religious, but this law we’re commenting on is coming from a group of people that are pandering to religion, and this law is a direct part of that effort.
I didn’t try to control my kids “information” other than when they were young trying to make the really nasty stuff not come up first or by default or on accident. They weren’t security conscious, because they were kids, so white/black lists preventing malware, phishing, and viruses seemed prudent. They also didn’t have a ton of self control, and games are infinitely more tempting than school work, chores, and even self-care and sleep, so screen time limits are useful. For example, we had multiple pee in the pants and on the couch accidents because our kids were so focused on playing games they wouldn’t stop to go to the bathroom. Google used to have a bad habit, when “safe mode” was turned off, of taking an innocuous search about human bodies and returning very hard core porn. We had an accident with one of our kids who searched carefully and incrementally for “naked ladies on the beach” and got back a list of pictures and videos of anal sex gang bangs. This was with a kid younger than 10, and the very week this happened to us, Google announced in a press release that it would start returning results that were more closely aligned with the literal search query, and it was instantly obvious to us what they meant and why they needed that.
So anyway, this is all to ask, maybe cool your jets so you’re not attacking people who might otherwise agree with you? Parental controls have legitimate functions that are not about cutting kids off from the world, and if/when you have kids you will come to understand it and probably try to use some parental controls too. Parental controls are not on & off; the term represents a whole spectrum of goals and options. Even the most absolute and strict use of parental controls, which is rare among any parents I know, is automatically less of a totalitarian option than disallowing any screen time or mobile device use.