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

721–730 of 783 posts

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

#721

Post by Der_Einzige »

edgyquant wrote: post #59
bvasilchenko wrote: post #36

Ah! The good old party of small government, individual liberties and free market. Well done sticking to your principals sirs and madams!

Nice strawman, the political realignment called and says it wants a word with you

The current political realignment is a sign that the voters have no ideological convocation and as such are intellectually bankrupt.

If you are realigning your politics due to trump, you are the problem. All political realignments are bad because they are a sign of a lack of conviction and a decay in a requirement for consistency.

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

#722

Post by mixmastamyk »

ricardobeat wrote: post #692
mixmastamyk wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ST can work by time as well as app. Recommend revoking app install privileges. No one should have third-party corporate surveillance apps installed anyway.

Sorry, I don’t see how that comment answers mine? In my experience it’s impossible to properly block anything that is also available as a web app (which is most of social media apps).

You block app by time or uninstall it, and black/white list the site.

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

#723

Post by jonathankoren »

oliwarner wrote: post #689
jonathankoren wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how do you know they're not a child? Bars do it by having you show an id. Online pot dispensaries do it by having you upload an id. Texas expects porn sites to do it by having you upload an id. How does Florida expect a site to do it? This is a legitimate question that I want the answer to. Presumably "check this box" isn't going to cut it. So if it's not the most common way to enforce an actual legal restriction…

I've just answered in a sibling thread. I'm not asked for ID when I order a drink. The bartender takes a look at my ugly mug and makes the call: I'm [painfully] clearly over 25. Facebook has more than enough processing power to have an AI watch you reading a script straight to camera for 30 seconds to work out a rough age. If you're within 5 years of their idea of 18, surrender that ID, the same way you would if you…

Thank you for answering.

You have a bit more faith in a technical solution working at scale than I do, but I have to point out, that after repeatedly claiming that no one wanted an ID scan, your proposal involves an ID scan.

I also have to point out, that PII and GDPR protections are meaningless here. Under a government mandated censorship regime, the threat is the government, not some data broker somewhere.

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

#724

Post by weakfish »

willcipriano wrote: post #719
weakfish wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 serv…

Oh I don’t disagree, I just meant that it’s a bit overkill to say they/we don’t hang out in person at all. I do have fond memories of running Halo 2 with my stepsister when I was 8-9, and those sort of nights seemed to get less common as we got smart phones.

I am in a bit of a weird situation because I’m more independent than most (somewhat absent / workaholic family) but I know that’s the exception.

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

#725

Post by mixmastamyk »

dahart wrote: post #656
mixmastamyk wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there were anything else that harmed over 90% of kids while potentially helping a remainder we’d generally prohibit it. I’ve known and worked with folks facing mental health issues over the decades and usually these kind of issues come from within. The idea that instagram is a cure-all for teen self-harm is not supported. Anecdata—we knew a teen recently with very supportive parents and a smartphone and it didn’t…

I did not even suggest that Instagram helps with teen self-harm at all. It’d be great if we could discuss this without straw men or sniping argumentation. My kid found support from friends online, at a time when she felt like she wasn’t getting the right amount from the people in her life, which to my chargrin, included me. Direct intervention has helped, and online activity alone wasn’t going to stop everything. Dir…

That was a unimportant random example, congrats for running with it. Should have been in quotes I guess. Change to “social media.”

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

#726

Post by Der_Einzige »

willcipriano wrote: post #719
weakfish wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 serv…

This whole thread is a bunch of boomers or gen X folks who are upset at the techno freedom that the youth have. These same boomers and Gen X are then advocating for taking away freedom of internet association.

Then you come here and write out a post explaining how the kids of today are living in a relative prison and back in the day you got all this freedom to go on dates at the mall that your parents wouldn’t approve of.

Your parents would have banned you from going to the mall if they knew what you were doing - and you’re also an out of touch boomer - and that’s not a comment about your age, but about your mentality.

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

#727

Post by weakfish »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #726
willcipriano wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 serv…

This whole thread is a bunch of boomers or gen X folks who are upset at the techno freedom that the youth have. These same boomers and Gen X are then advocating for taking away freedom of internet association. Then you come here and write out a post explaining how the kids of today are living in a relative prison and back in the day you got all this freedom to go on dates at the mall that your parents wouldn’t approv…

I agree that calling it prison is over the top, but I also think your response is a bit rude and dismissive of very valid statements by the reply

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

#728

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#729

Post by Der_Einzige »

weakfish wrote: post #727
Der_Einzige wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole thread is a bunch of boomers or gen X folks who are upset at the techno freedom that the youth have. These same boomers and Gen X are then advocating for taking away freedom of internet association. Then you come here and write out a post explaining how the kids of today are living in a relative prison and back in the day you got all this freedom to go on dates at the mall that your parents wouldn’t approv…

I agree that calling it prison is over the top, but I also think your response is a bit rude and dismissive of very valid statements by the reply

Good. Rude opinions deserve even ruder retorts. Every time a thread like this comes up, I’m reminded that the average HN user fantasizes about licking boots, and that those who do not enjoy bootlicking are treated as pariahs.

Boomers trying to mass enforce parental controls via legislation is so bad for freedoms I don’t know where to begin. I wish I could do more than simply “be rude”. There is still not a way to punch someone through a computer screen, unfortunately.

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

#730

Post by philwelch »

vkou wrote: post #687
philwelch wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of all the states I can think of which are blatantly infringing upon an enumerated constitutional right, none of them are in the south, unless you’re going to be pedantic and count California and Hawaii.

No person without body autonomy can be considered 'secure in their person, houses, papers, or effects'. In fact, none of the other rights matter when the state can control what you can, and can't do with your own body. It is the most fundamental of rights. They are also doing a great job of trampling on the fourteenth amendment, with the occasional jabs at the first.

> No person without body autonomy can be considered 'secure in their person, houses, papers, or effects'.

It wasn’t the southern states that imposed vaccine mandates for dining in restaurants, either.

I know what you’re alluding to; suffice to say that I don’t find this legal theory particularly compelling, and more importantly, neither does the Supreme Court.

Post reply on HN