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

751–760 of 783 posts

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

#751

Post by bxff »

josephg wrote: post #482
rstuart4133 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm in no rush to show Zuck my passport I agree, but I think your problem isn't Zuck, it's with passports. Government issued licences aren't fit for purpose any more. They were when all you did with your paper drivers licence is show it to the police, but now they've become a form of ID you show man+dog who gets to scrape a whole pile of into from it that can be used to track you. For example, they can follow your…

Hard agree. I think making significant progress on this problem would be time consuming - but ultimately a significant win for society.

Hi Seph, any updates on the paper on Replayable Event Graph, looking forward to reading that paper.

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

#752

Post by macintux »

taxyz wrote: post #731
macintux wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Requiring age verification online for adults is the only way to keep kids out. And requiring identification to lounge on the town square is generally considered unconstitutional in the U.S. I don’t know how to square this circle. Can you conduct age verification without requiring identification?

I think this again comes back to the idea of thinking of it as some sort of digital town square. We don't seem to have an issue with the government requiring businesses to check ID for alcohol, tobacco, porn (in the physical world), and firearms. Movie theaters check ID for rated R movies if you appear to be under 17. In fact, a lot of online retailers of alcohol and tobacco now require ID to be verified at purchase…

For the most part, those real-world ID checks do not involve keeping a record, or a durable storage of what you say, or see, or listen to while you're there.

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

#753

Post by ametrau »

iteygib wrote: post #627
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 Just like Oregon’s now-repealed drug use decriminalization bill.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.

It depends on what the change is. I wouldn't approve states trialing slavery. I don't agree with the social media law as well. It's a cultural tool, so let parents dictate what they want their kids to see or use. If anything, they could push laws to give parents better tools/information to help them manager their kid's screen time, not just an outright ban.

> It's a cultural tool, so let parents dictate what they want their kids to see or us.

Monumentally naïve. Zero understanding of the way things work in reality.

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

#754

Post by taxyz »

macintux wrote: post #752
taxyz wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this again comes back to the idea of thinking of it as some sort of digital town square. We don't seem to have an issue with the government requiring businesses to check ID for alcohol, tobacco, porn (in the physical world), and firearms. Movie theaters check ID for rated R movies if you appear to be under 17. In fact, a lot of online retailers of alcohol and tobacco now require ID to be verified at purchase…

For the most part, those real-world ID checks do not involve keeping a record, or a durable storage of what you say, or see, or listen to while you're there.

There's nothing preventing us from the law requiring the same for online verification. It doesn't have to be the case that Facebook or Twitter or whatever store any information other than at some point they did verify your age.

As to the other information, you're more making the case that online tracking should be illegal (which I'd agree with). For the majority of people, they are either unaware or uninformed about how to prevent online tracking to a sufficient degree. If you're signed into your Google and Facebook accounts and then surfing the web, theres a good chance you're getting caught up in cross site tracking. Hell, even if you don't have accounts explicitly, its not like Facebook isn't tracking non-users. In the real world, stalking is illegal.

Also, in my state (Washington), IDs now have barcodes on them. When I buy beer at the store, the clerk doesn't even look at my ID; he/she scans it and thats it. I'd hope the information about what type of beer and how often I buy it isn't being stored somewhere but I'm just hoping.

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

#755

Post by iAMkenough »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #714
iAMkenough wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that was your argument. That's not how I meant for you to interpret it.

I meant to get your opinion on whether the First Amendment would create a barrier for what you're proposing: government mandated moderation of protected speech on private platforms. You're talking about legislation and where to place barriers, so I thought you'd be interested in discussion. Sorry.

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

#756

Post by alfor »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #212
alfor wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just look at birth rate, depression, etc. You will see we are in a dead end. I don't think this law will change the trend unless there is major concerted effort. Boys have access to so much porn and gaming that they are checking out of real life. Girls have their problems too with social media.

Porn and gaming? Really? Boys had this in spades for 35 years. Longer if you count the pinball wizard/hustler magazine under the bed era.

One smugled magazine in the 90' are now replaced with infinite video of increasing hardcore stuff delivered to the phone in the bedroom.

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

#757

Post by WalterBright »

maximinus_thrax wrote: post #748
WalterBright wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't Janet Jackson fined for a nipslip during her Superbowl Show? I recall Howard Stern being fined $millions for indecency on radio.

> Wasn't Janet Jackson fined for a nipslip during her Superbowl Show? Overturned by the SCOTUS because of all of that free speech. And CBS was fined, not Janet Jackson. And the Howard Stern content is a well-known free speech issue. And OP was responding to your comment about movies. None of these are movies, so I don't understand why you would bring up something like this. Public radio and TV broadcast are a differe…

I brought it up because it is an instance of the government restricting speech.

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

#758

Post by bdw5204 »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #642
bdw5204 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you grew up without AOL Instant Messenger, Yahoo accounts, web forums and MySpace? Or for the generation before that, Geocities and Usenet? The current form of interactive online platforms may be flawed but banning teens from using them is not the solution and any effective method of enforcing such a law is likely to run afoul of the 1st Amendment. Besides obviously the Tinker v. Des Moines precedent about how tee…

The Bill of Rights restricts Uncle Sam. It doesn’t guarantee minors the right to use a private computer system.

The Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear about that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...

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

#760

Post by philwelch »

freejazz wrote: post #746
philwelch wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think banning social media use by minors either violates constitutional rights or exceeds constitutional powers. And the constitutional powers of a state legislature to enact state laws are extremely broad; much more so than the powers of Congress to enact federal laws.

Well such speech restrictions have been found unconstitutional by the supreme court in prior cases, so I'm not so sure what your "characterization" of the law and its alleged constitutionality is based upon. Further, what point is it that state legislatures have broader powers than Congress? They still have no power to exceed the boundaries of the first amendment, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make the…

I don’t think this law violates the First Amendment, and it wasn’t particularly clear that was your objection in the first place. I’m also not sure why you put the word “characterization” in quotes since I didn’t use it.
Post reply on HN