Live data from Hacker News

Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

dallasnews.com

161–170 of 195 posts

Re: Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So no social media for anyone with a condition that prevents them from driving, or anyone whose licence was seized for driving offences.

Does Texas not also issue ID cards, in addition to driver licenses, for those who need an ID but cannot or do not drive?

Sure, just as long as you're not from certain demographics.

Re: Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So no social media for anyone with a condition that prevents them from driving, or anyone whose licence was seized for driving offences.

Does Texas not also issue ID cards, in addition to driver licenses, for those who need an ID but cannot or do not drive?

This bill specifically demands a "driver's license" in the first page, line 22: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00896I.... .

Re: Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

#166

I agree with the premise of this bill — that social media are harmful to young people — but disagree with the conclusion that therefore there must be a law. There are lots of things that can be harmful to children, like television, busy streets, caffeinated sugary sodas, and weight training, and we trust parents and other adults to guide children through those dangers, teaching them wise self-restraint along the way.…

These are the same busybody nanny-staters who tell us that it is "illegal" for our kids to drink, drive cars, buy guns, or share pornographic pictures of themselves.

But seriously - if you think social media is harmful to children, I don't see why you would oppose making it illegal. It would be illegal, neglect, for example, to let your children wander into a busy street. Why should it be legal to let your children come to harm in other ways?

I'm not actually sure that social media is harmful, or how harmful, or what qualifies as social media or as "use" - but if we grant that it is harmful, it should be illegal. Doing otherwise just adds another advantage to children with good parents. Making it illegal will, hopefully, reduce the amount of harm done to those who do not have the maturity to decide things for themselves.

Re: Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

#168

What is a social media site defined as? In California, the definition includes any online forum and majority of sites allowing user-submitted content. (Granted, California has a minimum revenue requirement.) Under a similar definition, this block anyone under 18 from having any accounts on the vast majority of popular sites. Also, if you squint at it, this could equally apply to any video game company allowing commun…

Not to mention, what does it mean to use ? Is passively consuming content without contributing or even creating an account using ? Because, if so.... this means that YouTube gets turned upside down in this case.

> Not to mention, what does it mean to use?

Presumably, to use a platform is to be a user of that platform, where a user is "a person who posts, uploads, transmits, shares, or otherwise publishes or receives content through a social media platform" [0].

Since YouTube is unambiguously a social media platform by Texas law (it primarily consists of user-generated content), the bill as written would prohibit receiving YouTube videos without logging in with an age-verified account. I strongly doubt the bill will go anywhere.

[0] https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BC/htm/BC.120.htm

Re: Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

#170

Is this a real thing even worth discussing or just some silly performative stunt? Nobody is seriously considering this as a real thing we want to implement in society right? Right??

The negative effects of social media on children are absolutely something we should be discussing. Kids spend an unbelievable amount of time online in these networks, and it's having a real consequences. We already require by law blocking access to kids under 13 in certain situations, so it's not without precedent. Why would you think this is something that is so far outside the reasonable to not warrant discussion h…

> We already require by law blocking access to kids under 13 in certain situations

The COPPA age-gating on 13 years old is trivially bypassed by most 13 year olds. It definitely won't keep teens off social media. But adding ID verification to enforce it is dystopian.

Post reply on HN