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

271–280 of 783 posts

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

#271

Post by thomastjeffery »

KaiserPro wrote: post #98
reacharavindh wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not speaking from personal experience. My kid is only 4. Your argument seems like exactly what my parents would have said about me spending so much time on TV, computers and electronics instead of studying, playing outside, sports etc. Almost exactly like your last paragraph.. “I’m personally glad that I grew up without infinite channels on TV, computers and its games, cell phones and your SMSes. I’m worried about yo…

I understand what you are getting at, but to inject some nuance: TV, print, radio, music and to a lesser extent games are all subject to some level of industry or statutory content regulation. For example, in America, you're very unlikely to have a kids TV channel suddenly switch to videos of people being killed in industrial accidents. new media, not so much. Watershed, age constraints and company ending fines exist…

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.

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

#272

Post by singleshot_ »

everforward wrote: post #176
Clubber wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I’ve gotten by for the last several years without Facebook or Google (I do use a YT account, but not for anything meaningful). It’s annoying, but doable. I think the point is that the internet and particularly social media is now the de-facto town square. States are basically requiring identification to speak or criticize government in the town square. If you take a step back and look at it that way, it's grossly an…

I can't reply to the other responder, but even if these are shopping malls... Those are already acknowledged as common spaces at least in California where most of them are headquartered. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, it was held that a shopping mall was not allowed to remove students asking for signatures on a motion.

PruneYards was found not to be significantly harmed by the expressive activity, because the goal of the commercial activity is to sell stuff. But the goal of an online social media platform is to curate a coherent speech product, and allowing people to insert themselves unwanted into that product is a very significant imposition on the platform.

Also no one lives or eats or breathes on Twitter so the notion that they are exercising an online platform the same way they would exercise the park on Main Street does not follow.

Not to mention the fact that the entire point of the town square is that it is a place for discussion of the function of the polis with the citizenry of the polis. Online social media is a place to consume garbage from foreign actors and influencers.

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

#273

Post by morkalork »

oliwarner wrote: post #188
alphabettsy wrote: post #81

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.…

This is not true! I was looking at a hair salon and bakery recently. Both, being run by millennials, have nothing but a google maps listing and an Instagram account. But I don't have one and after looking at a few photos of cakes and hairstyles, it gives me the boot and asks me to sign in to see more! Adding mandatory government ID to that is crazy.

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

#274

Post by thomastjeffery »

dahart wrote: post #170
aurareturn wrote: post #25

>Critics have said the bill violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections for free speech and that parents, not the government, should make decisions about the online presence of their children of all ages. It's extremely difficult for parents to stop their children, especially early teens from using social media. This law should make it easier and it would put the work on Meta, Snap, Tiktok, Pinterest…

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…

I'm an exmormon who grew up in Utah. I have seen a very significant amount of positive engagement over social media with people who desperately need it.

My state's version of this law is to force ID-verification for porn sites. For that stated purpose, it isn't even remotely effective. But what about convincing a child to admit to their parents (or Mormon Bishop) that they watch pornography? That's where it gets truly concerning.

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

#275

Post by lolinder »

dotnet00 wrote: post #167
lolinder wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) 3rd party service (Verifier) receives government documentation proving that the owner of {{account ID}} is over the age of 21. 2) Verifier records the fact that the owner of {{account ID}} has proven they are of the age of majority. They throw away all other identifying information, including their exact age. 3) The individual logs in to Verifier from Social Media. Verifier certifies to Social Media that the indiv…

You skipped over the Verifier expecting to be paid in some manner, being very likely to be paid using credit card, and thus having to retain those logs. Thus still making it easy to unmask users.

Social Media company would probably be the one to pay Verifier.

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

#276

Post by thomastjeffery »

lolinder wrote: post #100
nekochanwork wrote: post #45

"I don't want my kids using social media without my permission" is a problem that already has a solution: put parental controls on your kids devices. We don't need Daddy Government to make decisions that can and should be made by parents.

There's a collective action problem here, though. Some parents are willing to do the hard thing and tell their kid no over and over and over. Most aren't. The result is that kids don't hang out in person any more and so the only social outlet left is digital, which makes the decision to ban it at the family level even harder because you may actually do more harm than good by forcing your child to not participate with…

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.

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

#277

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

floxy wrote: post #253
psadauskas wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> she will be able to buy a house if she wants one, the economy will always be good for people who are work smart and hard, etc. Yeah, I don't think that's true at all. Its just anecdata, but I have several friends in their 30s for which that's just not the case. They're smart and work (harder than I do, just not in tech), but the price of a down payment on a home is going up faster than they're able to save, and the…

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=conventional+97+mortgage&ia...

Is it easy to find one that doesn't require private mortgage insurance? I remember that being a sticking point when I looked into this in the past few years.

The problem I see with requiring such insurance is that I'd already be paying whatever interest rate on a higher loan amount for the same 15- or 30-year period and it's rather insulting when a high credit score isn't a signal that the loan is low risk. How many years of literally 0 late bill payments do I need before I can reasonably expect a bank to assume that I won't miss the payments that I sign up for? (Undefined, unless one has the 20% up front, then 0.) It's a bit of a joke.

Anyway, I guess that got a bit rant-y; just saying that this feels more like exploitation by banks than banks offering a reasonable option. It lowers one's purchasing power unless one is able to save for a down payment.

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

#278

Post by sangnoir »

userabchn wrote: post #267
ericmcer wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a 14 year old and the content of social media seems to be what bums her out. She seems to be ingrained with the idea that she will never own a home, environmental disasters will be constant and the economy will be in shambles by the time she reaches adulthood. Maybe America just has a uniquely depressive social media environment? I have not read any kind of large scale studies examining the "tone" of social me…

> Maybe America just has a uniquely depressive social media environment? Perhaps America is a bigger target than other countries for foreign influence operations that seek to cause division and depression using social media.

Perhaps America was a uniquely divided society from the very beginning? Either that, or foreign influence operations have been a multigenerational affairs - which year or decade could one say America was not divided?

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

#279

Post by DougN7 »

ericmcer wrote: post #233
Buttons840 wrote: post #231

The recent World Happiness Report[0] concluded: > In many but not all regions, the young are happier than the old. But in North America happiness has fallen so sharply for the young that they are now less happy than the old. By contrast, in the transition countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the young are much happier than the old. In Western Europe as a whole happiness is similar at all ages, while elsewhere it…

I have a 14 year old and the content of social media seems to be what bums her out. She seems to be ingrained with the idea that she will never own a home, environmental disasters will be constant and the economy will be in shambles by the time she reaches adulthood. Maybe America just has a uniquely depressive social media environment? I have not read any kind of large scale studies examining the "tone" of social me…

I think my 25 year old son had bought into the same thought pattern. I’m trying to help, but parents are often thought to be clueless.

Having said that, I’ve found FOMO hitting me hard when looking at Facebook posts, so I’ve stopped looking, and feeling better.

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

#280

Post by singleshot_ »

KaiserPro wrote: post #132
kjkjadksj wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

25 years ago us kids were watching viral content on the internet that wasn’t even acceptable to go on youtube then or now. Still today, we are now your young doctors and lawyers and young business executives, despite all the quite disturbing viral content that characterized the early 2000s internet. I think we did fine and I think the kids will be alright too.

I did too, but I would gently point out that you had to actively look for it. something rotten was a known site for that kinda stuff. You only went there if you were doing "illicit browsing" shall we say. It was pretty difficult to stumble over a video of something visceral. Moreover, the internet wasn't real when we grew up. The internet is real and omnipresent, filled with the mountains of clickbated bullshit, and…

SomethingAwful.com and rotten.com were two separate sites, as a historical note.
Post reply on HN