Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 719 posts

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#291

Post by crooked-v »

okhuman wrote: post #229
hatsunearu wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(F) interactive gaming, virtual gaming, or an online service, that allows the creation and uploading of content for the purpose of interactive gaming, edutainment, or associated entertainment, So Roblox, arguably quite harmful to children, is specifically carved out. That's great.

Whats going on at Roblox? Curious, as a parent myself.

Basically every negative aspect of modern gaming at once. Loot boxes, exploitative use of user-created content, unmoderated interaction between adults and children, free-to-play treadmilling to peer pressure children into spending money, etc etc.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#292

Post by kepler1 »

blintz wrote: post #245

The idea that nobody is entitled to privacy until they turn 18 is crazy. I shudder for all the LGBT kids whose parents all now have a (state enforced!) right to snoop on them. (Honestly headline should be: “Utah bill gives parents full access to their children's online accounts, including posts and private messages”)

Why are LGBT youth for some reason the special subgroup of people against whom every concern about rights being tested against? More so than anyone else's rights? It's like they somehow occupy a privileged position in your mind that everyone has to watch out for this group. Why is that?

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#293

Post by htag »

bdw5204 wrote: post #216
falcolas wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who will pay GitHub to not only install age validation but parental bypass (also with validation)? I don’t believe they even allow under-13 today due to COPA laws. Of course this focus on the age 13 is completely missing the point that the actual age gate is 17.

The good part about the COPPA law is that it's an IQ test. If you're under 13, you have to be smart enough to understand that it's a "don't ask don't tell" situation and know to keep quiet. I did when I was 10 and joined Yahoo (the most popular social media site at the time) so I could have a Geocities web site and play fantasy baseball. I'd suggest that teens in Utah just use a VPN but social media sites have been c…

Looking back on my youth, I think these age verification check boxes were my earliest disregard for authority. I understood the checkboxes were there because there was a law that wanted to prevent me from accessing an online service. I thought the law was stupid, and after contemplating it for days decided to ignore it.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#294

Post by vxNsr »

MBCook wrote: post #136
barbazoo wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this the opposite though? They're not telling people how to live their lives. They're taking away the power Facebook has over many people's lives so people might enjoy their lives in more social and healthy ways again.

They’re also taking away the support some marginalized people may get from social networks (eg LGBT, uncommon religions for the area) that their local community doesn’t provide/discriminates against/their parents hate. Social networks, for all their faults, are not pure evil. They can be beneficial for some people.

And your argument is that you’re ok with the general harm these cause to most people for the marginal possible benefit for a very small minority.

Notwithstanding the fact that many so-called marginalized minorities are also terribly bullied online.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#295

Post by Illniyar »

blintz wrote: post #245

The idea that nobody is entitled to privacy until they turn 18 is crazy. I shudder for all the LGBT kids whose parents all now have a (state enforced!) right to snoop on them. (Honestly headline should be: “Utah bill gives parents full access to their children's online accounts, including posts and private messages”)

Children are not entitled to autonomy - they do not have freedom of movement in general, freedom of employment etc...

Privacy, like any other form of autonomy, is in control of the parent and should be given out as part of the educational process.

18 perhaps is too old for the state to grant independence, but that's a problem in general and not restricted to privacy.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#296

Post by blintz »

kepler1 wrote: post #292
blintz wrote: post #245

The idea that nobody is entitled to privacy until they turn 18 is crazy. I shudder for all the LGBT kids whose parents all now have a (state enforced!) right to snoop on them. (Honestly headline should be: “Utah bill gives parents full access to their children's online accounts, including posts and private messages”)

Why are LGBT youth for some reason the special subgroup of people against whom every concern about rights being tested against? More so than anyone else's rights? It's like they somehow occupy a privileged position in your mind that everyone has to watch out for this group. Why is that?

I’m gay, so it just hits more personally.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#297

Post by r00fus »

devalidating wrote: post #274
r00fus wrote: post #244

This law might might make sense if it simply disallowed children to view algorithmically curated feeds. Most of the harm from FB, TikTok, etc stems from a non-chronological algorithmic “amplification”. Otherwise this is clearly 1st amendment bait.

How is it 1st amendment bait?

Interaction on a public forum may be construed as speech.

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#298

Post by dragonwriter »

devalidating wrote: post #274
r00fus wrote: post #244

This law might might make sense if it simply disallowed children to view algorithmically curated feeds. Most of the harm from FB, TikTok, etc stems from a non-chronological algorithmic “amplification”. Otherwise this is clearly 1st amendment bait.

How is it 1st amendment bait?

> How is it 1st amendment bait?

Because it restricts speech and association, on both sides (provider and user.) While minors’ rights in this area are somewhat attenuated, they are not null, and while commercial entities have rights which are attenuated in different ways than minors, the fact that it the regulation is explicitly content based (in that the exceptions are content-based) means the first amendment is more relevant than in the average commercial regulation.

(Depending on how the 5,000,000 user cutoff was reached, it might also have Commerce Clause issues; if its a selectively measure that imposes costs and favors in-state entities by only targeting at a scope that no in-state entity otherwise within its coverage has reached, that looks a lot like a prohibited discrimination against out-of-state business.)

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#299

Post by hooverd »

vxNsr wrote: post #290
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From other comments, it seems the definition is not "what you assume is a social media app" but "any service with over 5 million users that facilitates chat via posts". It's baffling to read all the HN comments encouraging draconian restrictions and forced PII collection on websites, all with the assumption that it will only apply to websites I don't like . Laws like this, if enforced, would make a lot of the sites…

I welcome it. Breaking the way the internet is used these days would be a huge win for society as a whole no matter how painful it might look at first.

You want full corporate control and mandatory remote attestation on your devices to comply with these laws?

Re: Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access

#300

Post by JumpCrisscross »

jquery wrote: post #278
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that nobody is entitled to privacy until they turn 18 is crazy But precedented, through the history of parenting.

Child abuse is precedented, doesn't make it okay.

Straw man.
Post reply on HN