61–70 of 113 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is unconstitutional about it?
[1] Age veriifcation [2] Content discrimination [3] Has the unfortunate side effect of restricting LGBTQIA+ youth and adults' speech There's a reason why most of these bills are legally challenged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First Amendment doesn't cover things that cause direct harm or speech to minors. In this case, you can draw a straight line between social media usage and an increase in teen suicides, and keeping them on it for long periods is detrimental to their overall mental health especially when they don't have fully developed impulse control or are not legally expected to. You're not allowed to advertise gambling products, al…
> You can't intentionally show porn to a minor Anyone can go to pornhub and see a landing page full of highly explicit sexual images without any kind of age verification whatsoever. How is this legal, if what you say is true? Is it just that they don't know it's a minor on the other side of the screen, so they can say it's not "intentional"?
This is an adult website
This website contains age-restricted materials including nudity and explicit depictions of sexual activity. By entering, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from and you consent to viewing sexually explicit content.
I am 18 or older - Enter
I am under 18 - ExitEarlier quoted context omitted.
There is no requirement for laws to use words with the same meaning as they’re used in one specific niche publication. “Addictive” is a normal English word; it doesn’t exclusively belong to psychiatry.
Addiction was a meaningful word long before the DSM
How can they enforce it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it discriminating content? It’s not putting restrictions on content that can be shown.
It's discriminating between social media companies purely on the basis of their speech--the recommendation algorithms they choose to use.
If the speech is theirs, they are responsible for its content.
This is obviously unconstitutional and it'll be shot down in the courts before it takes effect since this is their version of KOSA among other First Amendment issues. Some context here: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/11/nys-safe-for-kids-act-a-...
"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
Well, is social media "speech" or "press"?
Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines, and in general, certain topics and words aren't allowed in the daytime.
Another example: Tobacco advertising is severely curtailed, *especially advertising targeted towards minors."
In this case, what isn't restricted is social media platforms ability to express ideas or otherwise function as "press." Instead, what's restricted is the addictive nature and activities that cause psychological harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't intentionally show porn to a minor Anyone can go to pornhub and see a landing page full of highly explicit sexual images without any kind of age verification whatsoever. How is this legal, if what you say is true? Is it just that they don't know it's a minor on the other side of the screen, so they can say it's not "intentional"?
Pornhub home page has a very clear warning before you get to anything explicit: This is an adult website This website contains age-restricted materials including nudity and explicit depictions of sexual activity. By entering, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from and you consent to viewing sexually explicit content. I am 18 or ol…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only a natural reaction when nothing else is in control. Unless you think that social media platforms are fine as is. I understand the hesitancy to government control, but at some point, what other mechanism is there? I'm seriously asking.
The other mechanism is parenting and self-control. I'm not too concerned in the long run about which path is chosen for addictive social media; its days are numbered either way.
This is obviously unconstitutional and it'll be shot down in the courts before it takes effect since this is their version of KOSA among other First Amendment issues. Some context here: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/11/nys-safe-for-kids-act-a-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can let in a contractor in my house and also ask them not to smoke. They of course have the right to refuse that request and decline my money, but in the real world, contractors usually comply with such requests as smoking is known to harm health. I don't see why the digital world has to be any different. Just because laws and awareness are lagging behind, tech world's toxic practices don't need to get a pass.
> They of course have the right to refuse that request and decline my money, but in the real world, contractors usually comply with such requests as smoking is known to harm health. Right, but you're suggesting that they should legally have to comply with this request and can't refuse service.