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

691–700 of 783 posts

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

#691

Post by oliwarner »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #404
oliwarner wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> 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…

> gets to scrape a whole pile of into from it that can be used to track you

I can't help but feel your argument is with data protection [and the broad lack of it in the US] rather than government-held databases.

I have a couple of online government authentication methods. There could easily be an AVS API where a website kicks me off to to my government, and they sign a request for age verification, all with very little cost and fuss. That obviously causes uproar from people who think my government doesn't suspect I touch myself when they're not looking.

And a suggestion I've made in a couple of other sibling threads is having an AI watch you reading a script in realtime. I had to do this for a mortgage application a few years ago. Probably cheaper than a government API, and a high success rate on 25yo+ similar to facial-only checking in bars.

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

#692

Post by ricardobeat »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #647
ricardobeat wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t work though. Using instagram web bypasses the app limit. If you set a website limit, it only applies to Safari. If you block TikTok, they will find video compilations in Spotify, which shouldn’t have to be blocked. It’s a mess.

ST can work by time as well as app. Recommend revoking app install privileges. No one should have third-party corporate surveillance apps installed anyway.

Sorry, I don’t see how that comment answers mine? In my experience it’s impossible to properly block anything that is also available as a web app (which is most of social media apps).

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

#693

Post by caskstrength »

smallerfish wrote: post #399
nicoburns wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When did having a website become something exclusively for old people? It's more that having a website never became a thing for many businesses in the first place. 30 years ago they might have had a listing in the phone book. Nowadays that kind of business might have a facebook page, or more recently an instagram account. Creating a website (even with something like wix) requires a level of skill and effort above t…

They're just being cheap. Facebook is free (and "everybody has Facebook") whereas Wix and Squarespace are $12-$15/mo for businesses.

It is not just 15$ a month. You need to pay someone to develop the website in the first place and then deal with all kinds of issues that eventually arise (updating the underlying framework and/or getting hacked and dealing with the consequences, solving random stuff like expired SSL certificate, etc.).

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

#694

Post by idle_zealot »

autoexec wrote: post #591
fragmede wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when can children agree to legal contracts? don't you have to be 18 to get a cellphone plan or sign a contract with an ISP?

Yet children have cell phones and use the internet right? Nothing (as far as I know) will stop a child from walking into a walmart and buying a pre-paid phone or a TV or a computer but all of those things will force you agree to their terms. How enforceable all of that is legally would be up to the courts, but that's true for social media sites too. If a 15 year old signs up for a social media site they're forced to…

> but if we enforce the law, then companies will have to stop taking advantage of children!

That sounds pretty good. Maybe companies targeting their products and services at children shouldn't attempt to enter illegal contracts with them?

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

#695

Post by crotchfire »

llm_trw wrote: post #553
exabrial wrote: post #333

I'll be the odd guy out and say it should probably be illegal to attempt to enter a contract (AUP, privacy policy, etc) with a minor anyway (for a lot of reasons around exploitation), so I don't _really_ have a major issue with this at face value. I know the devil is in the details though, so kinda curious what the actual provisions are. The alternative is a free internet, where we don't need accounts to do things, b…

>The alternative is a free internet, where we don't need accounts to do things, because we're not building or storing advertising profiles on users. Hmmmm... imagine that. Sure, so long as you pay for the service you're using. 10c per HN post, 50c per facebook photo.

> 10c per HN post

Apparently some people haven't heard about Stacker News (okay it's more like $0.0001 per post, but anyways...)

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

#696

Post by richrichie »

azinman2 wrote: post #670
richrichie wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a feature of the US system. Dont think we can work around it. Imagine that Biden campaigned in 2000 extensively off a hoax that Trump called nazis fine people. This was well supported by professional media.

Just remember this is the same guy who told the Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by." And they in fact did rise up on Jan 6. That he was defending people at all associated with the unite the right protest that went all neo Nazi is crazy. Why bother trying to point out that there were “good” and “fine” people protesting the statue when we all know what was going on at that event? It minimizes what happened, and red…

“Choice editing” is another way to put it. Which is precisely what i was alluding to. It is a feature of the US system. Professional media including the so called papers of the record excel in it.

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

#697

Post by zarathustreal »

Brybry wrote: post #465
zarathustreal wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't think traditional American understandings on freedom were for state identity document requirements. That's why we have no federal IDs and social security numbers are abused and why we use driver's licenses for identification cards. When detained, you have a right not to give police papers proving who you are, you just have to tell them your name. [1] So Florida pushing the concept of using state id to verify…

To be clear, the point of the article is a change in the age of unrestricted access to certain social media sites. This is a change in the definition of who qualifies for freedom. Which documents are used to establish that identity is tangential, there is no perfect form of identification that is also free of potential for abuse

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

#698

Post by Nextgrid »

friend_and_foe wrote: post #658
gnicholas wrote: post #604

I recall hearing Professor Haidt (NYU) describe an experiment he ran with teenagers. He asked them how much they'd have to be paid (per month?) to not use some social media site. The typical answer was ~$40. Then he said that they were going to get all the other kids in the school off the social media site, and asked again what the student would want to be paid to be off the site. The answer was that students would a…

I know I've felt that feeling. I'm not a teenager, but I can imagine the FOMO and loss of social clout a kid would feel not being connected in ways that their peers are. My solution was to not care if I was missing out. Counterintuitively, it's not until you do that that you're free to find the life you want for yourself. Good luck explaining that to a 16 year old though, they're not there yet, they're not building t…

Keep in mind that social media is pretty much the only outlet you have for social signalling as a teenager. Disconnecting from it at that age is social suicide.

Disconnecting as an adult is much easier/worthwhile because you now have other means of signalling.

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

#699

Post by alecco »

jeremyjh wrote: post #429
margorczynski wrote: post #15

People might see it as harsh but looking at reality and the hard numbers collected about the gigantic negative impact it has on kids and teenagers this is the right move, would even push it till 18.

I'm a parent of an 11 and 14 year old and I have mixed feelings about this. First, I am concerned about the negative effect of social media on kids and my initial reaction to this was positive, but then I remembered my 11 year old daughter uses Messenger kids to keep up with her cousin across the country. They only see each other once a year so the fact that they have this connection I see as really positive, and the…

Why can't they do video calls and send emails? One on one is way better than posts seen in a timeline.

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

#700

Post by jeremyjh »

alecco wrote: post #699
jeremyjh wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a parent of an 11 and 14 year old and I have mixed feelings about this. First, I am concerned about the negative effect of social media on kids and my initial reaction to this was positive, but then I remembered my 11 year old daughter uses Messenger kids to keep up with her cousin across the country. They only see each other once a year so the fact that they have this connection I see as really positive, and the…

Why can't they do video calls and send emails? One on one is way better than posts seen in a timeline.

I guess you've never used Messenger or Discord. These are messaging applications that can do video calls. There is no timeline.

edit: actually, reading the text of the bill probably neither of those applications are in scope, because they do not have algorithmic feeds. They specifically state: "Employs algorithms that analyze user data or information on users to select content for users;"

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/BillText/er/PDF

Post reply on HN