Florida House passes a bill to ban social media accounts for children under 16

originally posted by: Euronymous2625
Or people could parent. Our kids all had phones, but we monitored them and they weren't allowed any social media until they were 16. Even then we only allowed them to have friends that were people we knew personally.

You are not allowed to parent anymore , By the way if they had phones they had access to all the internet when you were asleep or not there .

I used to unplug the router at night and found out my stepson had his own cord and would sneak up after we went to bed and plug it in so he could stay up on his phone .

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Ha!
It's truth.

Good luck….

If your kid wants to hide it they will.

I see my kid just attacking the keyboard.

I still use one finger.

a reply to: whyamIhere

I still use one finger.

i hunt and peck myself, but i use one finger and one thumb.

a reply to: Klassified

So platform safety regulation becomes a punishable offence complete with permanent record. The genius here is that financially it falls on the parents to be responsible for what their kids do. Kids may be detained and even prosecuted but ultimately every dime is billed to their moms and dads. W for Florida.

I said for years that the internet was never for kids.
Not when it was still new and not now.
It was a great place for adults and should have always been just for adults.

It's a bit late now. That horse has bolted.
I feel the same about family pubs.
Suddenly the little feckers rule them all with screaming and running.
Ffs, a pub is an adult place to get drunk, swear and have conversations in. I don't want to see kids in there. They ruin the atmos.

Next, kid friendly strip clubs, because kids always need to meddle with our adult safe spaces, because their parents want it all. Pfff.

If kids want to be on sOcIaL mEdiA, make one exclusively for them with lots of restrictions. Who knows, they might get so bored they might meet each other in person again.

a reply to: Klassified

I didn't allow my children phones until they were 16.

Parental rights.

The government is NOT THE PARENT!

a reply to: DBCowboy

So you agree this is a good idea, but object on the grounds that it feels borderline authoritarian to make decisions that (so far) parents are utterly failing to do?

Fascinating.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Klassified

I didn't allow my children phones until they were 16.

Parental rights.

The government is NOT THE PARENT!

Thanks DB. If it weren't for you and WIB, I was beginning to think I missed something.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: DBCowboy

So you agree this is a good idea but it feels borderline authoritarian to make decisions that (so far) parents are utterly failing to do?

It's a good idea for ME.

Parental rights.

Some parents give their 6-year olds phones.

Not me.

Government is not the nanny-state.

Regardless of party.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: DBCowboy

So you agree this is a good idea, but object on the grounds that it feels borderline authoritarian to make decisions that (so far) parents are utterly failing to do?

Fascinating.

As do I, though I have to agree with the bolded part.

My son gets tablet time as long as one of us are there, when we say its time to put it up at the first note of a temper tantrum he doesnt see it for a week.

Complaints from teachers gone for a week, and so on.

Its a necessary evil in central alaska in the winter when a 5 yr old cant really do anything.

but come summer we will be fishing and hiking to keep him away from it as much as I can in my free time.

Thats what needs to happen, more laws usually have nasty unintentional problems...

If we want to go the legal route congress needs to try and do something to force them to need more than an email address to open an account.

originally posted by: Euronymous2625
Or people could parent. Our kids all had phones, but we monitored them and they weren't allowed any social media until they were 16. Even then we only allowed them to have friends that were people we knew personally.

My granddaughter was allowed to have a phone when she was 12-out of necessity. As a single working parent, my daughter needed to be able to stay in touch in case of emergencies BUT there were strict rules.

Her mother let it be known that she WOULD be reviewing all activity on a daily basis. NO apps could be added without prior approval. Phone time had a limited number of hours each day.
Mom retained the ability to turn the phone off if she was using it past bed time. 'Friends' were limited to three in the beginning, until she was older.
Trying to lock her mother out or hide apps would be instatnt loss of her phone, and wishy-washy parental rules NOT being part of the plan meant there was no confusion on what the consequences might be.

As she grew older she was allowed to add more friends (as long as it wasn't affecting her school work) and age appropriate apps.

Hiding kids from all of the evils out there isn't going to help them learn the damnger signs or how to deal with them, but parnetal guidence with age-appropriate material can go a long way in helping them develop good judgement and recognize danger signals.

If a parent can't dedicate 30 minutes a day to review their kids' phone usage it's probably not a good idea to get them one.

It's stupid "common sense" laws that they keep passing.

Wear seatbelts.

Okay, if you don't you'll die, but do we NEED government to tell us that?

Wear helmets when riding a motorcycle.

Duh.

But they make laws.

Don't let your children access adult issues on the internet. . .

And we really need government to tell us that?

WTF??????

I'd rather ban children than ban what adults can say.

A lot of theses censorship laws are to protect children.

Get rid of the children/get rid of the major reason to censor adults

I'm ok with banning them - no different than banning them from driving.

This is another way to justify something they can use to collect much more money with the fines they will impose. Both parties are quite guilty of reaming the common person and family out of their hard earned money. It's still quite obviously government overreach though, which is trending these days. A veto is definitely called for.

ETA: Actually even better, when some politician of any stripe begins with this kind of stuff, then they themselves need to be secretly investigated to see if they live up to these standards themselves.

So they can't have social media until 16, yet 11 states have, or are in the process of passing laws to loosen laws around child labor. So a 14 year old can work longer hours, in meat processing plants, logging, etc. Physically dangerous jobs, for a lot of hours with some states allowing less than minimum wage. But ohh boy, don't allow the kid Instagram? And in total abortion states, force that same 14 year to be a mom? But heaven forbid she watches or uploads a TikTok video?

originally posted by: frogs453
So they can't have social media until 16, yet 11 states have, or are in the process of passing laws to loosen laws around child labor. So a 14 year old can work longer hours, in meat processing plants, logging, etc. Physically dangerous jobs, for a lot of hours with some states allowing less than minimum wage. But ohh boy, don't allow the kid Instagram? And in total abortion states, force that same 14 year to be a mom? But heaven forbid she watches or uploads a TikTok video?

Oh quit it.

In leftist states, children can have their genitals cut off, paid by the state.

Your high horse is gutter level.

a reply to: Klassified

Don't some politicians come up with these outlandish bills to just make a political statement and get people to notice common ills in society?

What I'm getting at, is it doesn't seem like a serious bill but just an attention grab.

a reply to: Klassified
I enjoy living in the free state of Florida. The only reason for this is to identify people online and no good can come from this. It goes hand in hand with the REAL ID. # them. # them. # them. Get ready, the time has come.