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

originally posted by: Unknownparadox
a reply to: quintessentone

What does government do instead?

What the government does is, condone the spying activities of big business/bigtech. Because it's really the government spying on you. Anytime they want. They can force cellphone companies, social media, and anyone else tracking you. to hand over all information on you. And with T.V's, thermostats, cars, computers, cellphones, appliances, electric meters, and just about anything else you can think of, tracking you, recording you. They have a lot of data on you.

This is nothing more than a publicity stunt. The bill won't pass or it will be struck down.

Parents have filed a lawsuit against the government for the 'Don't Say Gay' bill so they just need to add this one on too because you make a lot of sense as to the government spying component (they need it to remain the way it is for their purposes), so I'm leaning to the Florida government looking for new ways to remove from the face of the Earth (or remove from their faces) the LGBTQ community.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Vermilion

Maybe parents should push for these companies to stop those malicious practices against kids so that their precious children can have access.

Who has taxpayer's money and the power to effect such important needed changes? That's right, the government. What does government do instead? Not take on the good fight but the easy way by taking away the rights of it's citizens.

Social media sites purposely damaging kids is not a right.
Are you pushing back on kids not being able to drive until they’re 16 as well?
How about kids using tobacco, or alcohol, or even legal Mary Jane?
There has to be a line somewhere when it comes to proven damaging things kids are exposed to.
Surely you can agree with that?

Again, throwing out the good with the bad is just poor decision-making and leadership and the government's easy way out.

a reply to: quintessentone
So what good is there?

Then again maybe this is just a continuation of their war on LGBTQ

So this is the good you are talking about? There is no war on LGBTQ. Children's brains have not developed enough to make competent decisions. In addition any child who has not gone through puberty, has no idea what sex they are. As the necessary chemicals that define their gender is not being created and pumped into the body.

If you're going to go with, a child knows whats best for them. Then you just need to make them adults. Because a child may want to have a child, or get married, or join the military, or become a drug dealer, or become a sex worker. The list goes on and on and on. For some reason though, changing their sex is consider a competent decision. As where just about all other decisions aren't.

originally posted by: Unknownparadox

Again, throwing out the good with the bad is just poor decision-making and leadership and the government's easy way out.

a reply to: quintessentone
So what good is there?

Then again maybe this is just a continuation of their war on LGBTQ

So this is the good you are talking about? There is no war on LGBTQ. Children's brains have not developed enough to make competent decisions. In addition any child who has not gone through puberty, has no idea what sex they are. As the necessary chemicals that define their gender is not being created and pumped into the body.

If you're going to go with, a child knows whats best for them. Then you just need to make them adults. Because a child may want to have a child, or get married, or join the military, or become a drug dealer, or become a sex worker. The list goes on and on and on. For some reason though, changing their sex is consider a competent decision. As where just about all other decisions aren't.

I only mentioned LGBTQ children having safe and welcoming communities to belong to, nothing else. And some children do seek emancipation from parents that put their indoctrinated biased wants and needs before their child's wellbeing.

Isolating them in their small world with people who can't be bothered to educate themselves on child developmental psychology and what behaviours will come and go is, to me, will be detrimental to their wellbeing. The government cares nothing for their wellbeing IMO.

The lawmakers in your Florida government do not have the necessary medical/psychological credentials to make these types of life-changing decisions that parents and the child's counsellors should be making. The government's agenda is clear as it always has been regarding the LGBTQ community.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Vermilion

Maybe parents should push for these companies to stop those malicious practices against kids so that their precious children can have access.

Who has taxpayer's money and the power to effect such important needed changes? That's right, the government. What does government do instead? Not take on the good fight but the easy way by taking away the rights of it's citizens.

Social media sites purposely damaging kids is not a right.
Are you pushing back on kids not being able to drive until they’re 16 as well?
How about kids using tobacco, or alcohol, or even legal Mary Jane?
There has to be a line somewhere when it comes to proven damaging things kids are exposed to.
Surely you can agree with that?

How children's parents deem what is damaging or not to their children is their right? Is it not?

I think instead of restricting children from these services, It'd be better to go after the sickos who use innocent services to target children.

originally posted by: Ohanka
I think instead of restricting children from these services, It'd be better to go after the sickos who use innocent services to target children.

Exactly, so then questions arise why is government not going after the sickos or the social media platforms to enact stricter, safer measures? I have my ideas, what are yours?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Vermilion

Maybe parents should push for these companies to stop those malicious practices against kids so that their precious children can have access.

Who has taxpayer's money and the power to effect such important needed changes? That's right, the government. What does government do instead? Not take on the good fight but the easy way by taking away the rights of it's citizens.

Social media sites purposely damaging kids is not a right.
Are you pushing back on kids not being able to drive until they’re 16 as well?
How about kids using tobacco, or alcohol, or even legal Mary Jane?
There has to be a line somewhere when it comes to proven damaging things kids are exposed to.
Surely you can agree with that?

How children's parents deem what is damaging or not to their children is their right? Is it not?

No.
If a parent thinks it’s cool to let their 12 year old drink whiskey with them daily we have a giant problem.
Ohio just passed a bill which says parents can’t let their kids chop off their genitals even if they want them to. Excellent legislation.👍
That’s just an example of a law that does indeed protect children over their ‘parents rights’.
Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up, believe it or not.

a reply to: Klassified

How are they going to enforce this?

And I feel like this is a waste of time and money. Someone will contest it. And will probably lose out if they take this to court as unconstitutional.

We keep telling you that Republicans are the bad guys. You don't listen.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Vermilion

Maybe parents should push for these companies to stop those malicious practices against kids so that their precious children can have access.

Who has taxpayer's money and the power to effect such important needed changes? That's right, the government. What does government do instead? Not take on the good fight but the easy way by taking away the rights of it's citizens.

Social media sites purposely damaging kids is not a right.
Are you pushing back on kids not being able to drive until they’re 16 as well?
How about kids using tobacco, or alcohol, or even legal Mary Jane?
There has to be a line somewhere when it comes to proven damaging things kids are exposed to.
Surely you can agree with that?

How children's parents deem what is damaging or not to their children is their right? Is it not?

No.
If a parent thinks it’s cool to let their 12 year old drink whiskey with them daily we have as giant problem.
Ohio just passed a bill which says parents can’t let their kids chop off their genitals even if they want them to. Excellent legislation.👍
That’s just an example of a law that does indeed protect children over their ‘parents rights’.
Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up, believe it or not.

We are discussing only one parental right, that being to have the right to choose whether or not their child can responsibly visit social media sites approved by the parents, and hopefully supervised by same. Nothing else.

originally posted by: Ohanka
I think instead of restricting children from these services, It'd be better to go after the sickos who use innocent services to target children.

That’s what this bill does.
It only affects the social media companies who practice preying on kids.
It damages nobody except those companies.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Vermilion

Maybe parents should push for these companies to stop those malicious practices against kids so that their precious children can have access.

Who has taxpayer's money and the power to effect such important needed changes? That's right, the government. What does government do instead? Not take on the good fight but the easy way by taking away the rights of it's citizens.

Social media sites purposely damaging kids is not a right.
Are you pushing back on kids not being able to drive until they’re 16 as well?
How about kids using tobacco, or alcohol, or even legal Mary Jane?
There has to be a line somewhere when it comes to proven damaging things kids are exposed to.
Surely you can agree with that?

How children's parents deem what is damaging or not to their children is their right? Is it not?

No.
If a parent thinks it’s cool to let their 12 year old drink whiskey with them daily we have as giant problem.
Ohio just passed a bill which says parents can’t let their kids chop off their genitals even if they want them to. Excellent legislation.👍
That’s just an example of a law that does indeed protect children over their ‘parents rights’.
Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up, believe it or not.

We are discussing only one parental right, that being to have the right to choose whether or not their child can responsibly visit social media sites approved by the parents, and hopefully supervised by same. Nothing else.

Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up.
You can feel free to apply that to any crap that damages kids.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Ohanka
I think instead of restricting children from these services, It'd be better to go after the sickos who use innocent services to target children.

That’s what this bill does.
It only affects the social media companies who practice preying on kids.
It damages nobody except those companies.

No, it does not because kids will find ways to gain access to social media - they are the tech generation.

a reply to: quintessentone

Almost as, if someone wants to do something illegal, they will always find a way.

now where have we heard that before?

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Vermilion

Maybe parents should push for these companies to stop those malicious practices against kids so that their precious children can have access.

Who has taxpayer's money and the power to effect such important needed changes? That's right, the government. What does government do instead? Not take on the good fight but the easy way by taking away the rights of it's citizens.

Social media sites purposely damaging kids is not a right.
Are you pushing back on kids not being able to drive until they’re 16 as well?
How about kids using tobacco, or alcohol, or even legal Mary Jane?
There has to be a line somewhere when it comes to proven damaging things kids are exposed to.
Surely you can agree with that?

How children's parents deem what is damaging or not to their children is their right? Is it not?

No.
If a parent thinks it’s cool to let their 12 year old drink whiskey with them daily we have as giant problem.
Ohio just passed a bill which says parents can’t let their kids chop off their genitals even if they want them to. Excellent legislation.👍
That’s just an example of a law that does indeed protect children over their ‘parents rights’.
Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up, believe it or not.

We are discussing only one parental right, that being to have the right to choose whether or not their child can responsibly visit social media sites approved by the parents, and hopefully supervised by same. Nothing else.

Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up.
You can feel free to apply that to any crap that damages kids.

What does or does not damage kids is best left to the people who actually know the kid, that would not be government lawmakers.

TextThe lawmakers in your Florida government do not have the necessary medical/psychological credentials to make these types of life-changing decisions that parents and the child's counsellors should be making.

a reply to: quintessentone
I don't live in Florida. And if you want to start talking about who is qualified to make decisions for a child wanting to pretent to be the opposite gender. It sure isn't the California government. As it's idea is, a child knows best, so when they come to school, with no psychiatrist, or any medical person backing their decision to be something else. California says, we want to make sure we don't tell the parents.

As far as medical people claiming this is what's best for the child. You might keep in mind, the medical community and the pharmaceutical community, have both conspired to piss on the health and well being of patients, in the name of the almighty dollar. So I have a hard time believing them about this being best for kids. Social media only compounds the problem.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Almost as, if someone wants to do something illegal, they will always find a way.

now where have we heard that before?

Some laws/rules are made to be broken, this will be another one for the road to taking the Florida government to court by parents.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Vermilion

Maybe parents should push for these companies to stop those malicious practices against kids so that their precious children can have access.

Who has taxpayer's money and the power to effect such important needed changes? That's right, the government. What does government do instead? Not take on the good fight but the easy way by taking away the rights of it's citizens.

Social media sites purposely damaging kids is not a right.
Are you pushing back on kids not being able to drive until they’re 16 as well?
How about kids using tobacco, or alcohol, or even legal Mary Jane?
There has to be a line somewhere when it comes to proven damaging things kids are exposed to.
Surely you can agree with that?

How children's parents deem what is damaging or not to their children is their right? Is it not?

No.
If a parent thinks it’s cool to let their 12 year old drink whiskey with them daily we have as giant problem.
Ohio just passed a bill which says parents can’t let their kids chop off their genitals even if they want them to. Excellent legislation.👍
That’s just an example of a law that does indeed protect children over their ‘parents rights’.
Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up, believe it or not.

We are discussing only one parental right, that being to have the right to choose whether or not their child can responsibly visit social media sites approved by the parents, and hopefully supervised by same. Nothing else.

Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up.
You can feel free to apply that to any crap that damages kids.

What does or does not damage kids is best left to the people who actually know the kid, that would not be government lawmakers.

The results are already in.
Social media damages kids.

originally posted by: Unknownparadox

TextThe lawmakers in your Florida government do not have the necessary medical/psychological credentials to make these types of life-changing decisions that parents and the child's counsellors should be making.

a reply to: quintessentone
I don't live in Florida. And if you want to start talking about who is qualified to make decisions for a child wanting to pretent to be the opposite gender. It sure isn't the California government. As it's idea is, a child knows best, so when they come to school, with no psychiatrist, or any medical person backing their decision to be something else. California says, we want to make sure we don't tell the parents.

As far as medical people claiming this is what's best for the child. You might keep in mind, the medical community and the pharmaceutical community, have both conspired to piss on the health and well being of patients, in the name of the almighty dollar. So I have a hard time believing them about this being best for kids. Social media only compounds the problem.

I only mentioned parents and others can't be bothered educating themselves in child developmental psychology to learn what behaviours will come and go if parents are facing a child that is questioning. That to me is negligent parenting. Leave it to those that are educated in these matters to lead the way.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Vermilion

Maybe parents should push for these companies to stop those malicious practices against kids so that their precious children can have access.

Who has taxpayer's money and the power to effect such important needed changes? That's right, the government. What does government do instead? Not take on the good fight but the easy way by taking away the rights of it's citizens.

Social media sites purposely damaging kids is not a right.
Are you pushing back on kids not being able to drive until they’re 16 as well?
How about kids using tobacco, or alcohol, or even legal Mary Jane?
There has to be a line somewhere when it comes to proven damaging things kids are exposed to.
Surely you can agree with that?

How children's parents deem what is damaging or not to their children is their right? Is it not?

No.
If a parent thinks it’s cool to let their 12 year old drink whiskey with them daily we have as giant problem.
Ohio just passed a bill which says parents can’t let their kids chop off their genitals even if they want them to. Excellent legislation.👍
That’s just an example of a law that does indeed protect children over their ‘parents rights’.
Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up, believe it or not.

We are discussing only one parental right, that being to have the right to choose whether or not their child can responsibly visit social media sites approved by the parents, and hopefully supervised by same. Nothing else.

Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up.
You can feel free to apply that to any crap that damages kids.

What does or does not damage kids is best left to the people who actually know the kid, that would not be government lawmakers.

The results are already in.
Social media damages kids.

Some social media damages some kids, not all kids. Throw the baby out with the bathwater Florida government at it again. Their agenda is clear to me.