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

originally posted by: quintessentone
What if the statue was a half-naked Plato?

The government should still intervene because people are not capable of handing this on their own.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: quintessentone
What if the statue was a half-naked Plato?

The government should still intervene because people are not capable of handing this on their own.

Government need a Plan B (get after the social media platforms) for other options because this bill/law won't solve the problem.

a reply to: quintessentone

If only SM platforms already had restrictions to keep people under a certain age off their sites....oh wait

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone
An interesting article:

Not surprisingly, parents are fed up. According to a recent U.S. survey led by Parents Together, an overwhelming 95% of parents say that they want stronger regulations for social media companies. And 93% think these companies aren’t doing enough to keep children safe. Tech companies have the tools and ability to monitor their platforms and make real, meaningful changes to respond to this ever-growing threat — and yet — they have done nothing.

It’s also past time for lawmakers to act. Fortunately, there is growing bipartisan support in Congress to address online safety, although legislation so far has failed. Just last year, President Biden established a task force to address online harassment and abuse, bringing the issue of online safety to the fore. These are important steps toward meaningful change, but the momentum needs to continue until effective legislation is passed and tech companies are finally held accountable.

Until then, parents are helpless to protect their children from online abuse, and children are left to suffer the consequences. Technology created this monster. Only technology can take it down.

The responsibility should fall on many shoulders to tackle this problem and parents are not helpless to protect their children from online abuse as the article implies because there is tech out there for parents to use to surveil their child's online activities, maybe that's what parents and schools need - education in tech. I do agree with the idea that technology created this monster and only technology can take it down. But I also read articles where social media platforms don't follow their own T&C so there is that too.

Very interesting indeed.
More rational valid reasons why this bill is a good idea.
Thanks for posting👍

Not really, it shows that the responsibilities need to be taken on by social media platforms and governments too in high tech ways, not to take the easy way out and force laws that tech saavy children will easily circumvent any way. That bill/law will solve nothing.

State government passing laws to hold social media companies responsible and accountable for screwing with kids, for money.

The social media companies are then compelled to -
1) Keep the youngsters who aren’t of age off of their platform or face the consequences. Parents now have recourse to go after those companies. Empowering parents rights is a good thing we can all agree.
2) Change the way they treat kids on the platform. Stop tracking them. Stop manipulating and exploiting them for clicks. If they change their practices concerning kids then they won’t be banned. It’s simple.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Not society, just Florida. Those parents must have really dropped the ball to warrant legislation. Just like the elementary schools did.

They are ensuring the future population of more Florida Men to make comical news items. A society raised by government is a society of idiots.

They aren't "raising" anyone, they are legislating more strict requirements to use social media which several members here have already said is a good idea, they're just mad someone is doing it for them which is petty. Makes them feel insecure about their performance as a parent. Or in other words, "muh feelz"

Nobody kicks my 16 year old out of the bar for being underage except me, her dad who is currently at the bar trying to hustle another beer out of a game of pool.

/s

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone
An interesting article:

Not surprisingly, parents are fed up. According to a recent U.S. survey led by Parents Together, an overwhelming 95% of parents say that they want stronger regulations for social media companies. And 93% think these companies aren’t doing enough to keep children safe. Tech companies have the tools and ability to monitor their platforms and make real, meaningful changes to respond to this ever-growing threat — and yet — they have done nothing.

It’s also past time for lawmakers to act. Fortunately, there is growing bipartisan support in Congress to address online safety, although legislation so far has failed. Just last year, President Biden established a task force to address online harassment and abuse, bringing the issue of online safety to the fore. These are important steps toward meaningful change, but the momentum needs to continue until effective legislation is passed and tech companies are finally held accountable.

Until then, parents are helpless to protect their children from online abuse, and children are left to suffer the consequences. Technology created this monster. Only technology can take it down.

The responsibility should fall on many shoulders to tackle this problem and parents are not helpless to protect their children from online abuse as the article implies because there is tech out there for parents to use to surveil their child's online activities, maybe that's what parents and schools need - education in tech. I do agree with the idea that technology created this monster and only technology can take it down. But I also read articles where social media platforms don't follow their own T&C so there is that too.

Very interesting indeed.
More rational valid reasons why this bill is a good idea.
Thanks for posting👍

Not really, it shows that the responsibilities need to be taken on by social media platforms and governments too in high tech ways, not to take the easy way out and force laws that tech saavy children will easily circumvent any way. That bill/law will solve nothing.

State government passing laws to hold social media companies responsible and accountable for screwing with kids, for money.

The social media companies are then compelled to -
1) Keep the youngsters who aren’t of age off of their platform or face the consequences. Parents now have recourse to go after those companies. Empowering parents rights is a good thing we can all agree.
2) Change the way they treat kids on the platform. Stop tracking them. Stop manipulating and exploiting them for clicks. If they change their practices concerning kids then they won’t be banned. It’s simple.

But this bill/law will exempt the following:

Among the defining social media functions highlighted by the bill are "addictive, harmful or deceptive design features" or those that induce "an excessive or compulsive need to use or engage with" the platform.

But the measure exempts websites and applications whose predominant function is email, messaging or texting, as well as streaming services, news, sports and entertainment sites, along with online shopping, gaming and academic sites.

www.reuters.com...#:~:text=Jan%2024%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20The,on line%20risks%20to%20young%20teenagers.

Gaming sites are exempt, now explain to me why that would be? It's ludicrous. However I agree with all these sites needing parental approval, but, again, tech saavy kids will find ways to go to any site they want.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

If only SM platforms already had restrictions to keep people under a certain age off their sites....oh wait

Tor and Tor Bridge comes to mind. This bill/law won't solve the problem.

a reply to: quintessentone

Sm platforms can block the use of VPNs

And the lawsuits have already started:

FIRE challenges Utah’s new law mandating age verification to use social media.

Utah mom: “The state of Utah is trying to tell me how to raise my kids.”

The law violates the First Amendment rights of all Utah residents.

The unconstitutional law goes into effect March 1.

www.thefire.org...#:~:text=FIRE%20challenges%20Utah's%20new%20law ,goes%20into%20effect%20March%201.

“Throughout history, censorship has always been the answer to moral panics inspired by new technologies,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere. “But censorship is the wrong response to concerns presented by new cultural phenomena, whether the printing press in the 1400s, comic books in the ‘50s, video games in the ‘90s, or social media today.”

FIRE’s lawsuit asks Utah to halt enforcement of the law and declare it invalid. Other states — including New Jersey and Louisiana — are proposing and enacting similar laws that threaten Americans’ fundamental rights. In Arkansas and Ohio, courts have blocked enforcement of these laws.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: quintessentone
What if the statue was a half-naked Plato?

The government should still intervene because people are not capable of handing this on their own.

I thought you were a libertarian.

originally posted by: Klassified
I thought you were a libertarian.

I've decided I would prefer a massive nanny state instead, we need much more government, especially when it comes to telling people what to do with their lives.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: quintessentone
What if the statue was a half-naked Plato?

The government should still intervene because people are not capable of handing this on their own.

I thought you were a libertarian.

He's a "librarian".

originally posted by: GreggRoliesnose
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.

This very good post was lost in all the personal insults and bickering - it actually changed my mind.
(Yes, I am a documented case of a person changing their mind based on an internet post).

Here is the problem: To keep children out you have to verify they are adults and this would cause a loss of anonymity.

The government can openly track what you say and that's the first step in control.

originally posted by: Daughter2v2

originally posted by: GreggRoliesnose
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.

This very good post was lost in all the personal insults and bickering - it actually changed my mind.
(Yes, I am a documented case of a person changing their mind based on an internet post).

Here is the problem: To keep children out you have to verify they are adults and this would cause a loss of anonymity.

The government can openly track what you say and that's the first step in control.

Do you know how many people keep their debit, ID, insurance and registration etc all on their phone? It's crazy, what happens if the battery in your wallet dies?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Klassified
I thought you were a libertarian.

I've decided I would prefer a massive nanny state instead, we need much more government, especially when it comes to telling people what to do with their lives.

It's good enough for buying or renting a car, buying a gun, buying liquor, buying lighters in some retailers. Telling people what to do, I mean.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Look, I get it that you are for a larger nanny state. That's fine, some people want that obviously, there's a desire to be covered in bubble wrap, placed in a box with some packing peanuts and left there like a good little veal where nothing bad can ever happen to them.

Other people think the government shouldn't usurp parental supervision and decision-making processes.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: TzarChasm

Look, I get it that you are for a larger nanny state. That's fine, some people want that obviously, there's a desire to be covered in bubble wrap, placed in a box with some packing peanuts and left there like a good little veal where nothing bad can ever happen to them.

Other people think the government shouldn't usurp parental supervision and decision-making processes.

I see your point of view and tend to agree, especially with the part where idiots are encouraged to hurt themselves until they die or figure out why it hurts. Hence my commentary about needing ID to make age restricted purchases. That's none of the governments business. If I buy a gun, the only question I should be asked is "cash or credit?" Same with tobacco, same with international travel. If I want to leave the country they don't need to know who I am. My white privilege should do all the talking.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Regarding your age-restricted purchases; parents can in most cases purchase firearms, alcohol and deadly lighters for their children. The law prevents the minor from doing so, not the parent.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: TzarChasm

Regarding your age-restricted purchases; parents can in most cases purchase firearms, alcohol and deadly lighters for their children. The law prevents the minor from doing so, not the parent.

Which is exactly how this new legislation will pan out.