358
Florida gets closer to banning social media for kids under 16
(abcnews.go.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
358 points (97.6% liked)
News
21676 readers
4361 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I can't get over how this "limited government" party has gone from supporting parental rights and promoting family values to becoming fascists.
To be clear, there's a ton of good to be said about preventing kids from using social media. Still, this should be up to the parents and, imo, all parents should limit or restrict it.
Isn't this same as the cigarette and alcohol ban for minors, I hear you ask? No. Alcohol and cigarettes can be purchased from a shop. The government isn't explicitly telling parents the kids can't consume them, it's banning the sale to minors. Social media and cell phones aren't really something a 14 year old can get at a store or happen upon at a party. So, if smoking was legal and the parent restricted their 14 year old from smoking, it wouldn't be too difficult for the kid to get a pack of their own. Social media is different. And shouldn't involve government restrictions. Because, how the F is the government going to oversee and reprimand this?
By requiring the platforms to verify the age of their users with identity checks and government ID. I'd bet the 16 cutoff age is because that's the age when teens get either driver's licenses or state ID cards.
Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with protecting kids. It's entire aim is to tie online accounts to real life users.
The thing is online access can happen anywhere and because hardware is firmly in the hands of the user, the user controls the dissemination of the data. There's plenty of AI out there that can generate valid driver licenses with complete PDF417 barcodes related to the state in question.
There's no way Florida is going to commit the required funds it would take to police every single aspect. And social media sure as shit isn't going to bend over and have that policing thrown onto to them freely. At some point Florida will require telephone carriers and ISP to play ball to some degree and then POOF, you're now in Federal territory.
That's why all this state level law making is so bunk. It's not a problem that can be solved by just saying "Oh, well <16 yo cannot get on." Unless the State has some really deep pockets to invest in their own technology, Good Luck playing wack-a-mole.
Additionally, there's zero ways I would be scanning a driver's license into some random website. Not with how every other day they leak massive amounts of information. So a lot of these states start getting what pornhub and what not are doing, "Oh you're from Utah? Okay, well I guess you're paying for a VPN for your porn." And that's ultimately what happens. Everyone just starts using a VPN because the State wanted to pass some "token" law to look like they were doing something.
It's all people ignorant of how technology works attempting to legislate technology. They are never going to be successful in any of this, but I guess whatever plays well for your base.
If spineless liberals let Republicans get away with this shit, and they are, they can do whatever they want. You have to actually stop them
How do you suggest Claifornia Liberals stop Florida Republicans from doing this? Floridians literally voted for this to happen in their own state. If anything I say go at it and van all the kids up to 18. That'll make sure a lot of them get pissed at Republicans and vote against them out of spite. I feel sorry for them because they can't do anything to change it but maybe once they're old enough they'll be able to.
Then they can very easily create a registry of whatever they want. Someone put pronouns in their bio that don't match their ID? On a list. Someone signed up for a dating app with their government ID and they're looking for same-sex partners? On a list. It doesn't even have to stop there, though that's definitely where it's starting. Say on social media that you're am atheist? On a list. Use your social media presence to criticize the government? You guessed it, on a list.
So how come pornhub doesn't provide ID check? I doubt that's actually gonna happen...
They can already do that just through whatever back doors they can get into social media companies if the corps don't already just give them the data.
What this is about is shutting young folks up online because they're the most vocal opponents of stuff like the don't say gay bill.
Personally I'm for government issued universal ID, and I think the government should provide a secure verification API, but I don't think this because I think there should be age restrictions, I think it because I think it'd be a viable solution to mass botting. Something like 2FA being mandatory would also help so that just stealing someone's card doesn't automatically give you access to all their shit.
Fuck off with the ID bullshit
It's a viable solution to mass botting in the same way that burning down your fucking house is a viable solution for that spider that disappeared behind your headboard.
How is that even a remotely accurate comparison?
It'll work, but it is complete overkill, and has far more harmful side effects than benefits.
Exactly what harmful side effects are there here? It makes blocks and bans more effective, it significantly cuts down sock puppeting and mass botting, it renders engagement manipulation much more difficult, and it requires literally zero 1984 surveillance state shit, I mean unless you're one of those quacks who thinks a state ID is 1984 surveillance shit despite it literally just making literally everything about securing state services more accessible including obtaining licenses and benefits.
When did "blocks and bans" become a "state service"?
I have a place you can shove your ID idea. Want me to show you?
Simple, it's not really about the kids, it's about control of the internet.
They learned from FOSTA that people will not fight internet censorship bills if they're targeted at vulnerable minorities.
I fundamentally agree that this would best be served by parents enforcing limits.
However, my experience is that this kind of parenting is much much harder than people seem to understand.
If you’re one of a small number of parents who choose to limit social media, in a sea of parents who don’t limit at all, your children end up socially excluded. They get made fun of and ostracized from the rest of the kids. Your parenting decision makes their daily life much, much harder than it should be.
In practice, it means that as a parent there is no winning option. Or even really acceptable option.
For maybe the first time in my life, I feel myself siding with the government restrictions option.
Do you have any idea how easy it is to bypass a law like this?
Anytime the government says they are doing something to help the children, it is most likely an extreme infringement on the rights of non children.
Yeah, it's not really teaching kids not to use it, but it will be a great teacher for how to bypass internet blocks. Young people already lie about their age on platforms, I mean I did that when I was younger.
It's only a few steps further to change DNS or VPN to an area that allows underage and doesn't require strict age verification.
Most laws are fairly easy to bypass. You can jaywalk all day, purchase illegal fireworks, drive your car at ridiculous speeds, etc.
Should we just stop trying because some people choose to break the law?
If even half of parents complied it would make it so very much easier to say no to social media for your own children. It would also provide a very tangible excuse for why you’re saying no.
Is it illegal?
Yep, at least everywhere that I have lived.
Carhell
You can’t regulate your own children, so you think it makes sense to try and regulate all children.
Whatever dude. Stop trying to pass laws “for the children”. It’s b.s
I’m not sure if you’re intentionally being obtuse or you just didn’t actually read my original post above. Either way, I’ll invite you to take a second read.
Sometimes it is difficult to see a whole thread on Lemmy for me. If I have taken anything out of context that stinks but happy Saturday
In general, perhaps—but in this case, restricting kids from social media will just increase their level of exposure to Florida.
What if their parents are controlling and abusive?
Internet cafés, libraries and friends?
Just to be clear, you're okay with the rapidly-rising suicide rate from children of parents who already choose not do so? Even though there's no sign of a wide improvement in parenting or social media literacy?
I would have killed myself without unmonitored internet access, and many other teens are in the smart boat, the same ones Republicans want to kill
There's already a mechanism for bad parenting: take their kids away.
I'm not responsible for bad parenting, and it's not an acceptable reason for bad legislating.
What's your policy solution or position?