16 ms·
Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s from User-Generated Content Services
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- givemeethekeys 4y agoHave they already tried to ban phones in schools?
- logifail 4y ago> Have they already tried to ban phones in schools? My eldest is 12 and in his school they are not allowed to use their phones during school time, and I fully support this. Due to some genius government policy here involving "digital classrooms", every child in his year has been handed an iPad to use during lessons. Guess what? Kids end up watching junk on YouTube during lessons, then get their devices confiscated. I wonder if the policy wonks in government have met (m)any 12 year olds...
- germinalphrase 4y agoNo. I teach at the high school level in a suburb of Minneapolis. Staff asked for a formal response from administration about banning phones and were were told, directly and unequivocally, that we cannot do so, and while they support teacher initiative to restrict phone use in class, if a teacher should take a phone off a student they are personally and financially responsible for the device. I’m supposed to assume thousands of dollars of personal liability each day on my 45k salary? Fat chance. As you expect, phone use is a constant problem. Parents are very often no more willing to restrict phone use when it’s brought to their attention. It’s kind of a shit show.
- RappingBoomer 4y agoProverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it." the elites don't want "unapproved" ideas getting into the minds of malleable youth...shaping the minds of youth is solely the province of our benevolent elites...
- threatofrain 4y agoA lot of parents don't want unapproved media to reach their kids. If something like this passes, it's going to be at least because of parental support.
- JohnWhigham 4y agoFunny thing is that I guarantee a lot of the parents in support of dumb shit like this lose their minds at sexual education classes in public schools. Just shows that most people don't have the IQ necessary to be competent parents.
- RobertRoberts 4y agoWhich do you prefer? 1) We should have school districts teaching _Republican_ ideals because the local schools support it. 2) We should have school districts teaching _Democrat_ ideals because the local schools support it. 3) No to both 1 and 2. You simply can't have it both ways, therefore the reasonable option is to say no to both.
- 8note 4y ago2) is actually "We should have school districts _not_ teaching _Republican_ ideals because the local schools support it. 3) is then a contradiction, in that there is nothing that could be taught, since everything is either republican ideals or not-republican ideals
- joe5150 4y agogood luck teaching much beyond colors and shapes without overlapping with some "Republican ideals" or "Democrat ideals". especially given the ever-widening scope of what so many Republicans claim constitutes Democratic political indoctrination in schools.
- vineyardmike 4y agoIf 3, what are schools teaching? Hopefully students learn something beyond the reality that their education is a political pawn.
- anm89 4y agoGood luck.
- pyuser583 4y agoThis is probably for the best. I’m fine saying “think of the children” when you’re talking about … children. There’s really bad stuff out there. Think of the children.
- falcolas 4y agoA 16 year old can, in most cases, be legally independent of their parents: living on their own. They can also, in many states (and countries), legally give consent for sex. But we shouldn't let them view user generated content? Seems inconsistent at best.
- Dracophoenix 4y agoThe inconsistencies don't even end at adolescence. You can die for your country at 18, but you can't buy a drink or (since 2020) a smoke until you're 21.
- ben_w 4y agoI said something similar in a letter to a newspaper back when I was 16 and such letters were the closest most people got to user-generated content. Oh, the olden days of dialup and mainly using AOL CDs to keep birds away from flowerbeds.
- joshstrange 4y agoAnyone voting for this is clearly not fit to hold their position. Aside from the stupidity of thinking this is enforceable, it's hamfisted and misguided. When they propose such open-ended legislation there should be an ability for an outside party to make every single one of them fill out a survey of "Would this be allowed/disallowed under the new law?" with a bunch of examples. If the people who voted for it don't have consistency in their answers within some percentage (something like 95% must answer identically) then the bill is rejected since they clearly have no idea what they are talking about.
- encoderer 4y agoYes it’s hard to imagine who would enforce this and how. But the reason it’s being discussed is that social media like instagram and TikTok is toxic to teenagers. Something does need to be done, society is not enslaved to the aims of mid grade social media product managers.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- manicdee 4y agoYet here I am deliberately avoiding the features that Minnesota wants to ban. There is nothing hamfisted and misguided about this, the point is simply to ban the social media equivalent of casinos where the entire point of certain features is to stop you leaving by distracting you from the rest of your life.
- thethirdone 4y agoDo you think HN would be banned for minors according to this law? I think it would, and I don't think HNs algorithm for ranking is abusive or toxic at all.
- pokstad 4y agoI think minors joining social media or forums should require parent permission. There’s too many weirdos out there, and too much self harm from sharing too much information.
- barelysapient 4y agoHow shameful for one of the more "progressive states in America.
- gorwell 4y agoWhen and why did progressives become authoritarian?
- chomp 4y ago>The bill would eliminate minors’ access to any algorithmically generated navigation aids, such as “top content” and “hot items” lists. It would also eliminate home pages that are algorithmically organized, whether personalized to individual users or not, which would be replaced by a list of items presented chronologically (presumably in reverse chronological order if allowed because chronological order prioritizes the oldest content, which is rarely what users want). Assuming minors can subscribe to other users’ content, they will have to subscribe sparingly to avoid being overwhelmed by an incoming flow of content unhelpfully organized solely by date. The minors would also have to constantly review the content to avoid missing something important (remember, popular or important content wouldn’t be highlighted, so it could be easily missed). Sorry for the snark, but could I change my age to 17 to get access to this? Sounds like a dream feature.
- computerphage 4y agoGenius! VPNs would get a lot more useful
- germinalphrase 4y agoI teach at a highschool (in Minnesota no less). VPN usage is already endemic.
- munk-a 4y agoIf it's legally mandated and services don't pull out of the market - yea usually it benefits us all since we can hop on the train (sometimes requiring a VPN but generally being offered as a feature for sale. I, too, would love to switch over to such a mode on several social services.
- temp8964 4y agoYes. The description sounds heavily biased. I know lots of people want to see Facebook content chronologically ordered. People also want this so others can see their posts, not just posts from popular posters. Facebook seems to have this option, but I can’t get it to work. So I uninstalled it again.
- Robotbeat 4y agoThis would effectively ban minors from the Internet. And many walled gardens. EDIT: There’s a case to be made for it! The Internet, especially social media, is as powerful as illicit drugs and probably impacts development. But IMHO, this should be up to parents to decide, and I think the lawmakers probably have no clue the extent of this kind of rule would be.
- ipnon 4y agoIt's a little ironic to argue the utility of banning something by comparing it to another thing which is already entirely prohibited but completely widespread throughout all of society anyway.
- vineyardmike 4y agoIsn’t that how banning things people want tends to go?
- Robotbeat 4y agoI don’t agree with the idea of banning kids from the internet. But I understand and even empathize with those who are tempted by the idea. Like going to live with the Amish.
- manicdee 4y agoThis won’t ban minors from the Internet, it will go a long way to helping avoid bad habits like catching up on social media turning into a three hour binge.
- gilmore606 4y ago> effectively ban minors from the Internet. Oh no! Anyway...
- Ekaros 4y agoI'm all for banning minors from internet if that means we can get rid off content gates in general... Or maybe we should built them some sort of walled gardens. Only allow ISPs to link to certain sites.
- raulgalera 4y agohow are they even planning on enforcing this?
- ipnon 4y agoThese old farts couldn't even sign in to Facebook without technical support. Do you think they understand even a glimmer of the technical ramifications of their proposed law? Usually when laws like this fail for technical reasons, they try to compensate the embarrassment by hammering harder with the penalties.
- pessimizer 4y agoThey know exactly how to do it. They can just hire people on this board, and in two years you'll barely remember when you could visit a website without an Apple/Android phone linked to your Real ID.
- Kim_Bruning 4y agoSigning in is still relatively easy. What takes a bit more skill is to get rid of the account once you no longer want it.
- GameOfKnowing 4y agoMost technical adults I know are in some stage of trying to revert their internet usage back to the offerings this bill would allow through. The less than 1 million users careveout is HUGE— allowing for the power of small forums, federated socials, etc. seems like a great bill unless you’re trying to exploit young people.
- ipnon 4y agoIt seems you're implying everyone who disagrees with you is trying to exploit young people. It's the same rhetoric as the politicians who drafted the bill. We need to have open minds in civil society, some humility to anticipate desenting opinions, and careful fingers to type out comments with.
- Mezzie 4y agoYes. I have some concerns about this bill and tactic. For example, even if it worked as intended, would we see an uptick of problems in 18 year olds' use of algorithmic social media as they're suddenly away from home/out from under their parents' supervision and given access to a bunch of exploiting content? It's similar to how the first two years of driving are more dangerous regardless of when those 2 years take place. And as somebody who was 12 when COPPA went into effect, there are unintended consequences of banning minors from platforms: 1.) They lie, so either that's going to be commonly known/accepted OR a giant millstone around the neck of any existing company. This makes it a lot harder to pick out accounts that belong to minors, which makes it harder to both research and protect kids. 2.) Related to that, if you're breaking the rules by being in a space, you are way less likely to speak up. If you're a 15 year old who lies and says you're 18 to be on whatever social media platform, then if somebody harasses you, you're less likely to report it because it would get your account banned. That's not even mentioning what something like this would do for the edge case of kids who genuinely are artists or content creators.
- hattmall 4y agoThe thing is that there's no benefit to algorithmic social media, so erring on the side of caution is responsible. And we see a clear and extremely reasonable threat. The ideal benefit is that teens won't form a social media addiction. Algorithmic social media uses the exact same principles as gambling addictions. Teens are much more subject to these exploitations and we don't let them sit in casinos all day and loot boxes have seen some regulation as well. Social media may be even worse because the gamble is far less tangible, it's cost in the surface is only time and the reward is purely an emotional one.
- bearjaws 4y agoSo once you are of the age you can concealed carry a firearm you are also fit to watch TikTok? Those seem equal... /s
- messe 4y agoGood point. Probably best to ban TikTok unless you have alcohol in your system.
- qiskit 4y agoYou can sign up to join the army at 17 to kill and die for the elites. But you can't buy liquor til 21.
- windowsrookie 4y agoYou can't even buy a cigarette in Minnesota unless you are 21. You're not mature enough to make that decision. But you are mature enough to sign a contract to join the Military...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- MisterTea 4y agoFunny, was talking to some friends on IRC today and a German user posted: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-control/ https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/messaging-and-chat-co... Seems like stoking the Think-of-the-children train is en vogue. Brought to you by the 5 eyes nations of course.
- ipnon 4y agoIt feels like there is no free speech party in the United States anymore.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- encoderer 4y agoTwo things are true: 1. this bill is trash, it couldn’t be enforced, it’s pandering. 2. Social media as it has existed for the last 5-10 years is harmful for teenagers. Instagram is making teens depressed and suicidal. TikTok videos have people celebrating mental illness like Tourette’s and has brainwashed impressionable kids into believing they too have tics or multiple personalities or Tourette’s. Something needs to be done. Not every corporate evolution is good or must be accepted as permanent. That’s corporate propaganda. Instagram needs a “taking the cocaine out of the recipe” moment if it’s going to survive as a reputable product.
- colechristensen 4y agoWhy isn't it enforceable? State attorney general notices his kid's social media app is giving algorithmic instead of chronological results, subpoenas social networks for number of under-18s in Minnesota, files charges, court sets up enormous fine. Which part of this process is impossible?
- pokstad 4y agoIf GDPR is possible, this is also possible.
- ravenstine 4y agoBecause that really worked out well?
- marstall 4y agoI believe it has had an effect. As an example, I work for a European company whose product tracks people in an indoor space, as a byproduct of its main function. Our (German) CEO made it clear we were constrained in our product development by GDPR's stipulations around pseudonymous data and data retention.
- 0des 4y agodoesnt matter that it worked well if it still happened.
- csense 4y agoSo how exactly would this be enforced? Would every website need to have you click a box that says "Are you over 18? Click [Yes] or [No]" and then if you click "[No]" it takes you about:blank or something? That might work for babies, but wouldn't most people over the age of, say, 7 simply lie and click "[Yes]"?
- mc4ndr3 4y agoThe Internet is a user-generated content service. Libraries are a user-generated content service. The legal system is a user-generated content service. But okay.
- aasasd 4y ago> the bill only applies to social media platforms with more that 1M “account holders” (defined as people who access a “social media account,” an undefined term) “operating in Minnesota.” I'm always baffled by these nonsensical and arbitrary cutoffs. Obviously the proper approach is to define a function, either linear or logarithmic. In this case it's a reverse proportion: if you serve 500000 people in Minnesota, you are allowed to have 50% of Minnesota's youths on the platform, with 900000 people it's 10%, something like that. One could also have the age as a parameter of the relation, again to avoid the stupid cutoffs where the eighteenth birthday suddenly turns a person into an enlightened adult. Hard zero at 1M also sounds random. I'd say the optimal function would be a reverse geometric progression tied to Minnesota's population and approaching zero teens at infinite Minnesotan accounts—or rather, one teen so there's no bogus fractional value.
- krisoft 4y ago> I'd say the optimal function … Optimal in what sense?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mbreese 4y agoThe point of the threshold isn’t to tell how many Minnesotan kids can be on a service. It’s to limit the burden of filtering traffic for Minnesota to companies that should be large enough to manage it. A small social network may not have the engineering resources to devote to doing this, or it might be cost prohibitive. This threshold mitigates those complicated arguments to avoid the filtering. Also, a new social network wouldn’t be as likely to be seen as a “threat” until it got to a certain scale. (I’m not trying to defend the bill, just what I think the the rationale is for the thresholds used)
- jacobsenscott 4y agoAs far as I know there are no social media platforms operating in Minnesota, unless someone is still using the Gopher protocol? So this is a nothing burger. Even so, chronological ordering is the worst choice. Now you can just flood the stream with whatever crap you want and it will push all the legitimate content down off the page.
- theamk 4y agoYou flood the stream with "whatever crap", people get annoyed and unsubscribe/mute. You can no longer flood, the problem is fixed. That's how the things are used to operate, and that is the correct way. After all, if someone is annoying IRL, you stop make a decision to stop talking to them, you don't expect some random third party to remove them.
- anjc 4y agoThe bill doesn't propose to ban children from social media, but rather bans them from being recommended content. In practice it would likely mean that a child's account will just view most recent or top content, or would require them to search for content. As opposed to being profiled and recommended content outside of their/their guardian's control. I see no problem with this for children. I think that it's inevitable that this is instituted in the EU for children, and I think it should be an option for all people.
- lucasyvas 4y agoI think you should ban over 60s instead given what we've seen :) No offence to you people - I know some of you are here! But by and large this is the crowd where I've seen the largest problems.
- Kim_Bruning 4y agoWait, does this literally only apply to engagement optimizing algorithms? Interesting.
- taurusnoises 4y agoBanning teens from using corporate, for-profit, surveillance capitalism, data-mining machines fronting as "social" "networking" sites? Yeah, I'm down. Kids can move over to decentralized, federated services and take those to the next level. Where do I sign? Ban everyone. Ban the sites completely. They're corrosive and trash.
- awinter-py 4y agothere are only about a million teenagers in minnesota per this https://www.mncompass.org/profiles/state/minnesota/age https://www.mncompass.org/profiles/state/minnesota/age so in practice you could make a dedicated platform for minnesota teens and never hit the '1M account holders' limit also not sure how your content is going to 'appear in a chronological manner' without algorithms
- _Nat_ 4y agoIn short, Minnesota wants to prevent large social-media companies from individually targeting under-18's with prioritized user-generated content? The title makes it sound more general, e.g. like under-18's couldn't use social-media at all. But instead, it sounds like they don't want under-18's having user-generated content individually targeted at them, or something like that. I'd guess that the concern would be echo-chamber effects? This is, if users get targeted with content algorithmically selected just for them, then it may tend to silo users' perceptions. And that might be especially concerning for less-experienced users, who may not realize it's happening or see stuff outside of that bubble.
- superkuh 4y agoThe idea of a "default" internet that is not user generated, one entirely formed of corporate and institutional puke, is a very new concept and would not have made any sense only a few years ago. It is a dangerous idea. The internet, and specifically the web, is pretty much all user generated. It's the the corporate spam and walled gardens that are new should be highly regulated because the corporations themselves have incorporated and abstracted away all liability for their actions. It's the trade off. But applying this nonsense to human persons is wrong.