35 ms·
Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- AussieWog93 4y agoA good first step. Hopefully they can limit their parents' access next.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- specialist 4y agoNext, they should limit boomer social media access. And then everyone in between. "...Meta said it has robust tools to keep children safe." Sure. -- Watching the socials get lumped into the same moral category as cigarettes, domestic abuse, the Sacklers, and cable news, is giving me a bit of schadenfreude. Don't worry. My joy won't last.
- UncleEntity 4y ago> Next, they should limit boomer social media access. Yeah, target the one group who consistently shows up to vote…
- xwolfi 4y agoVery weird feeling I have here, in China. For once, I feel it's the americans following us. What's next, limiting online video game time ??
- barbazoo 4y agoFor me this is a public health measure. If video games were shown to have a similarly destructive effect on our youth I'd consider regulating that too.
- ngokevin 4y agoLimiting the platforms of celebrities and influencers?
- specialist 4y agoOh no, that'd be limiting Freedom Speeches™. But the US Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone will be listening.
- seanmcdirmid 4y agoWe are talking about banning china owned TikTok in the USA, which would be like banning US owned Facebook in china. So ya, maybe you have a point?
- kube-system 4y agoI feel like it is a universally constant thing for some subset of people to want their government to “force those other people to do what I think they should be doing”. The only the US does relatively well is to provide mechanisms to reverse course when these things happen. Which is also why a lot of changes end up in gridlock. Which I suspect will happen soon in this case.
- syklep 4y agoI'd guess it's more of a "make sure our children grow up into healthy working adults, instead of more minimum wage tech addicts".
- gtop3 4y agoWhen I was a teenager my screen time was the maximum feasible. Now my average screentime is between 12 and 14 hours a day. I'm yet another gainfully employed software engineer. I don't think there is any empirical evidence correlating tech addiction to income, but if there was I wouldn't be surprised if the relationship was positive.
- kube-system 4y agoWho is going to make them grow up a particular way?
- throwayyy479087 4y agoThat would also be good. I know people who have shit their pants during RuneScape sessions. They can’t use it responsibly.
- s5300 4y agoI find what Facebook has done to a non-negligible portion of boomers to be a morbid & highly interesting phenomenon.
- ipnon 4y agoThey will not be the last. There is a lot of political capital being spent in this area, both because it improves health outcomes for young people, and because whatever negative side effects might arise will largely be borne by California and the larger tech industry alone. Big Tech is not seen as an ally in many state capitals.
- norgie 4y agoI think it’s unlikely this law stands up to a court challenge, so we’ll see what’s actually limited
- etimberg 4y agoRelated, but my prediction is that by the end of the decade internet anonymity will be gone forever. Social will be the first place it falls with governments requiring SSO to a government run IdP that is verified by ID
- paxys 4y agoEnd of anonymity and end of large scale unfiltered user-generated content. The internet is going to become like every other form of information media where a tiny group of people/companies is publishing and the rest of us are consuming, no questions asked.
- ketzo 4y agoI could get behind this prediction just because it feels like you could take literally any political affiliation and still end up pushing for it.
- MacsHeadroom 4y agoLibertarian? Privacy conscious liberal? First amendment conservative? No.
- gtop3 4y agoIt's not impossible, but that's a lot of tech for the fed to setup and they aren't the best at consumer level software. There's also the fact that many political players utilize the anonymity of the internet in their campaign tactics. Not to mention the possibility of connecting to a VPN to circumvent the requirement for using a US ID. I think it's more likely to see intelligence agencies insist on more direct control over stopping "viral" spread of "disinformation", and to at least threaten to hold platforms responsible.
- throwaway742 4y agoThey'd probably outsource it. REAL ID by Meta or something horribly dystopian like that
- bananapub 4y agothis is a crappy headline. by trying to put some age limit on things, they're forcing absolutely everyone to give up their identity to the government / sites.
- ars 4y agoAnd is that bad or something? If you want to use a harmful product (and make no mistake social apps are harmful), then being careful about who is using it is a good idea.
- MBCook 4y agoUnfortunately that is the most reliable form of age verification we have: government ID cards. If this is 100% true in its face it would look identical to if it was a scheme to de-anonymize people.
- morpheuskafka 4y agoAnd all of the security is in the physical card manufacturing itself. Uploading a photo of a card is trivial to photoshop and requires no hardware at all.
- tzs 4y agoIt's not hard to design age verification to avoid that. Briefly you have age verification done by sites that already have to have your identity or that you trust giving your ID to, and then provide a protocol that lets you use the verification from them with other sites. With a little modern cryptography you can make this protocol so that the age verifier gets no information about what sites you are using the age verification with, and the other sites gets nothing that ties the identity used with the age verifier site to the identity you are at the other site.
- paxys 4y agoWhether this is a reasonable law or not, my big problem with it is that it puts the burden of enforcement on tech platforms rather than the kids' parents. There is no way for any company to check for something like this without also affecting every other user of the site, whether they are in Utah or not and whether they are a teen or not. What do they do exactly, start collecting government IDs from us before every visit?
- taylodl 4y agoCall their bluff - don’t make your service available in Utah.
- ars 4y agoThat would be nice wouldn't it - mental health would improve so much.
- MBCook 4y agoHonestly this seems like the best idea. You can’t get accused of letting a kid access outside approved hours if you don’t allow people in Utah on. What about adults? They may be lying kids. So either no access (safer) or strict age checks involving checking licenses and stuff. But that’s expensive. No Utah is easier. How do you know they’re in Utah? IP addresses. Blocks people outside Utah? Sorry, our lawyers made us do this. Complain to your reps that Utah is messing with your state’s citizens. VPNs? Maybe gotta block that too. Utah is not a big state. The social networks could easily use this to try to “teach a lesson”. Just say you’ll let Utahans back in when their government makes a foolproof age verification system. And wait. I don’t necessarily disagree with the intent of the law, it just seems unenforceable/unimplementable, as usual. No benefit to the social networks but huge legal downsides.
- krapp 4y agoI assume by default the true motive behind this is surveilling and outing gay and lgbt youth, thought-policing and suppressing progressive political speech and activism. I don't trust the motives of any red state in this regard.
- t-writescode 4y agoYou’re downvoted; but this is the obvious result. Mormons in the state don’t want their kids learning about sex or have good sex or find out all the contradictions in their holy book and they don’t want to find out that what their parents are doing is serious and scary manipulation and abuse and so banning their access to the internet is a way to protect the families and “protect” the children.
- lumb63 4y agoI think you and the parent comment are off base. I have no concrete evidence of that, but in a very blue Massachusetts, most parents I know begrudgingly allow their children on social media, and only to the extent required to prevent their children from being social outcasts. Social media has very real negative consequences for a lot of kids (and adults). I don’t think this is a red team/blue team game.
- MBCook 4y agoI agree. The stated reason is easily enough to explain the action. Tons of parents are concerned about this everywhere and would probably love such restrictions (if enacted by the networks instead of the state).
- ksenzee 4y agoI'm no longer a practicing Mormon, and I understand where you're coming from, but that's not what's happening here. They'd be banning wider swaths of the internet if they were trying to keep kids from learning about sex or church history. This is a more generalized "protect the children from the world" instinct.
- 4y ago
- capableweb 4y agoGovernments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather. We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear. A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
- krapp 4y ago... a sentiment as impotent as it was naive.
- jjulius 4y agoThis has, "If you write in your FB status that FB doesn't have permission to use your pictures as outlined in their ToS (which you already accepted) then they have to comply with your request," vibes.
- capableweb 4y agoThere was a time when what Barlow wrote spoke to a lot of hackers out in the world. Maybe that's not how the world is today, sadly.
- ajhurliman 4y agoGonna be honest, it’s kind of cringey. I don’t think the sentiment is disagreed with here, but the fact that it sounds like an overzealous dungeon master.
- capableweb 4y agoI'll give you honesty right back: back then, most of us either were overzealous dungeon masters or had one as a close friend.
- monksy 4y agoThis is a strange way to legislate behavior. The fact that they're selectively cutting access to a population during a time period rather than limiting the overall negative reprocutions is a weird thing. This is not the internet I want to participate in. It's freaking scary that the government is associating your ability to freely access information based on your class and standing. Why we have weak journalists and activists who aren't making a shitfit over it is just mind-boggling. Subcomment: I do believe that social media has caused harm, however the negative reprocutions on how they're going about it does not seem like a good intention.
- gjsman-1000 4y agoWe as a society have decided you need an ID for alcohol, and ID for marijuana in the states where it is legal, and so forth. We know that social media can be just as habit-forming, addictive, and dangerous to mental health; especially among teenagers. I see no reason why society should not extend ID requirements to certain times of night.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoAn important difference being the ID’s purpose being just to prove your age during for that transaction, not provide a mechanism to create a permanent record of your behavior.
- gjsman-1000 4y agoWell, what is your plan? We can’t pretend that letting teen suicide jump 29%, and having 1 in 5 teens now having severe depression, is an issue that parents should be solely responsible for solving. And we shouldn’t pretend yet another social program could be as effective as slowing down the source.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoThat would be for Utah to solve. At a minimum, Utah should be providing the infrastructure for its people to be able to obtain a digital ID that has an API for websites to use which legally cannot have its history recorded.
- tamaharbor 4y agoWill the app ask, “Are you over 21?” YES - NO
- Buttons840 4y agoNo, qualifying social media sites will need to see ID. The bill specifically mentions driver's license, passport, or birth certificate. Although this is a "think of the children" style law, all adults would also be affected. Papers please. Want to speak and assemble online? I'm gonna need to see some papers first.
- Overtonwindow 4y agoIsn't this similar to a law that Florida passed? That got overturned and I don't see how they could ever enforce this.
- Slava_Propanei 4y ago[dead]
- loeg 4y agoHow do they tell if a user is under eighteen?
- jmathai 4y ago<select name="age">
- loeg 4y agoClearly teenagers are smart enough to select an age over 18. The governor's tweet is: https://twitter.com/GovCox/status/1639015949964840960 https://twitter.com/GovCox/status/1639015949964840960 > SB152 requires social media companies to verify that users in the state are 18 or older to open an account. Minors will need parental consent to create an account. Ok, so what age verification does SB152 require? https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/SB0152.html https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/SB0152.html > 246 (3) (a) Beginning March 1, 2024, a social media company shall verify the age of an > 247 existing or new Utah account holder and, if the existing or new account holder is a minor, > 248 confirm that a minor has consent as required under Subsection (1): They totally punt on the issue of how you determine if an account is a minor: > 256 (4) In accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, the > 257 division, with consideration of stakeholder input, shall make rules to: > 258 (a) establish processes or means by which a social media company may meet the age > 259 verification requirements of this chapter; > 260 (b) establish acceptable forms or methods of identification, which may not be limited > 261 to a valid identification card issued by a government entity; > 262 (c) establish requirements for providing confirmation of the receipt of any information > 263 provided by a person seeking to verify age under this chapter; It is not remotely clear how you are supposed to enforce this without requiring government id for all users. Or at least, Utah users.
- oceanplexian 4y agoThere are already laws on the books in numerous states requiring porn sites to verify that users are over 18. As far as I know, none of them require users to upload a government ID. As usual I think HN is making leaps of logic without actually reading the law or thinking of how else users might be verified (A $0.10 refundable credit card charge for example).
- falcolas 4y agoIs it a bad time to mention that sites like stack overflow, discord, sub stack, medium, Reddit, hacker news, GitHub, YouTube, and so forth have the same traits - the same identifying markers - as what we consider traditional social media sites? How the bill defines social media: 10) (a) "Social media platform" means an online forum that a social media company 160 makes available for an account holder to: 161 (i) create a profile; 162 (ii) upload posts; 163 (iii) view the posts of other account holders; and 164 (iv) interact with other account holders or users. There’s exceptions for email, Netflix, Amazon, news, traditional media kinds of sites. https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0311.html https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0311.html
- MBCook 4y agoJust more of the unintended consequences we all know will come from this.
- falcolas 4y agoGiven how the government reps talked (hah) to the TikTok CEO, and some of the speeches leading up to that farce, I’m pretty convinced it’s entirely intentional. It gives power and eyeballs back to the entrenched traditional media moguls.
- Spivak 4y agoThere won’t be any. Look, it’s fun to imagine these shitty lawmakers getting bit by their own laws applied to the letter but that’s not how it will go. The law will only ever be enforced against social media platforms they see as threatening their ability to shelter their kids. I think it says a lot about any politician that pushes for laws that are meant to be selectively enforced.
- falcolas 4y agoIt’s not the lawmakers who will be bit, that’s true. It’s any company, and their users who are targeted by an incensed enough Karen. Picture a GitHub.io site that hosts images of nude art.
- kyleblarson 4y agoIf the US government had control of an app in China or Russia used by tens of millions of impressionable young people do any of you really think they would not take advantage of that to tip the scales and slowly affect political opinions and other outcomes?
- hackernewds 4y agoHow is that relevant to the Utah declaration?
- chiefalchemist 4y agoSure, let's blame social media for the troubles of our youth. It's not the endless wars. It's not the endless poverty. It's not the endless divisiveness. It's not the endless media fearmongering of X or Y. It's TikTok. It's Instagram. Etc.
- 1over137 4y agoGood points. But 3 and 4 are partly caused by social media I think.
- MBCook 4y agoThey did it plenty before social media. That just accelerated the spread of individual stories.
- stametseater 4y agoMass media did it from the start, but was less effective because they were trying to create "one size fits all" narratives that could reach and influence very large portions of the population. Recommendation engines tuned to the individual changed the game dramatically. They can lead people down rabbit holes that the other people in their life don't even know to exist. At least when the town newspaper or local church starts shilling some truly wacky shit, everybody in town knows about it. But now youtube/etc personalized recommendation engines can send your brother or father down radicalization paths you never even heard of before and had no possible way of noticing before the damage was done. If you think "Oh I'll just watch youtube to get an idea of what other people are watching", you're stuck in 20th century thinking. It doesn't work like that anymore, youtube/etc are fundamentally unlike old media. These systems have atomized society in a way that newspapers never could.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoThey existed prior and yes have been elevated since SM. Not necessarily because of SM, but because SM can take the blame while those who drive the wedge get a free pass.
- 4y ago
- jjcm 4y agoActual bill is here: https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/SB0152.html https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/SB0152.html For those wondering if it'll affect your site/service, this only applies to social media companies that have > 5m account holders.
- judge2020 4y ago5 million is not a lot, especially if you're just counting the number of users in your DB. Something like MAUs would be a better metric, but would still include things like Steam.
- patientplatypus 4y ago[dead]
- mrcwinn 4y agoThe Democrats have their own flaws certainly, but I’m having such a hard time finding a consistent ideology among conservatives. Free speech absolutism, mixed with parent choice, no choice for women, censorship for some kinds of speech, anti-regulation limited government but strong regulation of tech products. I just can’t square any of this.
- staunton 4y agoWhat do you need a "consistent ideology" for? These things seem to be what the majority of people in those states want (for better or worse).
- yieldcrv 4y agoYour cognitive dissonance comes from thinking this is a monolithic party platform thing. This is a Utah thing, with burgeoning consensus in a couple other states.
- twodave 4y agoThat’s just humanity in a nutshell. I’d be more worried if everybody had the same views.
- wincy 4y agoLook, I’ll take a risk here and speak my thoughts, assuming you genuinely want to learn more about Republicans in 2023. It’s confusing because they aren’t unified. I was a Democrat until 2015, when it felt like both sides had lost their mind and I voted libertarian. It seemed like there was no place for free speech advocates in the Democrat party anymore. Eventually, my wife and I decided to become officially Republican when we realized that the Libertarians were totally ineffective as a party (the libertarian convention is literally just an excuse to have orgies and do drugs) and couldn’t fight back against the progressive ideology that we see as harmful towards successful child rearing, as well as us retaining a principled moral stance for free speech against the primarily leftist ideologies that had become so pervasive in social media circles. We feel like Elon Musk purchasing Twitter was one of the most important positive events of 2022, and a huge win for free speech. There’s a lot of weird transition going on in the Republican Party because of this new group of “former Democrat refugees” who tend to be libertarian and free speech supporters are trying to integrate with the old guard republicans. We roll our eyes at this kind of stuff, but figure “it’s better than the crazy stuff going on these days on the other side”. Republican is turning into a much wider tent.
- yieldcrv 4y agoIts always crazy to me how proponents and opponents never address each other’s points. They just talk past each other saying their own completely unrelated points. A: “But what about kids in abusive households that get cut off from communication” B: “We have tools to ensure kids safety that requires actively using our social network already” that’s a frustrating way of having a conversation
- staunton 4y agoYou're assuming they're trying to have a conversation...
- yieldcrv 4y agoIt annoys me that they are presented as opposites, people segregate themselves as if they are opposites, imagine the other side is opposite, and then when you actually look at the stances they aren't opposite at all and probably actually reconcilable but yes, “opposing” is more accurate than opposite. people just seem to only have the mental capacity for two opposites
- siquick 4y ago> The bills also impose a social media curfew that blocks children's access between 22:30 and 06:30, unless adjusted by their parents. The main bill is a possibly a bit overreaching but I’m fully in favour of this part. There’s a huge problem where I live with kids just not going to school and many of those same kids are staying up until 1am each night doom scrolling or watching YouTube.
- sneak 4y ago[flagged]
- ashton314 4y ago> Now I'm more successful (and better educated) than almost everyone I grew up with You realize you might be something of an outlier, right? Most teenagers are dramatically sleep-deprived, more so than teens of your generation. Your experience won't generalize. > This law is just religious fundamentalist tradlife censorship dressed up in the moral panic of the moment. Really?
- jackson1442 4y agoConsidering we have compulsory schooling in the US through age 18 (generally), I don’t think this is making the point you think it is.
- kortilla 4y agoHow would you know you’re better educated? Seems like precisely the type of thing you can’t judge about yourself very well and the Dunning-Kruger effect doesn’t bode well for you either.
- staunton 4y agoThe way to solve social media is to ban advertising. There, I said it.
- vlunkr 4y agoCan anyone familiar with the law tell us if this will stand? What grounds does the government have to limit access like this? On an unrelated note, I’m a little surprised how positive people are on this. How many of us spent time online in forums or chat rooms as teens? That can be a very formative experience. Especially for kids who feel like they don’t fit in with the local crowd or feel unaccepted by their parents. I’m too old to get discord, but I can see that internet subculture is going strong there.
- sibeliuss 4y ago> How many of us spent time online in forums or chat rooms as teens? As if this relates in any way to visual social media like Instagram and TikTok, the primary sources of teen discontent. Nerds buried on some internet forum or chat room can hardly be compared to what is clearly a rapidly deteriorating public health crisis brought on by the use of these applications. I'm overjoyed for all of the parents in Utah right now. Legislators are looking at the data.
- docandrew 4y agoI think the toxicity and addictiveness of modern social media are a whole different ballgame from the forums and chat rooms of old. The forums we grew up with weren’t explicitly trying to maximize “engagement” by showing the most viral content and distorting perspectives of the world around us. The fact that most of the forums were anonymous meant that people could be honest if they wanted to, but also bred a healthy skepticism of what strangers were up to, I think.
- vlunkr 4y agoAnd yet this bill will probably impact them in the same way.
- uptownfunk 4y agoSomething has to be done. It is too close to alcohol and tobacco. Makes you feel good but causes some yet to be diagnosed disorder.
- _piif 4y agoAgreed. I'm unsure whether this is the right approach, it should be the parents' duty to monitor what their children are doing and limit access appropriately but it's been clear that many of them simply can't be bothered to do so. Someone has to step in eventually.
- StrangeATractor 4y agoSounds like they're incentivizing kids to learn about networking to get around this.
- thrwawy74 4y agoSo this is like... let's introduce these concepts at a certain age level ("think of the kids") to normalize control over a population, eventually expanding it to undesirables? This is dangerous. Just like the groomers thing. The best thing about the internet has been unadulterated, unrestricted access to information. Parents should be more involved with what their kids are seeing, but kids seeing anything (from neopets to al'queda beheadings) are what has created some seriously talented and informed people. We need outliers and deviants, not curfew-ed lambs. They've had so much success with "groomers" in other states. They're trying to "protect" more young kids now.
- eldritch_4ier 4y ago"Restricting the firehose of content driving mass upticks in childhood suicide rates, obesity, porn usage, and mental health issues - this is dangerous!".
- SpaceL10n 4y ago"Restricting the firehose of content driving mass upticks in Atheism - this is dangerous!".
- tiedieconderoga 4y agoInteresting analogy. Have you ever tried to squeeze a firehose shut without turning off the water first?
- doublejosh 4y agoIf only we could get states to increase the age of consent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_...
- doublejosh 4y agoSeems appropriate to bring up the gross the age of consent issues in the US... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_...
- thelock85 4y agoThis is smart for the times and perhaps useless in the future. I wonder what is the level of support amongst parents and teens in Utah.
- Buttons840 4y agoA Utah resident connects to a server in California, controlled by a company in California. This seems like interstate commerce to me, and is thus regulated by federal law, not the laws of individual states. Consider Wickard v. Filburn[0], in which the courts ruled that a farmer growing crops on his own land, to feed to his own animals, all within a single state, was participating in "interstate commerce". Given this extreme bias towards classifying everything as interstate commerce, I can't imagine that a Utah resident connecting to a California company wouldn't also interstate commerce. This isn't something Utah can regulate. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- ryanfreeborn 4y agoYup. Federal law enforcement uses interstate nexus via server locations to establish jurisdiction.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> A Utah resident connects to a server in California, controlled by a company in California. This seems like interstate commerce to me, and is thus regulated by federal law, not the laws of individual states. Interstate commerce is generally subject to concurrent jurisdiction of the federal and state governments, except that state laws which discriminate against out-of-state trade are presumptively illegal, state law cannot negate federal law, and federal law can explicitly (and sometimes implicitly) forbid state regulation of the same conduct. It is not the case that the mere fact that it involves interstate commerce automatically, without federal law addressing the subject, precludes state regulation. OTOH, to the extent that the elements of site design likely to be challenged under this are very closely related to the functions protected by Section 230, which does include a preemption clause, even if this is otherwise Constitutional applying it is going to often be tricky in practice.
- roywiggins 4y agoI may be wrong, but I think it depends on whether it actually conflicts with any federal law. States can pass laws that affect interstate commerce if there's no superceding federal law and if they don't fall afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause, which sort of generically restricts interstate protectionism.
- willis936 4y agoThe context of "authoritarian theocracy is the first to do X" really helps highlight how bad of an idea it is. No social policy that Utah's government does first is a good idea.
- shampto3 4y agoAs much as I dislike social media sites and think there is sufficient evidence of their harm to teens, I don’t think these bills have any legs. There are already people in law that are pushing back on the legality of this in regards to violating first amendment rights. [1] 1. https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TechFreedom-Letter-to-Gov.-Spencer-Cox-2.16.23.pdf https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TechFreed... EDIT: pluralized bills, after realizing that there were two related bills regarding this.
- r00fus 4y agoThis law might might make sense if it simply disallowed children to view algorithmically curated feeds. Most of the harm from FB, TikTok, etc stems from a non-chronological algorithmic “amplification”. Otherwise this is clearly 1st amendment bait.
- devalidating 4y agoHow is it 1st amendment bait?
- r00fus 4y agoInteraction on a public forum may be construed as speech.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> How is it 1st amendment bait? Because it restricts speech and association, on both sides (provider and user.) While minors’ rights in this area are somewhat attenuated, they are not null, and while commercial entities have rights which are attenuated in different ways than minors, the fact that it the regulation is explicitly content based (in that the exceptions are content-based) means the first amendment is more relevant than in the average commercial regulation. (Depending on how the 5,000,000 user cutoff was reached, it might also have Commerce Clause issues; if its a selectively measure that imposes costs and favors in-state entities by only targeting at a scope that no in-state entity otherwise within its coverage has reached, that looks a lot like a prohibited discrimination against out-of-state business.)
- blintz 4y agoThe idea that nobody is entitled to privacy until they turn 18 is crazy. I shudder for all the LGBT kids whose parents all now have a (state enforced!) right to snoop on them. (Honestly headline should be: “Utah bill gives parents full access to their children's online accounts, including posts and private messages”)
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> that nobody is entitled to privacy until they turn 18 is crazy But precedented, through the history of parenting.
- jquery 4y agoChild abuse is precedented, doesn't make it okay.
- JumpCrisscross 4y agoStraw man.
- jquery 4y agoThe most likely parents to exercise a right to read their 16-year-old teenager's online messages would be abusive, controlling ones.
- sacnoradhq 4y agoThat's a further, unsubstantiated assumption of malice. Some involved, worrying parents want to know their kids aren't getting mixed up with bad lifestyle habits or dangerous persons.
- WeylandYutani 4y agoThe American stance on children is different. Children are the property of their parents, to raise and indoctrinate however one sees fit. Luckily everyone grows up and when you're 18 you can move to a Democrat state never entering a church ever again.
- jquery 4y agoThis bill is draconian BS. Goodbye anonymity. "For the children" is always used to pass the worst crap. This bill doesn't do anything to help children, it only increases power for power-tripping parents by making it so that their kids have no privacy, even as teenagers. Imagine being an LGBT teen in Utah right now. If they really cared about mental health, there's so many things they could do... but instead, they did... whatever this is. This is the same state that wants to ban pornography on mobile devices "for the children", so excuse me if I don't trust their motives one whit.
- willmadden 4y agoI wish this was the case in all 50 states. Kids' minds need to develop without screen addiction.
- heavyset_go 4y agoI feel like this is a response to the exponential popularity of sites like r/exmormon among younger generations. For example, look at these exceptions. It seems like organic, unapproved discussion between users is what the bill is trying to stifle: > (D) news, sports, entertainment, or other content that is preselected by the provider and not user generated, ... (Q) to permit comments on a digital news website, if the news content is posted only by the provider of the digital news website, If this law was in place when I was growing up, my life would probably look very different, and not for the better. My interests, hobbies, profession, my sense of humor etc, all have deep roots in the online communities I participated as a kid. More importantly, those communities gave me a sense of hope when I didn't have much. Parental approval does nothing to stop the real harm that social media can cause, nor does this bill provide incentives for platforms to improve past that potential for harm. It's about ensuring that kids aren't exposed to their peers, or ideas, that might disagree with what their parents believe.
- deepGem 4y ago+1. As an Indian kid growing up in a very conservative family/neighborhood I can attest that what I have learned and have helped me in becoming successful was all through my peers and books (mostly fiction). If I had no access to those and had purely followed what my parents prescribed, I would have been a very different individual and most likely, would not have pursued computer science. More than anything, succees or otherwise, peer learning and learning on my own was and still continues to be the emblem of freedom. There surely is a downside to this, that this self learning can veer you off in a sub optimal direction of laziness, procrastination, lost concentration etc, as experienced in today's social media. However, it's better to bet the odds on freedom of individuals than on oversight.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- thrwwy27464 4y ago[flagged]
- 4y ago
- killjoywashere 4y agoFirst they came for the trade unionists...
- aizyuval 4y ago> "As leaders, and parents, we have a responsibility to protect our young people." So why don’t you educate them?
- pyuser583 4y agoGood. I really wish we changed the “privacy age” from 13 to 18.
- adamredwoods 4y agoAs a parent, this isn't something for the state to mandate. I feel they took the choice away from me. If my child breaks one of these vague laws, who gets brought to court? The parents.
- elchief 4y agoHN commiserating kids killing themselves due to social media last week HN complaining about a state doing something about it this week
- acd 4y agoWhat is the difference between tobaco and social media? What are the similarities between tobaco and social media in the brain?
- the_only_law 4y agoFor one I won’t end up with emphysema, lung cancer, mouth cancer, whatever nor can I pass off the negative affects to other people around me by proximity.
- pc2g4d 4y agoGenerally I support parents taking action to protect their kids from the harms of social media; but coming from a state government, and this one in particular, it comes across as a bit draconian the approach being taken. The hidden agenda does seem to be keeping Mormon youth from encountering materials critical of LDS church truth claims. Too little too late, but I'm sure that's one intended consequence.
- nonethewiser 4y agoYou might be experiencing cognitive dissonance
- ngngngng 4y ago> The hidden agenda does seem to be keeping Mormon youth from encountering materials critical of LDS church truth claims. This is a common claim of online commenters that seem to have no first hand experience with the LDS faith. There is no effort within the church to keep members from reading things critical of it. It's not anything anyone ever brings up. In recent years there have been efforts related to the slight increase in membership withdrawal, but those efforts have been publishing books (Saints) and articles (Gospel Topics Essays) that directly confront some of these topics that those leaving the faith feel were kept from them. This was a somewhat defensible opinion a couple decades ago, but it's pretty laughable today.
- nodemaker 4y agoAs a tech pioneer and also an otherwise liberal person, I welcome this move. The company called Meta is doing extreme damage to society and needs to be stopped at all costs.
- vineyardmike 4y ago> needs to be stopped at all costs. I can think of a few prices I wouldn't be willing to pay. This bill is one of them.
- nodemaker 4y agoWait till you have kids who get their lives destroyed by Meta products.
- vineyardmike 4y agoWhile I am admittedly not a parent, I promise you that my approach to parenting would be to parent my children and not every child in the state.
- spoonfeeder006 4y agoI get that SM can have lot of bad effects on people But being controlled and micro-managed by your parents when you're at a stage to naturally seek independence and autonomy.... yeah, can't imagine how that would badly impact anyone of these kids. Like, at all. How about instead empowering kids to learn about the science of tech addiction, or addiction in general, and the science of how SM effects people...and also teaching them the science of how to free ones self from addiction Allen Carr's "Smart Phone Dumb Phone" might be a good option for instance But micromanaging teens is the worst thing for them. We all learn from knowledge and understanding, not being controlled
- _AzMoo 4y agoIn Australia lots of kids are already directly taught about the downsides of social media. My daughter is 16 and has had mandatory classes about it in school every year since she was 12. The problem is the kids don't give a shit and it's the parents that don't understand. This should be dealt with through education campaigns, but it's the parents who those campaigns should be targeted at. If somebody's parents group were going to gossip about them actively enabling their kid to get access to social media when we all clearly know the dangers of it then it would very quickly lead to a dramatic reduction in kids having access.
- spoonfeeder006 4y agoIs it possible that the nature of those classes about the health effects of social media aren't addressing the root? Take for example abstinence only sex education. If its anything like that or gives off paternalistic vibes (don't do this cuz x, y, and z) then no surprises it isn't working But on the other hand if you teach them about the possibilities of a real foundation of friendship, and vulnerability and transparency in a relationship can drastically be far more fulfilling, and also how to assess character and compatibility as well as understand the (possibly) ephemeral nature of infatuation, signs of abusive dynamics, how to protect one's self and boundaries/assertiveness, then perhaps thats a totaly different thing You can't just teach them "Don't do X", you gotta show them how to live a much more interesting life than just doom scrolling "Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom." -Baha'i Faith In addition, "X has bad effects Y" does not address the root of why we might engage in an addiction. Often teens are under a lot of stress and pressure and those things are a coping mechanism. Teaching them mindfullness meditation can really help them a lot in terms of discovering the bliss of calmness and peacefullness
- data_maan 4y agoThis is yet another instance of "Think of the children": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
- isaacremuant 4y agoLaws can't and shouldn't substitute good parenting. Laws of this kind only make it worse for everyone and teen who knows a bit will find ways to bypass them. It's a bad slippery slope to even more government overreach in what was once, an avenue for democratisation of the conversation and freedom: the internet.
- nonethewiser 4y agoYouTube has content filtering for kids which parents could never mimic. App level moderation just cannot be achieved by a parent. These social media companies have a direct relationship with their users, many of which are kids. They need to serve their child users appropriate content, and in an appropriate manner. Furthermore, there is nothing in this bill that stops parents from parenting.
- williamDafoe 4y agoGuns don't kill people. People kill people. The only way to stop a bad 6-year-old with a gun is to have another good 6-year-old with a gun. ALL NONSENSE!
- isaacremuant 4y agoYours and the other 2 comments are a descent into madness. I don't know who you guys are arguing with. Seriously, it seems you're so much into US tribal politics that you simply kneejerk react. It's insane.
- ngngngng 4y ago> Laws can't and shouldn't substitute good parenting. Right. Why did we make smoking illegal for kids? Should have just let the parents stop them. Why did we make child labor illegal? That was just bad parenting allowing the kids to work the mines.
- 7sidedmarble 4y agoIt absolutely boggles my mind how this website can purport to be about hacker ethos, and yet every time a thread like this comes up you get tons of commenters talking about how they are going to tightly control which games and websites there kids have access to, what kind of devices they have access to, when they have access to them, etc. Myself, I think like a lot of people on this website, grew up with basically unfettered access to the internet and computers. And that period of time today seems like a golden age of the Internet. Maybe you think the internet today is just so insidiously dangerous compared to them, but I think that's just naive. The internet had a lot of fucked up content when I was accessing it at that age too. Our kids are going to grow up thinking the time they used the internet as a teen was the golden age. I'm not saying unfettered access is what you should do, but maybe imagine yourself in your kids shoes, only it was the 90s with home computers instead of the 2000s with apps and social media? You may have great arguments about the net harm of social media or apps you don't happen to like, but they are not going to resonate with your kids if you approach it via "I know better then you." If you're on this forum, you are very capable of setting up home wifi that you can monitor. Why not see what's a problem for them first and address it then?
- dmos62 4y agoAre you going to take the same stance with your kids and tobacco or alcohol? Why not see what's the problem for them first instead of pretending pretending we know better? Come on. Regulating social media exposure is somewhere between basic hygiene and diet control. Hacker ethos? Hackers use the unbeaten path to solve problems. That's what a hacker is to me. Is a hacker for you someone against all forms of moderation?
- corobo 4y agoMy parents and schools having an "I know better than you" attitude and blocking sites/access is how I learned how to bypass those restrictions in fairness. Within a year I knew more than they did about tech, and they could no longer block me without physically removing cables (good luck with that in a 5G-enabled world!) They're just setting up the next generation of hacker!
- 4y ago
- mrlonglong 4y agoIsn't this against the first amendment?
- ttyprintk 4y agoThe Governor promised, “there will be lawsuits”.
- MomoXenosaga 4y agoKeep saying it. Whatever China does is ridiculed and laughed at only to be quietly adapted into Western democracies 10 years later. But we get to vote on it so that makes it better I guess?
- jquery 4y agoFirst of all, this law isn't going anywhere. Second, I was in China ten years ago and their internet was absolute garbage. Any site not on the approved list was blocked or throttled. I had to use a VPN the entire time. China does some thing well, but its internet policies are absolute trash.
- systemvoltage 4y agoI feel like a lot of discussion has already the color of Utah's politics even before discussing the objective aspects of this issue. Would HN have the same reaction if this was a law passed in California or EU?
- AbrahamParangi 4y agoSocial Media use is probably worse than smoking for kids. Smoking gives you a 15% chance to get cancer in 50 years but instagram gives you a 66% chance of depression today. It’s incredibly, empirically unhealthy and it should be banned for children.
- nonethewiser 4y agoSocial media is toxic and addicting. Kids hardly stand a chance against it.
- Mezzie 4y agoWhy let 18 year olds+ use it then? If it's that bad, it sounds more like crack, which we ban for everybody.
- AbrahamParangi 4y agoI’m in favor of autonomy for adults but yeah, that might be a better world.
- Mezzie 4y agoI can respect that position. I tend to be very in favor of autonomy for older kids/adolescents because I think going from 0 to 100 and having them be 18 and fully responsible is going to result in bad decisions. Like we see with drinking, or if we gave kids driver's licenses at 18 with no education. They need a period of time when they have autonomy but also support and some people around them to veto things or else they can't learn to make good decisions.
- tzs 4y agoEurope might help here with getting around the privacy issues. Organize your social media company so that all of the posts are made through, stored, retrieved, and controlled by a European company and all the processing/storage occurs in Europe. GDPR would then apply to the European company. Yes, it would still apply even when the data is about someone who is not European. GPDR's extraterritorial rules are that it applies (1) to companies not in Europe that are offering products or services to people "in the Union" or tracking the actions of people in the Union that take place in the Union, and (2) to companies in the Union regardless of where they operate or where the data subjects are. The CLOUD Act in the US would not apply, because the data would be controlled by a European company. The CLOUD Act applies to the case where a US company is storing data in a non-US location but still under its control, and allows the US to order that US company to retrieve the data. It should be fine if the European company is partly or even completely owned by a US company, just as long as it is set up so that the European company controls the data. GDPR would still apply because of the European company, and the CLOUD Act would still not apply because the US company would not control the data.
- lilboiluvr69 4y agoI am...very surprised by some of the discussion here. Maybe I'm just not that familiar with the harms of social media as someone who chooses not to use it. But support for anynomity and free access to information was always part of what I interpreted as the 'hacker ethos'. It's been odd to see this pushback against social media transform into actual legislation for a flat out ban. Not forcing social media companies to end the use of tracking and dark patterns mind you, a flat our ban. It seems like admitting that humans just can't have unfettered access to each other's lives on a global scale. We can't stand to talk and exchange controversial opinions and see each other's best highlights without falling into toxicity, envy, and tribalism, nihilism and depression. I don't like that thought, it doesn't bode well for our species. I can't imagine what my childhood would have been like if I wasn't able to break out of the box my parents and society out me in and really reach out to conversations and ideas that many people would find dangerous. I don't think its an exaggeration to say I probably would have killed myself. And I mean that in a very real way. Society doesn't tend to be very kind to people like me. I realized I was a MAP from a young age and grew up thinking no matter what I did I was going to be a monster. I can't imagine what it would be like not to have anyone to talk to about that. Being at such a vulnerable age and not finding anyone who would listen. The other commenters are right, this law is going to harm marginalized groups in Utah. Replacing the parents and preventing children from freely exchanging ideas isn't going to fix the core negative incentives that make these platforms addictive and toxic. Nor is it going to address the societal changes that would reduce people's dependence of social media. It's not going to make kids suddenly go outside and meet one another again. Maybe I'm wrong, I mean I hope I am, but I doubt it. God I remember how much it sucked being a kid. Getting treated as property of my parents, as if they knew what was best for me when they couldn't even take care of them selves. All that unfiltered internet access led me to a successful InfoSec career, it led to an escape from my shit-hole life. But my biggest concern is the possibility of stifling online anonymity through some aged verification system. A second-order effect that basically chills free speech without directly legislating on it. I'd hate for my kid to inherit a world like that, a world where they have to supply an ID to comment on Hacker News. It seems like something worth fighting against. It makes me feel like being violent.
- psithurism777 4y agoI applaud the law. I personally have children and want my children to be able to manoeuvre through adolescence, development, and puberty without the barrage of garbage the world throws at them. The law allows parents to open up everything and give full access if that’s what they decide is best for their children. No freedoms are removed. The world existed before the internet. Let kids be kids. I personally would rather have my children playing outside, running through creeks barefoot, learning to interact with people face to face than have them develop so many of the destructive behaviours that can develop through un monitored internet access. Many here are assuming it’s an all or nothing approach to internet usage which really isn’t the case. The spirit of the law is to limit the facebooks and the TikTok’s that have been shown to be one of the influences on increased suicide rates among youth.
- heresie-dabord 4y ago> without the barrage of garbage the world throws at them. Surveillance, for-profit mythomania, and predatory consumerist garbage... as well as other types of predation.
- kjkjadksj 4y agoI feel like banning outlets for self expression is going to be even worse for teen mental health than the status quo.
- egl2021 4y agoIn the long run, this could be a boon for social media companies: they now have a requirement to ask you to identify yourself and provide clear proof of your location. This will drive away some users, but the remaining users will be great for targeting ads.
- whats_a_quasar 4y agoI think that people aren't giving enough credence to the reason Utah gives for the restrictions: The teen mental health crisis. Social media has radically changed the social lives of adolescents, and as a result anxiety, depression, self harm, and suicide have all skyrocketed. The data on this is not ambiguous [1]. And there's now a lot of evidence that social media and smartphones are the cause of the crisis: they screw up childhood in a way that has serious health consequences [2]. Time spent in person with friends by 15-24 year olds has dropped from an average of 155 minutes per day in 2003 to an average of 42 min per day in 2019, a drop of 3x [3, figure 4]. How could that not have huge effects on psychological health? I think these restrictions are a good thing - it's a crude approach and will have some negative consequences, but the scale of the health crisis requires something to be done. [1] https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/the-teen-mental-illness-epidemic https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/the-teen-mental-illness... [2] https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epidemic https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-ill... [3] https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/the-new-cdc-report https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/the-new-cdc-report
- prh8 4y ago[flagged]
- whats_a_quasar 4y ago> How about not having a theistic culture? How about not stigmatizing kids who don't fit into the blonde white monoculture that Utah pushes everywhere? The teen mental health crisis is happening everywhere in the US, and in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. It started about the same time everywhere. Utah's particular culture doesn't have anything to do with it. They're just the state that has reacted first [1]. The suicide rate among 10-14 year olds has doubled since 2010, nationwide. If you can present data that shows the suicide rate increase is caused by any of those things, I'd love to see it. There's now lots of evidence that smartphones and social media changes childhood in a way that does not meet fundamental psychological needs [2]. Those changes are causing enormous psychological and physcial harm. Regulating technology is the only way to deal with that. [1] https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/the-teen-mental-illness-epidemic https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/the-teen-mental-illness... [2] https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epidemic https://jonathanhaidt.substack.com/p/social-media-mental-ill...
- williamDafoe 4y agoWhat a joke every teenager knows how to cloak themselves with a VPN to evade parental access restrictions & new tech will emerge to thwart all these laws! Google builds infra to make sure your kids have 24/7 access to YouTube! I know I used to work there! The only restriction we could impose at our house was to turn off the router at midnight! I freaking HATE google / YouTube for filling my kids' childhoods with Smosh videos instead of real books or high quality active play. And yes my son flunked out of college because of online social media - twice! He's got ADHD which makes him a perfect target for the addiction phd psychologists employed at social media and videogame companies! For these online tech vampire companies addicting your kids is like shooting fish in a barrel! And yes I'm a cs phd who got my start in network security! As a left-wing free speech parent STILL STRUGGLING against online addiction with a 21-year old son who is STILL spending 24/7 to waste time online I'd put the threat up there with : hard drugs & gambling addiction. Yes it's that severe for a not trivial part of the population. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
- Mizoguchi 4y agoThe People's Republic of Utah.
- throwaway-blaze 4y agoI really don't see the overall negativity towards this bill. Yes, there may be problems with id verification, but outside of that, is it such a big deal that a parent needs to give permission for their kid to start using Instagram? My kids don't get to start using Disney+ or Netflix without my permission -- namely my credit card on the family account. This doesn't feel much different. Do you think kids under 14 shouldn't have parents involved in guiding them online? I agree once they're older they need more freedom. But an 11 year old who wants to use TikTok because all his friends do or a 12 year old who wants to use Instagram or Snap because all her friends want to message in a group there should have some parental involvement. The amount of bullying, wealth-shaming (your house sucks), etc going on is mind-boggling. And yeah, we used to have bullies when I was a kid too, but it would be on the schoolyard in front of 2 or 3 other kids, not a chat thread with half the school on it.
- juliangmp 4y agoLand of the free or something