4 ms·

Honestly 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 a

by MBCook 4y ago

Honestly 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.

meghan_rain 4y ago
Lmao imagine Utah becoming the most mentally healthy region on earth, suicide rates plummeting, productivity up 300%, people spending time with parents and grandparents again? record sign ups in sports clubs, record birth rates etc. Be careful what you wish for ;-)
- paxys 4y ago
  If the state has total control over every aspect of their citizens' lives they can model the population into any perfect utopia they desire. I'd still not like to live in that world.
  - barbazoo 4y ago
    Isn't this the opposite though? They're not telling people how to live their lives. They're taking away the power Facebook has over many people's lives so people might enjoy their lives in more social and healthy ways again.
    - staunton 4y ago
      "any legislation restricting behavior actually frees people to do what they always wanted (the government knows best what that is) but just couldn't because of all these other possibilities misguiding them"
      - throwaway290 4y ago
        "there should be no laws against tobacco, alcohol, drug abuse, gambling because people can't possibly be misguided by powerful corporate interests for profit or otherwise"
        staunton 4y ago
        That's not what I said. There is a balance to be found. I only objected to "this restriction actually makes everyone free (to do what I think they should)" being used as an argument. If enough people agree, sure, you can ban social media. The reasoning should be a cost benefit analysis though, not "my laws shall make you free".
        throwaway290 4y ago
        Yes, balance is important. I guess if the law is passed then enough people agree...
    - MBCook 4y ago
      They’re also taking away the support some marginalized people may get from social networks (eg LGBT, uncommon religions for the area) that their local community doesn’t provide/discriminates against/their parents hate. Social networks, for all their faults, are not pure evil. They can be beneficial for some people.
      - throwaway290 4y ago
        Do you think one would have to be on a network with at least 5 million users to get this sort of support as opposed to a smaller one, perhaps specifically oriented towards this sort of stuff? The latter is as legal as before I think.
  - eru 4y ago
    > If the state has total control over every aspect of their citizens' lives they can model the population into any perfect utopia they desire. That has never worked before. I don't think it'll work in the future.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Are you referring to China or USSR by chance? Hardly utopias. It's not about every aspect of life but a few key norms. I see this predatory social media like gambling if not worse, and gambling is regulated in most places
ajhurliman 4y ago
I’m sure you’re writing all of this in a “yeah, that’ll teach em” voice, but this all sounds amazing. Please, let social media block everyone, become irrelevant, then bring back the old internet.
- MBCook 4y ago
  I expect if it were to happen there would be a very large outcry (in Utah at a minimum) and the law would be changed/repealed quickly. It would be a VERY interesting natural experiment if it stayed in effect. People would find ways back on, but not everyone would be willing to go through the hoops. What would that do in even a month or two?
  - christophilus 4y ago
    I suspect it would improve things drastically in Utah. That’s what I’d bet on, anyway. I’m a libertarianish person, so I don’t love this legislation, but… I’m not gonna lie. It half makes me want to move to Utah.
- t-writescode 4y ago
  While you may not like the current method of communication and congregation, you must understand _why_ we have the first amendment, right? Congregating together and discussing ideas of (nearly) any sort is an absolutely vital part of democracy and a free society
  - raincole 4y ago
    People (like the one above you) don't care about the first amendment as long as their favorite things aren't affected. ...and that's why the first amendment exists.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      They're excited about the idea of those sites blocking users in general. It's not really a first amendment thing. That comment isn't focused on the broader context.
chudmeister 4y ago
[dead]

by MBCook 4y ago

meghan_rain 4y ago

Lmao imagine Utah becoming the most mentally healthy region on earth, suicide rates plummeting, productivity up 300%, people spending time with parents and grandparents again? record sign ups in sports clubs, record birth rates etc. Be careful what you wish for ;-)

paxys 4y ago
If the state has total control over every aspect of their citizens' lives they can model the population into any perfect utopia they desire. I'd still not like to live in that world.
- barbazoo 4y ago
  Isn't this the opposite though? They're not telling people how to live their lives. They're taking away the power Facebook has over many people's lives so people might enjoy their lives in more social and healthy ways again.
  - staunton 4y ago
    "any legislation restricting behavior actually frees people to do what they always wanted (the government knows best what that is) but just couldn't because of all these other possibilities misguiding them"
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      "there should be no laws against tobacco, alcohol, drug abuse, gambling because people can't possibly be misguided by powerful corporate interests for profit or otherwise"
      - staunton 4y ago
        That's not what I said. There is a balance to be found. I only objected to "this restriction actually makes everyone free (to do what I think they should)" being used as an argument. If enough people agree, sure, you can ban social media. The reasoning should be a cost benefit analysis though, not "my laws shall make you free".
        throwaway290 4y ago
        Yes, balance is important. I guess if the law is passed then enough people agree...
  - MBCook 4y ago
    They’re also taking away the support some marginalized people may get from social networks (eg LGBT, uncommon religions for the area) that their local community doesn’t provide/discriminates against/their parents hate. Social networks, for all their faults, are not pure evil. They can be beneficial for some people.
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Do you think one would have to be on a network with at least 5 million users to get this sort of support as opposed to a smaller one, perhaps specifically oriented towards this sort of stuff? The latter is as legal as before I think.
- eru 4y ago
  > If the state has total control over every aspect of their citizens' lives they can model the population into any perfect utopia they desire. That has never worked before. I don't think it'll work in the future.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  Are you referring to China or USSR by chance? Hardly utopias. It's not about every aspect of life but a few key norms. I see this predatory social media like gambling if not worse, and gambling is regulated in most places

ajhurliman 4y ago

I’m sure you’re writing all of this in a “yeah, that’ll teach em” voice, but this all sounds amazing. Please, let social media block everyone, become irrelevant, then bring back the old internet.

MBCook 4y ago
I expect if it were to happen there would be a very large outcry (in Utah at a minimum) and the law would be changed/repealed quickly. It would be a VERY interesting natural experiment if it stayed in effect. People would find ways back on, but not everyone would be willing to go through the hoops. What would that do in even a month or two?
- christophilus 4y ago
  I suspect it would improve things drastically in Utah. That’s what I’d bet on, anyway. I’m a libertarianish person, so I don’t love this legislation, but… I’m not gonna lie. It half makes me want to move to Utah.
t-writescode 4y ago
While you may not like the current method of communication and congregation, you must understand _why_ we have the first amendment, right? Congregating together and discussing ideas of (nearly) any sort is an absolutely vital part of democracy and a free society
- raincole 4y ago
  People (like the one above you) don't care about the first amendment as long as their favorite things aren't affected. ...and that's why the first amendment exists.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    They're excited about the idea of those sites blocking users in general. It's not really a first amendment thing. That comment isn't focused on the broader context.

chudmeister 4y ago

[dead]