7 ms·

> There’s exceptions for email, Netflix, Amazon, news, traditional media kinds of sites. The fact that there are 20 categories of services exempted shows that

• bawolff 4y ago
  Facebook starts a career networking subfeature in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
  • hackmiester 4y ago
    You can already apply for jobs on Facebook. (J) already applies to Facebook. edit: This is false as of 22 Feb, when Facebook Jobs was discontinued. I didn't realize.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• UnpossibleJim 4y ago
  LOL, according to this, my family's group text thread is illegal under this law, as DMs can only be between 2 people. EDIT: serious question; would Slack be professional networking or, how does that work under this bill? It's DMing for business, but it isn't really networking.
  • hattmall 4y ago
    Group chats wouldn't be illegal, that's not an online service where you sign up and make a profile etc. This applies only to sites that would serve you random content from random users... i.e. Social Media.
    • eyelidlessness 4y ago
      Most Slack usage I’m aware of doesn’t fit the description, but some does. Quite a lot of Discord usage however…
    • 8note 4y ago
      That would not need a carve out for private messages between two profiles
  • dragonwriter 4y ago
    > as DMs can only be between 2 people. Nothing in the law restricts to DMs being between two people, it just distinguishes them from public content.
    • judge2020 4y ago
      As I understand it, > (I) shared between the sender and the recipient; 171 (II) only visible to the sender and the recipient; and 172 (III) are not posted publicly; maybe sender and recipient can be considered a group chat with multiple recipients? Otherwise you wouldn't classify something like Kik or Discord as social media.
      • deleted 4y ago
• srcreigh 4y ago
  This seems like a reasonable list. I’m not opposed to the idea of whitelisting healthy online activities and limiting anything else. They could go further and whitelist sites like HN, arch forums etc where it’s educational Sibling comment mentioned how group chats aren’t exempted. I’ve seen group chats get very unhealthy before. 2 is low, maybe 5 or 8 participants max would be ok.
  • MacsHeadroom 4y ago
    I hope you realize that every adult in the state will now have to verify their state ID to use an account on virtually any website so that the site can prove they're only serving adults. These lists of IDs will leak.
  • Mezzie 4y ago
    I mean when teens/children congregate in large numbers anywhere they get unhealthy. Like it or not, the digital realm is part of life and they have to learn to handle disagreements, toxic people, etc. at some point. If their adults won't supervise them/help them, that's on the adults. If they can't, then our society needs to start educating adults on how to parent in the digital age. But that would be slow and cost $$$ and possibly empower the populace, so we won't do it.
• hatsunearu 4y ago
  >(F) interactive gaming, virtual gaming, or an online service, that allows the creation and uploading of content for the purpose of interactive gaming, edutainment, or associated entertainment, So Roblox, arguably quite harmful to children, is specifically carved out. That's great.
  • okhuman 4y ago
    Whats going on at Roblox? Curious, as a parent myself.
    • melagonster 4y ago
      Isaw twice similar comments but I didn't spend time to found it :/
    • red369 4y ago
      This article and thread lists some of the issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32014754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32014754
    • jb1991 4y ago
      History of adults masquerading as children for purposes of pedophilia.
      • MomoXenosaga 4y ago
        History of adults masquerading as church leaders for purposes of pedophilia.
        • tstrimple 4y ago
          The church is often on their "team" so it gets a pass for rampant child abuse. Notice none of the groomer allegations are directed at the church despite the church abusing exponentially more children than people in drag. There is no global drag organization which is protecting members found to be abusing children by moving them into new areas where people don't know their priest is a pedophile the way we see in the church. If the "protect children" cries were honest, the churches and clergy should be one of the primary targets. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/religion/nearly-1-700-priests-clergy-accused-sex-abuse-are-unsupervised-n1062396 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/religion/nearly-1-700-priests-c... > Nearly 1,700 priests and other clergy members that the Roman Catholic Church considers credibly accused of child sexual abuse are living under the radar with little to no oversight from religious authorities or law enforcement, decades after the first wave of the church abuse scandal roiled U.S. dioceses, an Associated Press investigation has found. > These priests, deacons, monks and lay people now teach middle-school math. They counsel survivors of sexual assault. They work as nurses and volunteer at nonprofits aimed at helping at-risk kids. They live next to playgrounds and daycare centers. They foster and care for children. > And in their time since leaving the church, dozens have committed crimes, including sexual assault and possessing child pornography, the AP’s analysis found.
• hackernewds 4y ago
  There are a lot of J) category content on TikTok. They should have just curated and mandated a kid's version
• noduerme 4y ago
  I don't know how to judge a bill, but I read this, and it seems that the intent is to broadly ban everything first and then carve out exceptions for almost everything except for a single category: Direct messaging (^B) between MORE than two users for non-creative, non-commercial, non-educational purposes. AKA forums and memes. Is that a fair analysis? [edit] : per privacy advocates - no, I don't think it's okay to start with a law that bans everything and carve out exceptions; obviously, that way lies totalitarianism. I'm just trying to get a handle on the immediate intent. There's a boolean at work here. I guess someone was like, "hey, why chip away at forums and meme sites when we can just ban everything in theory, let most of it slide, and work back toward totalitarianism from there with the law already in place?" [edit2] HN appears to be totally banhammered under this since /the mods/ don't post the news.
  • dragonwriter 4y ago
    > HN appears to be totally banhammered under this since /the mods/ don’t post the news. Does HN have more than 5 million user accounts?
    • jandrese 4y ago
      I guarantee that there are more than 5 million bot accounts alone.
      • dahart 4y ago
        Ooh I’m curious to hear more. Do you have inside knowledge, or see widespread evidence of bots? I’ve only seen perhaps a few here and there, almost always downvoted to oblivion.
        • judge2020 4y ago
          It's not just bots posting, but other bots upvoting those posts. If it can get on the bottom of the front page for even 5 minutes, that's probably x > 1000 clicks.
    • 4y ago
• JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > that there are 20 categories of services exempted shows that this is a terrible bill This is how privacy died. Someone fought for everything. Compromised for everything but twenty. Nobody supported the fight. Then, when the deal was announced, out came the pitchforks for perfection.
• quotemstr 4y ago
  Doesn't G exempt Instagram? And isn't Instagram allegedly among the worst social network for teens?
• Brybry 4y ago
  Texas had to do similar exclusions for their "anti-censorship" anti-moderation bill. [1][2] [1] https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/HB00020F.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/HB00020F... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_House_Bill_20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_House_Bill_20
  • _heimdall 4y ago
    The list of bills that don't require long lists of arbitrary definitions and exceptions is ridiculously small. Making laws that cover millions of people is way too complex for something so detailed. There's no way around that complexity leading to a pile of garbage legal mumbo-jumbo as they realize it's nearly impossible to draw a neat line around the problem.
• hackmiester 4y ago
  (J) applies to Facebook as well. edit: This is false as of 22 Feb, when Facebook Jobs was discontinued. I didn't realize.
  • 8note 4y ago
    If you've got professional contacts on Facebook, or if you're following businesses, I think it would count?
• ipaddr 4y ago
  "preselected by the provider" This is the area that gets grey. If the provide applies any filter or AI judgement it becomes preselected. This applies to tiktok, facebook, youtube and ig. This law bans old school forums and reddit but not if results are displayed by "best match"
• saalweachter 4y ago
  I owe my entire professional career to the Megatokyo forums and the associated IRC server.
• vanilla_nut 4y ago
  (G) photo editing that has an associated photo hosting service, if the interaction with other users or account holders is generally limited to liking or commenting Does this mean the 2012 version of Instagram is rendered immune to this law thanks to this obnoxious Google Photos carveout?
• javajosh 4y ago
  >(J) is a carve-out for linkedin, wonderful. It would be utterly fascinating if LinkedIn became Utah's de facto LGBTQ online space.
• frob 4y ago
  And (T) is a carve-out for the genealogy industry run by the Morman church