10 ms·

I 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

I 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]
- transcoderx 4y ago
  Fox News makes the laws in Utah?
morbia 4y ago
Gay guy here. I have always said that these sort of laws designed to protect children will do precisely the opposite. An LGBTQ child is effectively forcibly outed by this law, potentially before they've come to terms with their sexuality / gender themselves. Whilst I don't doubt social media causes a lot of harm on children growing up, giving parents full access to your messages is not the solution. In my opinion, based off a scale of a child's age and maturity, children are entitled to some privacy. Clearly a 4 year old shouldn't be left alone with unfettered access to the Internet, but equally a 16 year old shouldn't have to feel like their parents are watching everything they do or say. Both can cause long term psychological harm to a child.
- watwut 4y ago
  They are not designed to protect kids. There is always campaign designed to elicit fear and contempt and then they take controlling laws. Talking about it as if safety was a goal instead of control is just falling into their lie.
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    It's never about the kids protection/rights. Kids don't vote, parents do. Nearly every proposed law marketed as protecting kids is actually about increasing parent or state control over kids.
    - nine_k 4y ago
      It's always important to remember that the tools that enable freedom, like voting, can be used against freedom, if enough of the population does not value it.
- realworldperson 4y ago
  [dead]
- pjc50 4y ago
  Yes. This should be seen in the context of the huge set of anti-trans laws and the Florida book banning. There is going to be another attempt at making it illegal for kids to hear about non-straight people at all. And outing kids to their parents, even at risk of violence, is a part of that. The "land of free speech" always has a big "not you" exemption that can be wielded against people who aren't WASPy enough. Edit: see the absolutely huge number of people on HN downthread cheering this on because they hate Facebook. Strange world.
johnchristopher 4y ago
> 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. There's not enough details but I take it online communities were social networks of that time ? I understand self-hosted boards would still be available to teens under this law. Otherwise, I don't see how algorithmic generated content benefits teens if the goal is to participate in a community.
data_maan 4y ago
This 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
Mezzie 4y ago
I'd like to add that this may have outsized unintended effects like COPPA did - COPPA being the law that established that accounts online required you to be 13. I was 12 when COPPA went into effect. What a lot of people don't know about COPPA is that there is a provision to allow for children under 13 to have accounts with proven parental permission. My parents would have allowed me - I'd been online for 8 years at that point and they were both techy types who could supervise me. However, it wasn't worth the extra logistics for companies, so they just outright banned anyone under 13. Likewise, if this is enacted in enough states or the logistics of figuring out which people to track becomes too burdensome, I'd expect to see sites not letting anyone under 18 use them and to start collecting everyone's information. Which would have some really bad second-order impacts. In addition to the impacts others have mentioned on minority populations, I have two main concerns: - Cutting off the parental rights of those who want to be permissive with their kids. My parents didn't believe in content restrictions; the one ideological idea they agree on is free access to knowledge. I was given an adult library card at 5-6 and full Internet access at around the same age and discussions on how to interpret what we saw in the news/in media/etc. was a common discussion point. My mother is from a media studies family and my father's family are tech tinkerers. Families like mine will be functionally unable to raise their children as they would prefer. - More relevant to society as a whole, sure, let's ban their access until they're 18. Then when kids move out/leave at 18, not only do they have to navigate the world, they have to be introduced to social media with absolutely no oversight. And 18 year olds are legally "adults", so companies will have a group of completely defenseless people to take advantage of who can be held to their bad decisions. (Think like credit card companies who hang out at freshmen college/uni events). It's similar to raising the driving age: While raising the driving age does prevent accidents, the highest rate of bad driving comes from new drivers. If the driving age is lower, those new drivers are more likely to have people to call if they do get into trouble and make their mistakes when they're less likely to ruin their lives. Likewise, the worst effects of social media will be felt by those who are new users.
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  How likely is it that today's teens simply check the "I am over 18" box and set themselves a fake birthday that is Jan 1 from 20 years ago? I've been 25 for the past 25 years, after all.
nonethewiser 4y ago
> (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 Sounds more like they are protecting against children consuming toxic or mind numbing content.
- tzs 4y ago
  > Sounds more like they are protecting against children consuming toxic or mind numbing content. If that was the case it would not exclude comments on digital news websites. Those are usually a cesspool.
  - jjeaff 4y ago
    I doubt anyone thinks reading those comments are good. They just made the carve out to avoid including news sites in the ban.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
taxyz 4y ago
I think this is a little less sinister than you are making it out to be. To me, it reads as the intent of those exemptions is because those sites (CNN, Fox, ESPN, etc) exercise editorial discretion around what content is posted and, presumably, should be more active in moderating/enabling/disabling discussion comments. Sites like reddit (since you mention r/exmormon) while are user moderated ultimately escape liability behind section 230. It's a separate debate for us to argue what is more harmful to children/minors/teens - news/sports/entertainment media vs social media but with our current legal framework these exemptions kinda make sense. If what you are worried about is brainwashing, being solicited, general harm from both users and algorithms, its probably true that that is less likely to happen to a kid in the comments section of an ESPN article than it is on reddit/4chan/tiktok/instagram - and when it does happen at least there is someone to hold somewhat responsible.
thomastjeffery 4y ago
I think you have recognized a significant part of the motivations behind this, but you're missing a key detail: pornography. The Corporation for the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - which is currently embarrassed to be known colloquially as the Mormon church - has declared "pornography" to be one of the most menacing and dangerous things in our society. Most of the people in Utah's government, including the governor and both senators, are active members in the Mormon church. "Active" is a key word here: it is not by any means a casual relationship, especially if you want political support from other Mormons. The narratives surrounding porn as "a threat to children" tend to conclude that all content a child interacts with must be curated to protect them from that danger. It's trivial to just blacklist pornhub et al with DNS filtering. You can't go blocking Reddit or Facebook, though: that would be an overreach, placing you clearly in the realm of "helicopter parenting". This law has two effects: 1. It gives parents the social excuse to invade their children's privacy: It's the law's fault now. 2. It gives parents the social responsibility to invade their children's privacy: it must be irresponsible not to. To invade a child's privacy is to do harm. This law, and all of the intent it came from, demands that harm be done in the name of safety.
- jstarfish 4y ago
  "Children's privacy" isn't a thing. They are wards of their parents, whose basic fucking job requires they have some clue where the kid is and what they're getting up to. Then you bring up porn, something illegal for children to be accessing anyway. You are aware of this, yes? Shame on parents for daring to uphold the law in their own homes.
  - thomastjeffery 4y ago
    Legality is not morality. It is a parent's responsibility to ensure their child is safe, and that does involve some level of intrusion. It doesn't mean reading their diary or listening in on every conversation they have with their friends. How else can a child learn healthy boundaries? Is it really a surprise to you that many humans under the age of 18 are watching porn? A vague legal threat never stopped me, and it's not going to stop most teenagers. No matter what the law says, that is the reality we live in. As I see it, changing the legal age for porn consumption would be a political nightmare, not because it's hard to argue that teenagers should be allowed, but because it is hard to argue that teenagers should be marketed to as direct consumers. Personally, I find this entire situation counterproductive, but the tacit allowal of teenagers to watch porn (and not necessarily pay for it) without prosecution has been a workable compromise.
camhart 4y ago
I think it's far more likely this bill is due to the high teen suicide rate in Utah. [1] https://utah-health.shorthandstories.com/state-of-suffering/index.html https://utah-health.shorthandstories.com/state-of-suffering/...
xnx 4y ago
Good point. I hadn't even considered the Mormon angle. I've learned so much about Mormon culture on Tiktok that blew my mind.

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]

transcoderx 4y ago
Fox News makes the laws in Utah?

morbia 4y ago

Gay guy here. I have always said that these sort of laws designed to protect children will do precisely the opposite. An LGBTQ child is effectively forcibly outed by this law, potentially before they've come to terms with their sexuality / gender themselves. Whilst I don't doubt social media causes a lot of harm on children growing up, giving parents full access to your messages is not the solution. In my opinion, based off a scale of a child's age and maturity, children are entitled to some privacy. Clearly a 4 year old shouldn't be left alone with unfettered access to the Internet, but equally a 16 year old shouldn't have to feel like their parents are watching everything they do or say. Both can cause long term psychological harm to a child.

watwut 4y ago
They are not designed to protect kids. There is always campaign designed to elicit fear and contempt and then they take controlling laws. Talking about it as if safety was a goal instead of control is just falling into their lie.
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  It's never about the kids protection/rights. Kids don't vote, parents do. Nearly every proposed law marketed as protecting kids is actually about increasing parent or state control over kids.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    It's always important to remember that the tools that enable freedom, like voting, can be used against freedom, if enough of the population does not value it.
realworldperson 4y ago
[dead]
pjc50 4y ago
Yes. This should be seen in the context of the huge set of anti-trans laws and the Florida book banning. There is going to be another attempt at making it illegal for kids to hear about non-straight people at all. And outing kids to their parents, even at risk of violence, is a part of that. The "land of free speech" always has a big "not you" exemption that can be wielded against people who aren't WASPy enough. Edit: see the absolutely huge number of people on HN downthread cheering this on because they hate Facebook. Strange world.

johnchristopher 4y ago

> 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. There's not enough details but I take it online communities were social networks of that time ? I understand self-hosted boards would still be available to teens under this law. Otherwise, I don't see how algorithmic generated content benefits teens if the goal is to participate in a community.

data_maan 4y ago

This 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

Mezzie 4y ago

I'd like to add that this may have outsized unintended effects like COPPA did - COPPA being the law that established that accounts online required you to be 13. I was 12 when COPPA went into effect. What a lot of people don't know about COPPA is that there is a provision to allow for children under 13 to have accounts with proven parental permission. My parents would have allowed me - I'd been online for 8 years at that point and they were both techy types who could supervise me. However, it wasn't worth the extra logistics for companies, so they just outright banned anyone under 13. Likewise, if this is enacted in enough states or the logistics of figuring out which people to track becomes too burdensome, I'd expect to see sites not letting anyone under 18 use them and to start collecting everyone's information. Which would have some really bad second-order impacts. In addition to the impacts others have mentioned on minority populations, I have two main concerns: - Cutting off the parental rights of those who want to be permissive with their kids. My parents didn't believe in content restrictions; the one ideological idea they agree on is free access to knowledge. I was given an adult library card at 5-6 and full Internet access at around the same age and discussions on how to interpret what we saw in the news/in media/etc. was a common discussion point. My mother is from a media studies family and my father's family are tech tinkerers. Families like mine will be functionally unable to raise their children as they would prefer. - More relevant to society as a whole, sure, let's ban their access until they're 18. Then when kids move out/leave at 18, not only do they have to navigate the world, they have to be introduced to social media with absolutely no oversight. And 18 year olds are legally "adults", so companies will have a group of completely defenseless people to take advantage of who can be held to their bad decisions. (Think like credit card companies who hang out at freshmen college/uni events). It's similar to raising the driving age: While raising the driving age does prevent accidents, the highest rate of bad driving comes from new drivers. If the driving age is lower, those new drivers are more likely to have people to call if they do get into trouble and make their mistakes when they're less likely to ruin their lives. Likewise, the worst effects of social media will be felt by those who are new users.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago
How likely is it that today's teens simply check the "I am over 18" box and set themselves a fake birthday that is Jan 1 from 20 years ago? I've been 25 for the past 25 years, after all.

nonethewiser 4y ago

> (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 Sounds more like they are protecting against children consuming toxic or mind numbing content.

tzs 4y ago
> Sounds more like they are protecting against children consuming toxic or mind numbing content. If that was the case it would not exclude comments on digital news websites. Those are usually a cesspool.
- jjeaff 4y ago
  I doubt anyone thinks reading those comments are good. They just made the carve out to avoid including news sites in the ban.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

taxyz 4y ago

I think this is a little less sinister than you are making it out to be. To me, it reads as the intent of those exemptions is because those sites (CNN, Fox, ESPN, etc) exercise editorial discretion around what content is posted and, presumably, should be more active in moderating/enabling/disabling discussion comments. Sites like reddit (since you mention r/exmormon) while are user moderated ultimately escape liability behind section 230. It's a separate debate for us to argue what is more harmful to children/minors/teens - news/sports/entertainment media vs social media but with our current legal framework these exemptions kinda make sense. If what you are worried about is brainwashing, being solicited, general harm from both users and algorithms, its probably true that that is less likely to happen to a kid in the comments section of an ESPN article than it is on reddit/4chan/tiktok/instagram - and when it does happen at least there is someone to hold somewhat responsible.

thomastjeffery 4y ago

I think you have recognized a significant part of the motivations behind this, but you're missing a key detail: pornography. The Corporation for the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - which is currently embarrassed to be known colloquially as the Mormon church - has declared "pornography" to be one of the most menacing and dangerous things in our society. Most of the people in Utah's government, including the governor and both senators, are active members in the Mormon church. "Active" is a key word here: it is not by any means a casual relationship, especially if you want political support from other Mormons. The narratives surrounding porn as "a threat to children" tend to conclude that all content a child interacts with must be curated to protect them from that danger. It's trivial to just blacklist pornhub et al with DNS filtering. You can't go blocking Reddit or Facebook, though: that would be an overreach, placing you clearly in the realm of "helicopter parenting". This law has two effects: 1. It gives parents the social excuse to invade their children's privacy: It's the law's fault now. 2. It gives parents the social responsibility to invade their children's privacy: it must be irresponsible not to. To invade a child's privacy is to do harm. This law, and all of the intent it came from, demands that harm be done in the name of safety.

jstarfish 4y ago
"Children's privacy" isn't a thing. They are wards of their parents, whose basic fucking job requires they have some clue where the kid is and what they're getting up to. Then you bring up porn, something illegal for children to be accessing anyway. You are aware of this, yes? Shame on parents for daring to uphold the law in their own homes.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  Legality is not morality. It is a parent's responsibility to ensure their child is safe, and that does involve some level of intrusion. It doesn't mean reading their diary or listening in on every conversation they have with their friends. How else can a child learn healthy boundaries? Is it really a surprise to you that many humans under the age of 18 are watching porn? A vague legal threat never stopped me, and it's not going to stop most teenagers. No matter what the law says, that is the reality we live in. As I see it, changing the legal age for porn consumption would be a political nightmare, not because it's hard to argue that teenagers should be allowed, but because it is hard to argue that teenagers should be marketed to as direct consumers. Personally, I find this entire situation counterproductive, but the tacit allowal of teenagers to watch porn (and not necessarily pay for it) without prosecution has been a workable compromise.

camhart 4y ago

I think it's far more likely this bill is due to the high teen suicide rate in Utah. [1] https://utah-health.shorthandstories.com/state-of-suffering/index.html https://utah-health.shorthandstories.com/state-of-suffering/...

xnx 4y ago

Good point. I hadn't even considered the Mormon angle. I've learned so much about Mormon culture on Tiktok that blew my mind.