7 ms·
New Arkansas bill to keep minors off social media exempts most social platforms
- jmclnx 4y agoSo they exempt platforms with deep pockets ? So much for the "I like small business" meme politicians love to bring up.
- openasocket 4y agoThey also exempt social media companies with less than 100 million gross revenue
- toxicFork 4y agoSo which ones does it apply to in the end?
- jcl 4y agoPer the article, probably just Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- b800h 4y agoFacebook and Twitter, I think.
- Taywee 4y ago> That may limit the new age restrictions to just Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. So pretty much it's a specifically worded bill to just hit those three.
- wongarsu 4y agoOr alternatively Twitter and Meta are the only ones not successfully lobbying for an exemption. After all, the exemptions for everyone else seem to be various last-minute amendments.
- wongarsu 4y agoTwitter, Facebook, and Instagram
- marcosdumay 4y agoWell, from the article, if you make a mildly successful multiplayer game, you better allow players to share tick-tock style videos too, or it will apply to you. But I have no idea if the article representation of it is correct (that would be a first), and no interest on reading the original.
- Thorrez 4y agoVideo games are also exempted.
- concordDance 4y agoOther way around. Only applies to big ones.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago> That may limit the new age restrictions to just Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. It seems like TikTok and Google lobbied hard to escape.
- mysterydip 4y agoSo is the goal to prevent a new social media platform from gaining traction under the guise of "think of the children"?
- b800h 4y agoWell no, because your revenue has to already be over 100m. Its odd.
- birdymcbird 4y agonot sure how to feel about this law in general. absolutely do not want me grand kids on twitter or facebook and me kids even more against it. but not sure how state can enforce and state should enforce. feel like 1984 book.
- otikik 4y agoIf it’s proven that is bad for them, I would not be so opposed. Same with alcohol or tobacco.
- irrational 4y ago[gestures broadly all around]
- concordDance 4y agoThat's a rather useless answer. You should link to some website for further reading or at least take a stab at what sorts of mechanisms cause harm if you really want to post something.
- fortissimohn 4y agoDriving is proven to be very dangerous but our government still encourages us to brave traffic every day.
- ydlr 4y agoWith regulations, including government issued id and adult supervision of people under a certain age.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- JasserInicide 4y agoDriving in a necessity in most of America, alcohol and tobacco is not.
- keiferski 4y agoIs there a formal name to describe incumbents pushing for regulations in order to keep out new competitors? Something more specific than just “anti-competitive, monopolistic,” etc. This seems like such a common tactic that I’d expect there to be academic studies about it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- InvaderFizz 4y agoRegulatory Capture
- docandrew 4y agoRent-seeking?
- baremetal 4y agoNeoliberal crony capitalism?
- nequo 4y agoWhat makes lobbying to regulate your competitors out of existence neoliberal?
- samtheprogram 4y ago“It’s regulation”
- ericmay 4y agoFurther, what exactly does this have to do with capitalism? This is strictly a failure of government, and by extension the people.
- dylmarcor 4y agoIt’s predatory incumbent firms and industries that seek to manipulate thru regulation, so it’s private sector first coming to utilize public sector for protections. So I’d say it’s pretty capitalist initially, and then a failing of government second.
- coldcode 4y agoClearly, the point is to look good to some prospective voters that likely won't get legally rejected because it applies to no one. You can claim to have done something without worrying about a messy reality.
- j_walter 4y agoWelcome to most politics. Crime goes up, here's a new task force that has no teeth to make any real changes...but look we did something.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoDid someone just say blue ribbon committee? All my fears have vanished:D
- cscurmudgeon 4y agoIt says this right in the article: > That may limit the new age restrictions to just Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. It seems the purpose was to ban anything else other than TikTok.
- holyknight 4y agokinda makes sense, it's addressing a very specific problem that mostly arises around instagram and tiktok.
- hestefisk 4y agoBut strangely TikTok seems exempt? Or maybe they rely on federal lawmakers to can it from the US altogether?
- Rebelgecko 4y agoIf they were worried about Tiktok they wouldn't have an exception written to protect any "social media company that allows a user to generate short video clips of dancing, voice overs, or other acts of entertainment"
- vhold 4y agoI think people may be overlooking a bigger story here: https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/FTPDocument?path=%2FBills%2F2023R%2FPublic%2FSB396.pdf https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/FTPDocument?path=%2FBil... Reasonable age verification methods under subdivision (c)(1) of this section include providing: (A) A digitized identification card, including a digital copy of a driver's license under § 27-16-601 et seq.; (B) Government-issued identification; or (C) Any commercially reasonable age verification method. "Digitized identification card" means a data file available on a mobile device that has connectivity to the internet through a state approved application that allows the mobile device to download the data file from the Office of Driver Services that contains all of the data elements visible on the face and back of a driver's license or identification card and displays the current status of the driver's license or identification card, including valid, expired, cancelled, suspended, revoked, active, or inactive;
- Strom 4y ago> Any commercially reasonable age verification method. Is being born in 1900-01-01 still reasonable? The linked document remains extremely vague about what is reasonable.
- 2h 4y ago> Reasonable No definition of that word matches their usage of it. Your papers, please. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_papers,_please https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_papers,_please
- nverno 4y agoYea that's BS. I didn't have any ID till I was 16 and got a driver's license. A lot of kids, like city kids, don't get one till years later. Are they planning to create a new type of ID for children? I wouldn't want my kids anywhere near social media either, but I wouldn't want to rely on the state to track and police their behaviour.
- atkailash 4y ago[dead]
- ProAm 4y agoSo in Arkansas you are allowed to go work at age 13 without parental consent but not allowed to use social media? Got it. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/08/politics/sarah-huckabee-sanders-arkansas-child-labor/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/08/politics/sarah-huckabee-sande...
- AbrahamParangi 4y agoThat seems completely coherent to me. Getting a job as a teen is good for you. It teaches delayed gratification, working with others, responsibility and it provides a measure of independence early. Social media, on the other hand, will make teens depressed. The association of social media => teen depression is ~5x stronger than cigarettes => lung cancer, which is a completely unfair comparison for cigarettes because you get the lung cancer 50 years later and you get the depression today.
- flangola7 4y agoKids should absolutely not be working until at least 18. It is not good for them at all. That's time that should be used for education, not throwing them into the meat grinder early.
- 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- beej71 4y agoI can't quite tell which social media sites this does cover...?
- Rebelgecko 4y agoRight? They mention youtube and Instagram but those should be covered by the short dance video exception
- akersten 4y agoI'm baffled by the general lack of absolute outrage around these recent bills requiring government issued ID to use the internet. Most of the comments here are discussing irrelevant nuances like "oh, well it seems to only apply to platforms above a certain size," while ignoring the atrocity that these bills represent for the freedoms and privacy that we've all taken for granted up until now. Get your bloody hands off my internet was a common bond hackers shared when I was growing up and using this allegedly dangerous thing at the ripe age of 10. Did enough of us become disengaged parents who want the government to sanitize a beautiful sea of expression because we're too lazy to teach our kids about it? Do we not see the path that bills like this lead us down? I fear that the golden age of information is waning. My only hope is that this kind of nonsense doesn't spread outside of the flyover states, where it might have an actual chance at needing to be implemented. I'm just so angry and disappointed that no one is fighting this as hard as we should be. "Think of the children" is such a cheap parlor trick.
- PragmaticPulp 4y agoThe cookie consent law followed a similar path: A lot of people saw the proposals and assumed it would only hurt the websites they didn’t like. Then the laws passed and now almost every website you visit comes with an annoying cookie pop-up. I’m baffled by all the HN comments from people who think this will only apply to websites they don’t use. No, it’s going to become a miserable burden on the entire internet if it happens. A remarkable number of commenters haven’t stopped to think about how all of these websites will only apply the laws to minors: The answer is that they’ll have to ID everyone. Either that, or it becomes a silly checkbox for kids to say that they’re over 18.
- gabereiser 4y agoCan't sign up without a credit card, credit cards are issued to folks 18 and over. This is how they've done it up until this point (with little success). Making a "know your user" law like banking, no one will want to deal with the hassle and so only corporations (with big pockets to spend on this kind of Deloitte BS) will be able to compete on the internet. It's a travesty.
- prakhar897 4y agoNice, Another MOAT added to social media platforms. Big platforms like Facebook can spend a lot of money complying with the "law" whereas the startups disrupting it will die.
- cma 4y agoIt's like an inverted bill of attainder.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Nice, Another MOAT added to social media platforms. Its an anti-moat, since it is crafted to apply only to a few leading platforms, and specifically excludes any platform with less than $100 million in current annual revenue.
- jjeaff 4y agoIt appears to exempt you if your gross revenue is less than $100m. So no Twitter but you can use Truth Social and Gab.
- Beaver117 4y agoStop talking about it, just do it. Ban all social media. See what happens
- DeathMetal3000 4y agoSo the handful of companies that are not exempted will simply add support for short dance videos thus guaranteeing that the Venn diagram of affected companies will include exactly no one. This is political theatre in its purest form.
- jbullock35 4y agoDoes the bill actually apply to any social media platform? The article notes that the bill exempts most platforms and any “social media company that allows a user to generate short video clips of dancing, voice overs, or other acts of entertainment.” You can generate those clips with TikTok and with Meta's tools, so they seem to be exempt. Maybe the bill applies to Reddit and to Twitter?