21 ms·

I might be the only one here in favor of this, and wanting to see a federal rollout. It is not reasonable to expect parents to spontaneously agree on a strateg

by causal 3y ago

I might be the only one here in favor of this, and wanting to see a federal rollout. It is not reasonable to expect parents to spontaneously agree on a strategy for keeping kids off social media- and that kind of coordination is what it would take, because the kids + social media companies have more than enough time to coordinate workarounds. Have the law put the social media companies on the parents side, or these kids may never be given the chance to develop into healthy adults themselves.

andy99 3y ago
I'm in favor of kids not using social media, but not of the government forcing this on people nor spinning up whatever absurd regulatory regime is required. And the chance of actually enforcing it is zero anyway. It's no more realistic to expect this to work than to expect all parents to do it as you say. It's just wasted money plus personal intrusion that won't achieve anything.
- soco 3y ago
  Is there an alternative? Self-control - as we have now - brought us here. If the government shouldn't step in then the only other option left (only I can see) is magic. And we have a bad record with magic.
- JoshTko 3y ago
  I used to want no govt intrusion for this. Then I understood how there are teams of PHDs tweaking feed to maximize addition at each social network. I think there could be even limits, or some sort of tax on gen pop.
  - protocolture 3y ago
    It would be less imposing on the populace if you just demanded a government hit squad kill those PHD's instead of demanding everyone submit to some onerous government crapware to access the internet.
    - JoshTko 3y ago
      There are plenty of middle ground approaches - one possible one: App default would be restricted time use. To get unrestrxistricted use you use a driver's license to authenticate birthdate only with OS. Mobile OS only confirming with app that user is above age requirement (does not share birthdate). App can only query if user is above 18yrs and nothing else. Easy peasy.
      - protocolture 3y ago
        So more crapware?
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  Several governments have already effectively banned sites like Pornhub by creating regimes where people have to mail their ID to a central clearinghouse (which creates a huge chilling effect.) The article talks about “reasonable age verification measures” and so saying it’s unenforceable seems a little bit premature. Also, you can bet those measures won’t be in any way reasonable once the Florida legislature gets through with them.
  - rschneid 3y ago
    >effectively banned In my opinion, these governments haven't implemented 'effective' bans (though maybe chilling, as you say) but primarily created awkward new grey markets for the personal data that these policies rely on for theatrics. Remember when China 'banned' youth IDs from playing online games past 10PM? I think a bunch of grandparents became gamers around the same time... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01669-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01669-8
    - seanw444 3y ago
      Which is exactly what happens for markets that are desirable enough. We compare bans of things not enough people care about, to bans of things that people are willing to do crazy things for. They don't yield the same results.
      - monkeynotes 3y ago
        No policy is 100% effective. Kids still get into alcohol, but the policy is sound.
    - rft 3y ago
      Another example is some Korean games requiring essentially a Korean ID to play. A few years ago there was a game my guild was hyped about and we played the Korean version a bit. You more or less bought the identity of some Korean guy via a service that was explicitly setup for this. Worked surprisingly well and was pretty streamlined.
    - 3y ago
- OJFord 3y ago
  We don't even have to speculate, isn't it already the case for <13yo? Or is just Europe? Anyway - yeah, of course they're still on it. Expect less compliance and harder enforcement the older they are, not more/easier.
  - samtho 3y ago
    The only protection in the Us is technically “collection of personal information” via COPPA[0] which you can argue would kneecap social media. Any parent can provide consent for their child, however. Children themselves can also just click the button that says they are over 13 if it gets them what they want. [0]: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-coppa https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/childrens-onl...
- loceng 3y ago
  So, maybe it a law - but requiring parents-guardians to enforce it, and not the state - sounds like a reasonable inbetween?
  - qup 3y ago
    I think it should just be opt-out. A parent can opt-out without any stated reason, easily, and overrule the law. So kids get a social media "license," maybe.
- yew 3y ago
  There are degrees of enforceability. When I was first getting online, the expectation was that you at least had to be bright enough to lie about your age. Now I have to occasionally prune my timeline after it fills up with "literally a minor." Even an annoyance tax might have some positive effect. Scare the pastel death-threats back into their hole...
- arcticbull 3y ago
  It seems like you are in favor of something that requires coordination, but don't believe in coordination. Is there a different way you think this could be achieved?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    I don't believe in the disbelief of coordination so it seems like we're at a bit on an impasse. Please expound.
    - m_mueller 3y ago
      I think GP means the coordination between parents, and I agree on that: if you can’t get a strong majority of parents to agree on keeping their children off of social media & smart phones, you as parents have the choice between two outcomes: enforcing isolation vs. letting social media slip through and just trying to delay as much as possible. Almost all parents either don’t care or opt for the second option (which I also think is the better one), but the dynamics today are that between 10-12yo the pressure to get your kid a smartphone will mount and you have to give in at some point. Being able to wait till 16 would be much better IMO.
- ajhurliman 3y ago
  We have a ban on gambling for minors, so if you see social media as more harmful than gambling (personally, I do) it probably makes sense.
  - monkeynotes 3y ago
    Gambling is outright banned for a majority of regions in the US, not just kids. I don't think they are equally bad, just different bad. Gambling is addictive, and it destroys people. Social media is addictive and socially toxic, on the whole it erodes the very fabric of a society.
    - ribosometronome 3y ago
      >Social media is addictive and socially toxic, on the whole it erodes the very fabric of a society. It's interesting how every generation seems to decry new forms of media as eroding the fabric of society. They said it about video games, television, music, movies, etc. I'm sure we're right this time, though.
      - monkeynotes 3y ago
        Yeah, none of those are comparable. TV never lead to children bullying each other anonymously which then leads to kids committing suicide.
      - bee_rider 3y ago
        Television clearly did something pretty significant to society. Cable news makes the country more polarized, that we didn’t do anything about it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a problem. We just missed and now the problem is baked into the status quo. Video games are typically fiction, so the ability to pass propaganda through them is usually a little more limited. It isn’t impossible, just different. Social media is a pretty bad news source for contentious issues. We should be pretty alarmed that people are getting their news there.
      - angra_mainyu 3y ago
        Apples-to-oranges comparison. Plenty has been written already on the ravaging effects of social media on society and it's pretty plain to see. https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/it-or-not-social-medias-affecting-your-mental-health https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/it-or-not-social-me... > Rates of sexual activity have been in decline for years, but the drop is most pronounced for adults under age 25 (Gen Z). > For Gen Z, a rise in sexlessness has coincided with a decline in mental health. > Sexual activity can boost mood and relieve stress and may serve as a protective factor against anxiety and depressive disorders. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/202209/generation-z-is- https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/2022... missing-out-the-benefits-sex
- incomingpain 3y ago
  I'm in favor of kids not using porn, but not of the government forcing this on people nor spinning up whatever absurd regulatory regime is required. And the chance of actually enforcing it is zero anyway. It's no more realistic to expect this to work than to expect all parents to do it as you say. It's just wasted money plus personal intrusion that won't achieve anything. I only changed 2 words for 1.
- ribosometronome 3y ago
  Social media's existence is predicated on their algorithms being good at profiling you. Facebook's already got some level of ID verification for names, where they'll occasionally require people to submit IDs. No reason that similar couldn't be applied to age if society agreed it was worthwhile.
- dylan604 3y ago
  There is a societal problem that is beyond just parenting. The peer pressure for kids to feel left out and ostracized because they are the only ones not on the socials is something a teen is going to definitely rebel against their parents on. It's part of being a teen. I'm guessing the other parents would even put pressure on the parents denying the social access. To me, the only way out of this is by changing one nightmare for another giving the gov't the decision of allowing/denying access. Human nature is not a simple thing to regulate since the desire for that regulating is part of human nature
  - diputsmonro 3y ago
    Is talking to other people online really so bad that we need the government to step in and tell us who we can and can't talk to? How quickly will that power expand to what we can and can't talk about? I agree that neither solution is perfect, but exchanging an imperfect but undoubtedly free system of communication for one that is explicitly state-controlled censorship is an obvious step backwards. "Thinking about the children" should also involve thinking about what kind of a society you want to build for them. A cage is not the answer, especially not with fascism creeping back into our politics.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      I think you are willingly playing this down as "talking to people online" to make some point. However, it is beyond what one kid online says to another online. It is what predators say to those kids online. I don't just mean Chester and his panel van. I'm talking about anyone that is attempting to manipulate that kid regardless of the motive, they are all predators. Social media has long since past just being a means of communicating with each other, and you come across as very disingenuous for putting this out there.
      - diputsmonro 3y ago
        I think people are being incredibly disingenuous when they imagine that the government won't abuse this power to censor and harm marginalized communities. Many states are trying to remove LGBT books from school libraries for being "pornographic" right now, for example. All it takes is some fancy interpretations of "safety" and "social media" for it to become a full internet blackout, for fear of "the liberals" trying to "trans" their kids. I don't deny that kids can get into trouble and find shocking or dangerous things online. But kids can also get in trouble walking down the street. We should not close streets or require ID checks for walking down them. Parents should teach their kids how to be safe online, set up network blocks for particularly bad sites, and have some kind of oversight for what their kids are doing. Maybe these bills should mandate that sites have the ability to create "kid" accounts whose history can be checked and access to certain features can be managed by an associated "parent" account. Give parents better tools for keeping their kids safe, don't just give the government control over all internet traffic.
- aow83u45oaw23u 3y ago
  [flagged]
- reaperducer 3y ago
  I'm in favor of kids not using social media, but not of the government forcing this on people nor spinning up whatever absurd regulatory regime is required. People said the same thing about age restrictions for smoking, alcohol, movies, and on and on and on. It's not some unsolvable new problem just because it's the ad-tech industry.
  - cjensen 3y ago
    Your comment begs the question of whether or not those age restrictions are a "solved problem." In the US, government age restrictions on movies DO NOT exist for the exact reason the government cannot impose age restrictions on social media: the First Amendment flatly forbids it.
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
You can be in favor but in the US it is unconstitutional for a gov to broadly restrict speech. It's why each of these age verification + social media laws eventually get tossed. Legislators know this (or are too dumb to) but it's not their own dollars that are getting burned during this vote-baiting performance.
- bilsbie 3y ago
  The FCC seems to get around that pretty easily not allowing nipples on Tv.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    Only on broadcast TV, and the decision is fundamentally reliant on the nature that RF spectrum is a finite resource to be able to justify the restriction. SCOTUS has routinely struck down prohibitions against the same things in other media, including explicitly the internet.
- carabiner 3y ago
  Deprecating the Constitution is long overdue.
- spogbiper 3y ago
  honest question, is an american child granted the right of free speech? or do you get that right at a certain age?
  - gottorf 3y ago
    > is an american child granted the right of free speech? or do you get that right at a certain age? This isn't the right way to frame the question. The Constitution prohibits government actors from infringing upon the right to free speech[0], including that of children; meaning e.g. an attempt to censor a child's treatise on some subject would be as illegal as doing the same to an adult. It's not that you get a "free speech license" when you turn 18. The restrictions on government power applies whether or not the person being infringed upon is a minor or an adult. [0]: This isn't an absolute, unqualified right. A child breaking into a profanity-laden tirade in the middle of class at a public (meaning taxpayer-funded and an extension of the government) school may believe they are exercising their First Amendment rights, but the school may still legally send that child home, for example, on the grounds that it disrupts the schooling of other children.
brightball 3y ago
I’m normally anti-regulation as well, but as a parent I’m fully on board with this. The amount of peer pressure to be on social media is insane.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  Are you asserting that parents should not have the rights to determine this for their own children?
  - brightball 3y ago
    Parents don’t have the right to get their kids a tattoo, vote or buy alcohol before a regulated age. Is this different?
    - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      So your answer is yes? Your position is that decisions about youth access to social media should be fully taken from the parents and made by govs instead. Penalties can be assumed from your examples. This is the reality that you want imposed on parents and children - yes?
      - brightball 3y ago
        Is your position that no age limits should exist for anything?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
        I never said that. You introduced that notion to the conversation.
      - samus 3y ago
        This is already the reality for alcohol and plenty of other things. Maybe not everywhere. Reality check: parents giving unrestricted access to these things are usually perceived as irresponsible.
tedajax 3y ago
Answering a problem with unenforceable garbage like this doesn't seem like a very sound strategy.
- soco 3y ago
  This discussion can be seen every time when the EU decides on some regulation against tech industry. A lot of people will jump that it won't be enforced, then when we see the first fines those people will jump that it won't move a needle, then when the tech giants do change a bit their course then... well the tech bros will always find a reason to jump against doing anything to curb tech.
  - lupire 3y ago
    This is not a "tech bro" thing. It's not particular to tech nor bros. This a business thing. Phillip Morris weren't "tech bros".
    - soco 3y ago
      You are right. I was having in mind the HN crowd when I commented.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  Enforceability is a foregone conclusion, and when it comes to things like this it's somewhat expected. The same can be said for pornography, drugs and alcohol and tobacco (remember Joe Camel?), and anything else that would fall under blue-laws. The goal of this is to bring attention to the fact that it's a problem and should be seen as undesirable, like pornography or Joe Camel. The cancellation of Joe didn't prevent kids from getting cigarettes but it did draw attention to the situation and there has been a marked decline in youth smoking since the late 90s when the mascot was removed. It's correlative, for sure, but the outcomes are undeniable. The same happened with the DARE program and class 1 drugs (except for marijuana iirc).
  - 20after4 3y ago
wonderwonder 3y ago
I find myself agreeing with this. Me 15 years ago would have raged at this. I have kids now and they are pressured to join all sorts of social media platforms. I still don't allow them to have it but I know they take a slight social hit for it. There is zero positive to giving kids the ability to access social media sites designed to be addictive when they don't have the mental facilities to determine real from not real. Many adults seem to suffer from this as well. Plus kids don't understand that the internet is forever, really no need for an adult looking for a job or running for office to be crippled by a questionable post they made as an edgy teen. I'm against a lot of government regulation but in this case I am even more against feeding developing kids to an algorithm Just remove the temptation and pressure all together.
- runsWphotons 3y ago
  The internet is just as real as anything else. Out of touch.
lukev 3y ago
But the only way to do this is to require ID checks, effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet (and probably unconstitutional under the First Amendment, to boot.) It's the same problem with requiring age verification for porn. It's not that anyone wants kids to have easy access to this stuff, but that any of these laws will either be (a) unenforceable and useless, or (b) draconian and privacy-destroying. The government doesn't get to know or regulate the websites I'm visiting, nor should it. And "protecting the children" isn't a valid reason to remove constitutional rights from adults. (And if it is, let's start talking about gun ownership first...)
- thinkingtoilet 3y ago
  > effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet. Not at all. Just the social media sites, which are objectively bad for kids. As an adult, you do what you want on the internet.
  - lukev 3y ago
    And what makes a site a social media site? Anywhere you can post interactive content? You do realize that laws like this would apply to sites like HN, Reddit, the comment section of every blog, and every phpBB forum you ever used? It's not just Instagram and Tiktok.
    - anonym29 3y ago
      Trying to force independently owned and operated forums to enforce laws that might not even be applicable in the country that the owners / admins live and work in is going to be about as effective as trying to force foreign VPS/server/hosting providers to delete copyrighted content from their server using laws that don't apply in their jurisdiction.
    - thinkingtoilet 3y ago
      I think a perfectly clear line could be drawn that would separate out phpBB from TikTok very easily. I genuinely don't understand this comment, we shouldn't do it because it's hard or the results might be imperfect?
kcrwfrd_ 3y ago
Yes. Rather than mandating verification, can we just mandate that there a registry or that websites are legally required to include a particular HTTP header, combined with opt-in infrastructure in place for parents to use? e.g. You could set up a restricted account on a device with a user birthdate specified. Any requests for websites that return an AGE_REQUIRED header that don’t validate would be rejected.
blitz_skull 3y ago
You're not the only one! I also believe that this is a Big Deal™ that we need to take seriously as a nation. I have yet to see any HN commentator offer a robust pro-social media argument that carries any weight in my opinion. The most common "they'll be isolated from their peers" argument seems pretty superficial and can easily be worked around with even a tiny amount of efforts on the parents' part. As an added bonus, this latest legislation removes the issue of "everyone is doing it". I mean, sure, a lot still will be—but then it's illegal and you get to have an entirely separate conversation with your kid. :)
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > The most common "they'll be isolated from their peers" argument seems pretty superficial and can easily be worked around with even a tiny amount of efforts on the parents' part. This is so incorrect it makes the flat earth theory look good.
ben_w 3y ago
> I might be the only one here in favor of this, and wanting to see a federal rollout. I'm not American, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ban kids from the internet just by applying the logic used for film classification. Even just the thumbnails for YouTube (some) content can go beyond what I'd expect for a "suitable for all audiences" advert. This isn't an agreement with the specific logic used for film classification: I also find it really weird how 20th century media classification treated murder perfectly acceptable subject in kids shows while the mere existence of functioning nipples was treated as a sign of the end times (non-functional nipples, i.e. those on men, are apparently fine). Also, I find it hilariously ironic that Florida also passed the "Stop Social Media Censorship Act". No self-awareness at all.
- protocolture 3y ago
  Film classification is also dumb. In Australia Margaret Pomeranz used to run banned film viewing sessions that ended up in cops wrestling them for dvds. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/31/margaret-pomeranz-australian-film-censorship-police https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/31/margaret-pomera...
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Hence my second paragraph. The first is saying that no matter what your rules are, the internet may at any time show you a clip from the highest rated category and should be treated as such. The internet may also at any time show you outright banned content, but that's often treated as a separate battle no matter if that's Tiananmen Square (or "content promoting terrorism", although now I'm wondering if the Chinese Communist Party think the former is a subset of the latter?) or sexual acts you're not allowed to show in film (varies by jurisdiction).
chankstein38 3y ago
No I definitely agree. I'm a little skeptical of how they'll enforce this but ultimately I think less kids on the internet and social media will be a positive and I agree that it doesn't seem like parents have managed to figure out how to address this.
dmitrygr 3y ago
> I might be the only one here in favor of this Not even close. I am with you
robotnikman 3y ago
Same here. With the way the internet is nowadays, its probably best to keep kids off the internet until they are older. One just has to look at whats on places like Youtube 'Kids' to see all the stuff that is not kid friendly and probably detrimental to their mental health.
howth3wut 3y ago
[dead]
huytersd 3y ago
Right there with you. This is probably the only thing I’m on board with the republicans about.
- mlrtime 3y ago
  Funny, conservative beliefs are a like a slow feed as you get older and have kids... This is just the gateway. It happened to me and millions of others.
  - huytersd 3y ago
    I’m pretty old and I don’t think anything else remotely appeals to me.
jijijijij 3y ago
I am an adult and I wish someone would take social media away from me. Honestly, I think social media has done more harm than good and I wish it would just cease to exist. However, especially in Florida, social media may be the only way for some teens to escape political and religious lunacy and I fear for them. I think it's not wise to applaud them taking away means of communication to the "outside", in the context of legislation trends and events there.
- trogdor 3y ago
  >I am an adult and I wish someone would take social media away from me. Why don’t you take it away from yourself? Just delete your account.
  - jijijijij 3y ago
    I tried but then got betrayed by myself. Addiction mechanics are a real thing and sooner or later social media will pop into your life again. For me it's Reddit, not Instagram or Twitter. Luckily, HN makes me always ragequit at some point, cause y'all are a bit special.
EasyMark 3y ago
I can't agree. This teaches kids that the government is the answer to everything. this should 100% be the responsibility and decision of parents. Kids are different, and these one-size-fits-all authoritarian tactics that have become a signature of the current GOP Floridian government are just the beginning of the totalitarian christofascist laws that they want to implement. Before you ask, I am a parent, and my kid's devices all have this crap blocked and likely will remain that way until he's at least 15, give or take a year depending on what I determine when he gets to that age. He knows that there are severe ramifications if he tries to work around my decision, and will lose many, many privileges if such a thing happens.
- 11101010001100 3y ago
  If you ignore history, yes, it may teach kids that the gov is the answer. Don't ignore history.
- protocolture 3y ago
  Yeah I hate that at the first sign of trouble people run to the government. My kid, and I have told my wife this, is ready to view whatever he wants on the internet when he can circumvent me.
- bloqs 3y ago
  The libertarian equivalent is the model we are currently running and it hasn't worked. It's psychologically addictive, harmful and has parallels with smoking in a way. If the evidence for its harm was less robust. Do you think simply labelling it as bad is sufficient? Parents have no idea.
iouwhldkfjgklj 3y ago
[flagged]
tootie 3y ago
I have two teens and have yet to see the negative effects of social media for them or any of their peers. Not to say it doesn't exist, but I sincerely doubt it's as awful as the doomsayers think. My personal observation of being raised in he 80s is that kids were far more awful to each other then than now.
- kbelder 3y ago
  Fits my observation. Every generation has this freakout about something or another. I expect modern kids will end up better at handling social media than their parents are.
dathinab 3y ago
IMHO the general idea isn't terrible the implementation is, suppar. But hy that's why it's good that's it's not yet US wide as it means there is time to make improvements. - I'm not the biggest fan of hard cutoff - addictive dark patterns which cause compulsive use should be general banned or age restricted no matter where they are used, honestly just ban most dark patterns they are intentional always malicious consumer deception not that far away from outright committing fraud. (And age restrict some less dark but still problematic patterns.) - I think this likely will make all MMORPGs (and Roblox, lol) and similar 16+, I'm quite split about that. I have seen people between 14-18 get addicted to them and mess up their education path. But I have also seen cases of people which might not be alive anymore today if they hadn't fund a refuge and companions in some MMORPG. - I guess if it can make platforms like YT, Facebook, Instagram, Snapshat etc. implement a "teen" mode with less dark patterns and tracking it would be good. - The balance between proving your age and making things available and keeping privacy is VERY tricky (especially in the US) and companies, the government and spy agencies will try to abuse the new requirements for age verification to spy more reliable on everyone 16+. - It's interesting how that affects messengers. Many have less dark patterns, some do not track users, or can easily decide not to track children. The aren't social networks per-se. But most have some social network like features. Even such which do not try to create compulsive use might still end up with it as long as their as is "live" chatting.
- trogdor 3y ago
  >addictive dark patterns which cause compulsive use should be general banned or age restricted no matter where they are used, honestly just ban most dark patterns they are intentional always malicious consumer deception not that far away from outright committing fraud. How would you write a law that accomplishes your goal?
  - vimax 3y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine something like deceptive advertising regulations could serve as a starting point.
  - dathinab 3y ago
Aeolun 3y ago
I don’t think so. There’s nothing about social media that makes me feel like kids need it. Hell, if we could ban it for adults that would be an unmitigated good.
mmvasq 3y ago
16 seems too young. Why not tie it to drinking age. There are way too many people who have gotten better at online manipulation in the past few decades.
jimt1234 3y ago
One thing I've found interesting with social media and children is that almost every parent I know recognizes the impact social media has on their children, but they willfully ignore it or feel powerless to avoid it. I hear stuff like, "It's impossible for kids to not be on social media. It's required these days.", and "The social consequences will be worse for them if they're not a social media."
bdangubic 3y ago
we have laws against drinking and smoking / vaping… for kids under age of 16 and that has been working so GREAT that we should get more of these laws in place (federal preferrably) so that our kids can be even healthier adults. moar laws please - need as much of federal government in our families and parenting as we can get that I’d suggest 1 federal agent be assigned to each child born to ensure healthy adulthood
adamredwoods 3y ago
I am against government regulation of websites and classification of websites. If we allow government to do this, it will be politicized at some point. We need to find a better way, for example (just a quick idea), social websites run and protected by a school-by-school basis. This way, it can be regulated and controlled. In other words, government should regulate what they already have control over, not impose new control measures over things they don't.
meroes 3y ago
social media replaced the old internet. this is like banning kids from the internet. Talk about pulling the ladder up behind yourself
babyshake 3y ago
I'm in favor of this if the only enforcement actions are against social media companies for being predatory, and not against families for breaking the law and allowing their kids on social media. And it's useful for indicating that social media on the balance is not good for kids.
Spooky23 3y ago
Can they use email? Text? The telephone? It’s dumb policy, because Florida GOP. The smart move is to target advertising for kids. If you attack the ability to advertise to the underage audience using mom’s iPad, social media will self police.
Andrex 3y ago
Random ideas! - Make this an ISP level thing? Somehow? They already know the makeup of a household. If they know a house has kids, something something ToS "You as the parents are liable..." Then maybe repeat those scary RIAA letters but "for good" when someone in that household hits a known adult IP? - Maybe browsers send an "I'm an adult" flag similar to "Do Not Track," and to turn it on, the user has to enter a not-to-be-shared-with-kids PIN? If the browser and OS can coordinate, OSes would be able to tell the browser if the user is an adult, and skip the PIN entering. - Force kids to use a list of Congress-approved devices that gate access to the wider Internet? YouTube Kids but for everything. Yes, hacker kids will be able to get by, but this being Hacker News, they'd deserve the fruits of that particular labor. Just spitballing. Anything obvious I'm missing? PS- I am neither for nor against the Florida-type legislation as of this comment.
reactordev 3y ago
The answer to our problems is not less freedom. It should never be less freedom. I’m opposed of any law that restricts freedom of information. No matter the age. I think we need to do better on educating kids on online behaviors and we should hold social media companies accountable for addictive features but what we absolutely shouldn’t do is blame little Jenny and take away her access to groups and social interaction online.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
  Yes. Little Jenny should also be free to purchase and drink a bottle of whiskey, but only if her parents are sufficiently negligent. I would've backed your argument up until a few years ago, but the science is coming down pretty hard now showing that social media use is absolutely detrimental to still-developing minds.
  - reactordev 3y ago
    I’m not refuting that. Only I don’t think we should be reacting with laws to restrict access. Who’s to say “what” a social media platform is? Does this mean discord as well? Steam? Roblox? Where do we draw the line on what is social media and what is social?
Bluescreenbuddy 3y ago
You and I both know they're doing this for two reasons. To put a heavy burden that will be almost impossible to enforce on tech companies so they can easily punish them for political reasons and to stop teens from learning early how shitty the GOP is.

by causal 3y ago

andy99 3y ago

I'm in favor of kids not using social media, but not of the government forcing this on people nor spinning up whatever absurd regulatory regime is required. And the chance of actually enforcing it is zero anyway. It's no more realistic to expect this to work than to expect all parents to do it as you say. It's just wasted money plus personal intrusion that won't achieve anything.

soco 3y ago
Is there an alternative? Self-control - as we have now - brought us here. If the government shouldn't step in then the only other option left (only I can see) is magic. And we have a bad record with magic.
JoshTko 3y ago
I used to want no govt intrusion for this. Then I understood how there are teams of PHDs tweaking feed to maximize addition at each social network. I think there could be even limits, or some sort of tax on gen pop.
- protocolture 3y ago
  It would be less imposing on the populace if you just demanded a government hit squad kill those PHD's instead of demanding everyone submit to some onerous government crapware to access the internet.
  - JoshTko 3y ago
    There are plenty of middle ground approaches - one possible one: App default would be restricted time use. To get unrestrxistricted use you use a driver's license to authenticate birthdate only with OS. Mobile OS only confirming with app that user is above age requirement (does not share birthdate). App can only query if user is above 18yrs and nothing else. Easy peasy.
    - protocolture 3y ago
      So more crapware?
matthewdgreen 3y ago
Several governments have already effectively banned sites like Pornhub by creating regimes where people have to mail their ID to a central clearinghouse (which creates a huge chilling effect.) The article talks about “reasonable age verification measures” and so saying it’s unenforceable seems a little bit premature. Also, you can bet those measures won’t be in any way reasonable once the Florida legislature gets through with them.
- rschneid 3y ago
  >effectively banned In my opinion, these governments haven't implemented 'effective' bans (though maybe chilling, as you say) but primarily created awkward new grey markets for the personal data that these policies rely on for theatrics. Remember when China 'banned' youth IDs from playing online games past 10PM? I think a bunch of grandparents became gamers around the same time... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01669-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01669-8
  - seanw444 3y ago
    Which is exactly what happens for markets that are desirable enough. We compare bans of things not enough people care about, to bans of things that people are willing to do crazy things for. They don't yield the same results.
    - monkeynotes 3y ago
      No policy is 100% effective. Kids still get into alcohol, but the policy is sound.
  - rft 3y ago
    Another example is some Korean games requiring essentially a Korean ID to play. A few years ago there was a game my guild was hyped about and we played the Korean version a bit. You more or less bought the identity of some Korean guy via a service that was explicitly setup for this. Worked surprisingly well and was pretty streamlined.
  - 3y ago
OJFord 3y ago
We don't even have to speculate, isn't it already the case for <13yo? Or is just Europe? Anyway - yeah, of course they're still on it. Expect less compliance and harder enforcement the older they are, not more/easier.
- samtho 3y ago
  The only protection in the Us is technically “collection of personal information” via COPPA[0] which you can argue would kneecap social media. Any parent can provide consent for their child, however. Children themselves can also just click the button that says they are over 13 if it gets them what they want. [0]: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-coppa https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/childrens-onl...
loceng 3y ago
So, maybe it a law - but requiring parents-guardians to enforce it, and not the state - sounds like a reasonable inbetween?
- qup 3y ago
  I think it should just be opt-out. A parent can opt-out without any stated reason, easily, and overrule the law. So kids get a social media "license," maybe.
yew 3y ago
There are degrees of enforceability. When I was first getting online, the expectation was that you at least had to be bright enough to lie about your age. Now I have to occasionally prune my timeline after it fills up with "literally a minor." Even an annoyance tax might have some positive effect. Scare the pastel death-threats back into their hole...
arcticbull 3y ago
It seems like you are in favor of something that requires coordination, but don't believe in coordination. Is there a different way you think this could be achieved?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  I don't believe in the disbelief of coordination so it seems like we're at a bit on an impasse. Please expound.
  - m_mueller 3y ago
    I think GP means the coordination between parents, and I agree on that: if you can’t get a strong majority of parents to agree on keeping their children off of social media & smart phones, you as parents have the choice between two outcomes: enforcing isolation vs. letting social media slip through and just trying to delay as much as possible. Almost all parents either don’t care or opt for the second option (which I also think is the better one), but the dynamics today are that between 10-12yo the pressure to get your kid a smartphone will mount and you have to give in at some point. Being able to wait till 16 would be much better IMO.
ajhurliman 3y ago
We have a ban on gambling for minors, so if you see social media as more harmful than gambling (personally, I do) it probably makes sense.
- monkeynotes 3y ago
  Gambling is outright banned for a majority of regions in the US, not just kids. I don't think they are equally bad, just different bad. Gambling is addictive, and it destroys people. Social media is addictive and socially toxic, on the whole it erodes the very fabric of a society.
  - ribosometronome 3y ago
    >Social media is addictive and socially toxic, on the whole it erodes the very fabric of a society. It's interesting how every generation seems to decry new forms of media as eroding the fabric of society. They said it about video games, television, music, movies, etc. I'm sure we're right this time, though.
    - monkeynotes 3y ago
      Yeah, none of those are comparable. TV never lead to children bullying each other anonymously which then leads to kids committing suicide.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      Television clearly did something pretty significant to society. Cable news makes the country more polarized, that we didn’t do anything about it doesn’t mean it wasn’t a problem. We just missed and now the problem is baked into the status quo. Video games are typically fiction, so the ability to pass propaganda through them is usually a little more limited. It isn’t impossible, just different. Social media is a pretty bad news source for contentious issues. We should be pretty alarmed that people are getting their news there.
    - angra_mainyu 3y ago
      Apples-to-oranges comparison. Plenty has been written already on the ravaging effects of social media on society and it's pretty plain to see. https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/it-or-not-social-medias-affecting-your-mental-health https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/it-or-not-social-me... > Rates of sexual activity have been in decline for years, but the drop is most pronounced for adults under age 25 (Gen Z). > For Gen Z, a rise in sexlessness has coincided with a decline in mental health. > Sexual activity can boost mood and relieve stress and may serve as a protective factor against anxiety and depressive disorders. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/202209/generation-z-is- https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-myths-sex/2022... missing-out-the-benefits-sex
incomingpain 3y ago
I'm in favor of kids not using porn, but not of the government forcing this on people nor spinning up whatever absurd regulatory regime is required. And the chance of actually enforcing it is zero anyway. It's no more realistic to expect this to work than to expect all parents to do it as you say. It's just wasted money plus personal intrusion that won't achieve anything. I only changed 2 words for 1.
ribosometronome 3y ago
Social media's existence is predicated on their algorithms being good at profiling you. Facebook's already got some level of ID verification for names, where they'll occasionally require people to submit IDs. No reason that similar couldn't be applied to age if society agreed it was worthwhile.
dylan604 3y ago
There is a societal problem that is beyond just parenting. The peer pressure for kids to feel left out and ostracized because they are the only ones not on the socials is something a teen is going to definitely rebel against their parents on. It's part of being a teen. I'm guessing the other parents would even put pressure on the parents denying the social access. To me, the only way out of this is by changing one nightmare for another giving the gov't the decision of allowing/denying access. Human nature is not a simple thing to regulate since the desire for that regulating is part of human nature
- diputsmonro 3y ago
  Is talking to other people online really so bad that we need the government to step in and tell us who we can and can't talk to? How quickly will that power expand to what we can and can't talk about? I agree that neither solution is perfect, but exchanging an imperfect but undoubtedly free system of communication for one that is explicitly state-controlled censorship is an obvious step backwards. "Thinking about the children" should also involve thinking about what kind of a society you want to build for them. A cage is not the answer, especially not with fascism creeping back into our politics.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    I think you are willingly playing this down as "talking to people online" to make some point. However, it is beyond what one kid online says to another online. It is what predators say to those kids online. I don't just mean Chester and his panel van. I'm talking about anyone that is attempting to manipulate that kid regardless of the motive, they are all predators. Social media has long since past just being a means of communicating with each other, and you come across as very disingenuous for putting this out there.
    - diputsmonro 3y ago
      I think people are being incredibly disingenuous when they imagine that the government won't abuse this power to censor and harm marginalized communities. Many states are trying to remove LGBT books from school libraries for being "pornographic" right now, for example. All it takes is some fancy interpretations of "safety" and "social media" for it to become a full internet blackout, for fear of "the liberals" trying to "trans" their kids. I don't deny that kids can get into trouble and find shocking or dangerous things online. But kids can also get in trouble walking down the street. We should not close streets or require ID checks for walking down them. Parents should teach their kids how to be safe online, set up network blocks for particularly bad sites, and have some kind of oversight for what their kids are doing. Maybe these bills should mandate that sites have the ability to create "kid" accounts whose history can be checked and access to certain features can be managed by an associated "parent" account. Give parents better tools for keeping their kids safe, don't just give the government control over all internet traffic.
aow83u45oaw23u 3y ago
[flagged]
reaperducer 3y ago
I'm in favor of kids not using social media, but not of the government forcing this on people nor spinning up whatever absurd regulatory regime is required. People said the same thing about age restrictions for smoking, alcohol, movies, and on and on and on. It's not some unsolvable new problem just because it's the ad-tech industry.
- cjensen 3y ago
  Your comment begs the question of whether or not those age restrictions are a "solved problem." In the US, government age restrictions on movies DO NOT exist for the exact reason the government cannot impose age restrictions on social media: the First Amendment flatly forbids it.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

You can be in favor but in the US it is unconstitutional for a gov to broadly restrict speech. It's why each of these age verification + social media laws eventually get tossed. Legislators know this (or are too dumb to) but it's not their own dollars that are getting burned during this vote-baiting performance.

bilsbie 3y ago
The FCC seems to get around that pretty easily not allowing nipples on Tv.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  Only on broadcast TV, and the decision is fundamentally reliant on the nature that RF spectrum is a finite resource to be able to justify the restriction. SCOTUS has routinely struck down prohibitions against the same things in other media, including explicitly the internet.
carabiner 3y ago
Deprecating the Constitution is long overdue.
spogbiper 3y ago
honest question, is an american child granted the right of free speech? or do you get that right at a certain age?
- gottorf 3y ago
  > is an american child granted the right of free speech? or do you get that right at a certain age? This isn't the right way to frame the question. The Constitution prohibits government actors from infringing upon the right to free speech[0], including that of children; meaning e.g. an attempt to censor a child's treatise on some subject would be as illegal as doing the same to an adult. It's not that you get a "free speech license" when you turn 18. The restrictions on government power applies whether or not the person being infringed upon is a minor or an adult. [0]: This isn't an absolute, unqualified right. A child breaking into a profanity-laden tirade in the middle of class at a public (meaning taxpayer-funded and an extension of the government) school may believe they are exercising their First Amendment rights, but the school may still legally send that child home, for example, on the grounds that it disrupts the schooling of other children.

brightball 3y ago

I’m normally anti-regulation as well, but as a parent I’m fully on board with this. The amount of peer pressure to be on social media is insane.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
Are you asserting that parents should not have the rights to determine this for their own children?
- brightball 3y ago
  Parents don’t have the right to get their kids a tattoo, vote or buy alcohol before a regulated age. Is this different?
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    So your answer is yes? Your position is that decisions about youth access to social media should be fully taken from the parents and made by govs instead. Penalties can be assumed from your examples. This is the reality that you want imposed on parents and children - yes?
    - brightball 3y ago
      Is your position that no age limits should exist for anything?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
        I never said that. You introduced that notion to the conversation.
    - samus 3y ago
      This is already the reality for alcohol and plenty of other things. Maybe not everywhere. Reality check: parents giving unrestricted access to these things are usually perceived as irresponsible.

tedajax 3y ago

Answering a problem with unenforceable garbage like this doesn't seem like a very sound strategy.

soco 3y ago
This discussion can be seen every time when the EU decides on some regulation against tech industry. A lot of people will jump that it won't be enforced, then when we see the first fines those people will jump that it won't move a needle, then when the tech giants do change a bit their course then... well the tech bros will always find a reason to jump against doing anything to curb tech.
- lupire 3y ago
  This is not a "tech bro" thing. It's not particular to tech nor bros. This a business thing. Phillip Morris weren't "tech bros".
  - soco 3y ago
    You are right. I was having in mind the HN crowd when I commented.
brodouevencode 3y ago
Enforceability is a foregone conclusion, and when it comes to things like this it's somewhat expected. The same can be said for pornography, drugs and alcohol and tobacco (remember Joe Camel?), and anything else that would fall under blue-laws. The goal of this is to bring attention to the fact that it's a problem and should be seen as undesirable, like pornography or Joe Camel. The cancellation of Joe didn't prevent kids from getting cigarettes but it did draw attention to the situation and there has been a marked decline in youth smoking since the late 90s when the mascot was removed. It's correlative, for sure, but the outcomes are undeniable. The same happened with the DARE program and class 1 drugs (except for marijuana iirc).
- 20after4 3y ago

wonderwonder 3y ago

I find myself agreeing with this. Me 15 years ago would have raged at this. I have kids now and they are pressured to join all sorts of social media platforms. I still don't allow them to have it but I know they take a slight social hit for it. There is zero positive to giving kids the ability to access social media sites designed to be addictive when they don't have the mental facilities to determine real from not real. Many adults seem to suffer from this as well. Plus kids don't understand that the internet is forever, really no need for an adult looking for a job or running for office to be crippled by a questionable post they made as an edgy teen. I'm against a lot of government regulation but in this case I am even more against feeding developing kids to an algorithm Just remove the temptation and pressure all together.

runsWphotons 3y ago
The internet is just as real as anything else. Out of touch.

lukev 3y ago

But the only way to do this is to require ID checks, effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet (and probably unconstitutional under the First Amendment, to boot.) It's the same problem with requiring age verification for porn. It's not that anyone wants kids to have easy access to this stuff, but that any of these laws will either be (a) unenforceable and useless, or (b) draconian and privacy-destroying. The government doesn't get to know or regulate the websites I'm visiting, nor should it. And "protecting the children" isn't a valid reason to remove constitutional rights from adults. (And if it is, let's start talking about gun ownership first...)

thinkingtoilet 3y ago
> effectively regulating and destroying the anonymous nature of the internet. Not at all. Just the social media sites, which are objectively bad for kids. As an adult, you do what you want on the internet.
- lukev 3y ago
  And what makes a site a social media site? Anywhere you can post interactive content? You do realize that laws like this would apply to sites like HN, Reddit, the comment section of every blog, and every phpBB forum you ever used? It's not just Instagram and Tiktok.
  - anonym29 3y ago
    Trying to force independently owned and operated forums to enforce laws that might not even be applicable in the country that the owners / admins live and work in is going to be about as effective as trying to force foreign VPS/server/hosting providers to delete copyrighted content from their server using laws that don't apply in their jurisdiction.
  - thinkingtoilet 3y ago
    I think a perfectly clear line could be drawn that would separate out phpBB from TikTok very easily. I genuinely don't understand this comment, we shouldn't do it because it's hard or the results might be imperfect?

kcrwfrd_ 3y ago

Yes. Rather than mandating verification, can we just mandate that there a registry or that websites are legally required to include a particular HTTP header, combined with opt-in infrastructure in place for parents to use? e.g. You could set up a restricted account on a device with a user birthdate specified. Any requests for websites that return an AGE_REQUIRED header that don’t validate would be rejected.

blitz_skull 3y ago

You're not the only one! I also believe that this is a Big Deal™ that we need to take seriously as a nation. I have yet to see any HN commentator offer a robust pro-social media argument that carries any weight in my opinion. The most common "they'll be isolated from their peers" argument seems pretty superficial and can easily be worked around with even a tiny amount of efforts on the parents' part. As an added bonus, this latest legislation removes the issue of "everyone is doing it". I mean, sure, a lot still will be—but then it's illegal and you get to have an entirely separate conversation with your kid. :)

lelanthran 3y ago
> The most common "they'll be isolated from their peers" argument seems pretty superficial and can easily be worked around with even a tiny amount of efforts on the parents' part. This is so incorrect it makes the flat earth theory look good.

ben_w 3y ago

> I might be the only one here in favor of this, and wanting to see a federal rollout. I'm not American, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ban kids from the internet just by applying the logic used for film classification. Even just the thumbnails for YouTube (some) content can go beyond what I'd expect for a "suitable for all audiences" advert. This isn't an agreement with the specific logic used for film classification: I also find it really weird how 20th century media classification treated murder perfectly acceptable subject in kids shows while the mere existence of functioning nipples was treated as a sign of the end times (non-functional nipples, i.e. those on men, are apparently fine). Also, I find it hilariously ironic that Florida also passed the "Stop Social Media Censorship Act". No self-awareness at all.

protocolture 3y ago
Film classification is also dumb. In Australia Margaret Pomeranz used to run banned film viewing sessions that ended up in cops wrestling them for dvds. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/31/margaret-pomeranz-australian-film-censorship-police https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/31/margaret-pomera...
- ben_w 3y ago
  Hence my second paragraph. The first is saying that no matter what your rules are, the internet may at any time show you a clip from the highest rated category and should be treated as such. The internet may also at any time show you outright banned content, but that's often treated as a separate battle no matter if that's Tiananmen Square (or "content promoting terrorism", although now I'm wondering if the Chinese Communist Party think the former is a subset of the latter?) or sexual acts you're not allowed to show in film (varies by jurisdiction).

chankstein38 3y ago

No I definitely agree. I'm a little skeptical of how they'll enforce this but ultimately I think less kids on the internet and social media will be a positive and I agree that it doesn't seem like parents have managed to figure out how to address this.

dmitrygr 3y ago

> I might be the only one here in favor of this Not even close. I am with you

robotnikman 3y ago

Same here. With the way the internet is nowadays, its probably best to keep kids off the internet until they are older. One just has to look at whats on places like Youtube 'Kids' to see all the stuff that is not kid friendly and probably detrimental to their mental health.

howth3wut 3y ago

[dead]

huytersd 3y ago

Right there with you. This is probably the only thing I’m on board with the republicans about.

mlrtime 3y ago
Funny, conservative beliefs are a like a slow feed as you get older and have kids... This is just the gateway. It happened to me and millions of others.
- huytersd 3y ago
  I’m pretty old and I don’t think anything else remotely appeals to me.

jijijijij 3y ago

I am an adult and I wish someone would take social media away from me. Honestly, I think social media has done more harm than good and I wish it would just cease to exist. However, especially in Florida, social media may be the only way for some teens to escape political and religious lunacy and I fear for them. I think it's not wise to applaud them taking away means of communication to the "outside", in the context of legislation trends and events there.

trogdor 3y ago
>I am an adult and I wish someone would take social media away from me. Why don’t you take it away from yourself? Just delete your account.
- jijijijij 3y ago
  I tried but then got betrayed by myself. Addiction mechanics are a real thing and sooner or later social media will pop into your life again. For me it's Reddit, not Instagram or Twitter. Luckily, HN makes me always ragequit at some point, cause y'all are a bit special.

EasyMark 3y ago

I can't agree. This teaches kids that the government is the answer to everything. this should 100% be the responsibility and decision of parents. Kids are different, and these one-size-fits-all authoritarian tactics that have become a signature of the current GOP Floridian government are just the beginning of the totalitarian christofascist laws that they want to implement. Before you ask, I am a parent, and my kid's devices all have this crap blocked and likely will remain that way until he's at least 15, give or take a year depending on what I determine when he gets to that age. He knows that there are severe ramifications if he tries to work around my decision, and will lose many, many privileges if such a thing happens.

11101010001100 3y ago
If you ignore history, yes, it may teach kids that the gov is the answer. Don't ignore history.
protocolture 3y ago
Yeah I hate that at the first sign of trouble people run to the government. My kid, and I have told my wife this, is ready to view whatever he wants on the internet when he can circumvent me.
bloqs 3y ago
The libertarian equivalent is the model we are currently running and it hasn't worked. It's psychologically addictive, harmful and has parallels with smoking in a way. If the evidence for its harm was less robust. Do you think simply labelling it as bad is sufficient? Parents have no idea.

iouwhldkfjgklj 3y ago

[flagged]

tootie 3y ago

I have two teens and have yet to see the negative effects of social media for them or any of their peers. Not to say it doesn't exist, but I sincerely doubt it's as awful as the doomsayers think. My personal observation of being raised in he 80s is that kids were far more awful to each other then than now.

kbelder 3y ago
Fits my observation. Every generation has this freakout about something or another. I expect modern kids will end up better at handling social media than their parents are.

dathinab 3y ago

IMHO the general idea isn't terrible the implementation is, suppar. But hy that's why it's good that's it's not yet US wide as it means there is time to make improvements. - I'm not the biggest fan of hard cutoff - addictive dark patterns which cause compulsive use should be general banned or age restricted no matter where they are used, honestly just ban most dark patterns they are intentional always malicious consumer deception not that far away from outright committing fraud. (And age restrict some less dark but still problematic patterns.) - I think this likely will make all MMORPGs (and Roblox, lol) and similar 16+, I'm quite split about that. I have seen people between 14-18 get addicted to them and mess up their education path. But I have also seen cases of people which might not be alive anymore today if they hadn't fund a refuge and companions in some MMORPG. - I guess if it can make platforms like YT, Facebook, Instagram, Snapshat etc. implement a "teen" mode with less dark patterns and tracking it would be good. - The balance between proving your age and making things available and keeping privacy is VERY tricky (especially in the US) and companies, the government and spy agencies will try to abuse the new requirements for age verification to spy more reliable on everyone 16+. - It's interesting how that affects messengers. Many have less dark patterns, some do not track users, or can easily decide not to track children. The aren't social networks per-se. But most have some social network like features. Even such which do not try to create compulsive use might still end up with it as long as their as is "live" chatting.

trogdor 3y ago
>addictive dark patterns which cause compulsive use should be general banned or age restricted no matter where they are used, honestly just ban most dark patterns they are intentional always malicious consumer deception not that far away from outright committing fraud. How would you write a law that accomplishes your goal?
- vimax 3y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine something like deceptive advertising regulations could serve as a starting point.
- dathinab 3y ago

Aeolun 3y ago

I don’t think so. There’s nothing about social media that makes me feel like kids need it. Hell, if we could ban it for adults that would be an unmitigated good.

mmvasq 3y ago

16 seems too young. Why not tie it to drinking age. There are way too many people who have gotten better at online manipulation in the past few decades.

jimt1234 3y ago

One thing I've found interesting with social media and children is that almost every parent I know recognizes the impact social media has on their children, but they willfully ignore it or feel powerless to avoid it. I hear stuff like, "It's impossible for kids to not be on social media. It's required these days.", and "The social consequences will be worse for them if they're not a social media."

bdangubic 3y ago

we have laws against drinking and smoking / vaping… for kids under age of 16 and that has been working so GREAT that we should get more of these laws in place (federal preferrably) so that our kids can be even healthier adults. moar laws please - need as much of federal government in our families and parenting as we can get that I’d suggest 1 federal agent be assigned to each child born to ensure healthy adulthood

adamredwoods 3y ago

I am against government regulation of websites and classification of websites. If we allow government to do this, it will be politicized at some point. We need to find a better way, for example (just a quick idea), social websites run and protected by a school-by-school basis. This way, it can be regulated and controlled. In other words, government should regulate what they already have control over, not impose new control measures over things they don't.

meroes 3y ago

social media replaced the old internet. this is like banning kids from the internet. Talk about pulling the ladder up behind yourself

babyshake 3y ago

I'm in favor of this if the only enforcement actions are against social media companies for being predatory, and not against families for breaking the law and allowing their kids on social media. And it's useful for indicating that social media on the balance is not good for kids.

Spooky23 3y ago

Can they use email? Text? The telephone? It’s dumb policy, because Florida GOP. The smart move is to target advertising for kids. If you attack the ability to advertise to the underage audience using mom’s iPad, social media will self police.

Andrex 3y ago

Random ideas! - Make this an ISP level thing? Somehow? They already know the makeup of a household. If they know a house has kids, something something ToS "You as the parents are liable..." Then maybe repeat those scary RIAA letters but "for good" when someone in that household hits a known adult IP? - Maybe browsers send an "I'm an adult" flag similar to "Do Not Track," and to turn it on, the user has to enter a not-to-be-shared-with-kids PIN? If the browser and OS can coordinate, OSes would be able to tell the browser if the user is an adult, and skip the PIN entering. - Force kids to use a list of Congress-approved devices that gate access to the wider Internet? YouTube Kids but for everything. Yes, hacker kids will be able to get by, but this being Hacker News, they'd deserve the fruits of that particular labor. Just spitballing. Anything obvious I'm missing? PS- I am neither for nor against the Florida-type legislation as of this comment.

reactordev 3y ago

The answer to our problems is not less freedom. It should never be less freedom. I’m opposed of any law that restricts freedom of information. No matter the age. I think we need to do better on educating kids on online behaviors and we should hold social media companies accountable for addictive features but what we absolutely shouldn’t do is blame little Jenny and take away her access to groups and social interaction online.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
Yes. Little Jenny should also be free to purchase and drink a bottle of whiskey, but only if her parents are sufficiently negligent. I would've backed your argument up until a few years ago, but the science is coming down pretty hard now showing that social media use is absolutely detrimental to still-developing minds.
- reactordev 3y ago
  I’m not refuting that. Only I don’t think we should be reacting with laws to restrict access. Who’s to say “what” a social media platform is? Does this mean discord as well? Steam? Roblox? Where do we draw the line on what is social media and what is social?

Bluescreenbuddy 3y ago

You and I both know they're doing this for two reasons. To put a heavy burden that will be almost impossible to enforce on tech companies so they can easily punish them for political reasons and to stop teens from learning early how shitty the GOP is.