8 ms·

I feel like I can almost guarantee that this bill has nothing to do with protecting children and has more to do with brainwashing children and restricting their

I feel like I can almost guarantee that this bill has nothing to do with protecting children and has more to do with brainwashing children and restricting their access to opposing viewpoints, especially given this is Florida. That being said, I am not strictly opposed to a bill like this. But 16 is way too old. I feel like likely somewhere within the 10 to 13 range since most don't allow for under 13 anyways would be fine. But then if they all block under 13 what is the point of the bill?

mrangle 3y ago
Restricting social media use is tantamount to brainwashing? I don't see the connection. As for restricting access to "opposing" (opposition to what?) viewpoints, what children can be exposed to has long been restricted. But since there isn't a syllabus for what children will be presented on social media, I don't see the viewpoint restriction angle either. In fact, that position is illogical to the point that it raises the question of whether or not people concerned with it have an agenda to expose kids to "viewpoints" that their parents would disapprove of. Under the radar of supervision. Going only on my experience with social media, a valid and more plausible reason for this restriction would be that social media seeks to optimize the feed of users for engagement. In a manner that "hacks" psychology in a way that makes it difficult for even adults to disengage. Given that minors do not have fully developed brains, the ability to disengage may be even more hindered. Television programing has long sought this goal as well and with some success. While that use isn't restricted, there is theoretically a red line. Florida may see it in social media use.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  > opposition to what? This is coming from the state that is trying to ban books based on some backwards concern of a white kid feeling bad. (for the record I am white). I don't care what side of politics you are on... you know what opposition I am talking about. Whether you are for or against it. > not people concerned with it have an agenda to expose kids to "viewpoints" that their parents would disapprove of. Yes! Because otherwise the parents are brainwashing their kids into their viewpoint not allowing them to see the real world. This isn't a hard concept to understand here. I mean I am liberal and atheist. But even I have wondered if I ever have kids if I don't expose them to the choice of religion if that is brainwashing of its own. I may try to justify it with the harm that religion has caused, but I am still denying my kid another prospective that is different than my own. Edit: To clarify here. If this was a state that was not actively removing opposing viewpoints from their libraries and teachings than I may buy that they actually care about their kids. But it's not, it's Florida. The beacon of being scared of their kids knowing anything about the real world and daring to have compassion for someone different than them.
  - mrangle 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - nerdjon 3y ago
      I stand by what I said. And judging by the quite fascinating trend of voting up and down I am noticing on my comment most people understand exactly what I am referring too. Whether they agree with those actions or not.
      - mrangle 3y ago
        Let the record show that we all stand by what we said. Let it also show that absolutely everyone knows to what you are referring.
  - evantbyrne 3y ago
    I don't mean to turn this into a religious discussion, but adding onto what you are saying here with a personal anecdote: having access to the internet allowed me to see viewpoints besides the religious right-wing perspective I had been conditioned with (for lack of a better term), but the internet did not start the process of leaving religion. I made the decision to seek other perspectives and did so through many avenues. Blocking teens from generally interacting with other people online certainly looks like a hamfisted attempt at ideological preservation. It won't work.
    - nerdjon 3y ago
      If you don't mind me asking what was the thing that prompted it? Tbh I was in a similar boat growing up and for me it was the internet that really first exposed me to things because I grew up in a very conservative area. I mean part of it for me is also being gay and at that time being pushed out in a way so I was also seeking that. I consider myself very fortunate that I had gone to talk to the school guidance counselor and she was able to get me a book to help as well. But Florida in particular is going multiple routes which is why I said what I said. Some kids will still seek it out, but some may just not be exposed to other viewpoints if they are more sheltered or live in a certain type of community. And I know that this really isn't going to work, especially in today's age. But there is also something unique about seeing someone else's life that is different than yours (admittedly though the filtered lens of social media) vs just seeing on tv/movies or even the news.
- netsharc 3y ago
  How TikTok users trolled the Trump campaign: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-rally-tiktok-crowds-tulsa/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-rally-tiktok-crowds-tulsa... Well, true, TikTok probably has more negatives than positives, but I have a feeling the American Talibans[1] in power don't like teens organizing, and where do they organize? On social media... [1] Yes this is an apt comparison. Suppression of opposing viewpoints, growing voter suppression and not even accepting results of democratic elections, and then the whole anti-Abortion movement.
- Vegenoid 3y ago
  > Restricting social media use is tantamount to brainwashing? I don't see the connection. The idea is that social media exposes kids to viewpoints that they wouldn't otherwise be exposed to, so parents who want their kids to be a certain way would not want this, as they cannot easily control what viewpoints their kids are exposed to online. Of course, every parent wants their kid to be a certain way, whether or not this is negative is dependent on how narrow that certain way is. The same applies to restricting what kids are exposed to: it is good to restrict exposure to some things, but too much restriction becomes bad. The Florida legislature has recently been restricting the education system's ability to talk about gender and race, and pushing for more Christianity in schools. This makes some people feel there is an implied extension to the apparent "This is to protect kids" message: This is to protect kids (by making them conservative and Christian)
holoduke 3y ago
Its should be categorized in the same way as gambling. Its addictive and useless in any form. The whole world would be better off without any social media. Including the most anti social people.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  I disagree, what social media has turned into thanks to algorithms and engagement is a problem. But in its purest form Social media isn't a bad thing and is a good way to actually keep in contact with friends. Also a good way to keep up on events happening around the world without relying on the news for everything.
- RoyalHenOil 3y ago
  Do you realize that this is a social media site?
dylan604 3y ago
> what is the point of the bill? This is a valid question for pretty much all legislation. It serves by allowing the congress critters to toot their horns as doing something for those that only pay attention to news bites while doing no harm by doing nothing
- nerdjon 3y ago
  I really hate how right you are. And that meaningless thing will be all over ads and or your opponent voted against it (since it was meaningless and shouldn't be on the books) that turns into an attack on them.
- throwup238 3y ago
  I feel like the Australian TV show Utopia should be mandatory viewing for anyone who wants to understand government, even though it is ostensibly a comedy.

mrangle 3y ago

Restricting social media use is tantamount to brainwashing? I don't see the connection. As for restricting access to "opposing" (opposition to what?) viewpoints, what children can be exposed to has long been restricted. But since there isn't a syllabus for what children will be presented on social media, I don't see the viewpoint restriction angle either. In fact, that position is illogical to the point that it raises the question of whether or not people concerned with it have an agenda to expose kids to "viewpoints" that their parents would disapprove of. Under the radar of supervision. Going only on my experience with social media, a valid and more plausible reason for this restriction would be that social media seeks to optimize the feed of users for engagement. In a manner that "hacks" psychology in a way that makes it difficult for even adults to disengage. Given that minors do not have fully developed brains, the ability to disengage may be even more hindered. Television programing has long sought this goal as well and with some success. While that use isn't restricted, there is theoretically a red line. Florida may see it in social media use.

nerdjon 3y ago
> opposition to what? This is coming from the state that is trying to ban books based on some backwards concern of a white kid feeling bad. (for the record I am white). I don't care what side of politics you are on... you know what opposition I am talking about. Whether you are for or against it. > not people concerned with it have an agenda to expose kids to "viewpoints" that their parents would disapprove of. Yes! Because otherwise the parents are brainwashing their kids into their viewpoint not allowing them to see the real world. This isn't a hard concept to understand here. I mean I am liberal and atheist. But even I have wondered if I ever have kids if I don't expose them to the choice of religion if that is brainwashing of its own. I may try to justify it with the harm that religion has caused, but I am still denying my kid another prospective that is different than my own. Edit: To clarify here. If this was a state that was not actively removing opposing viewpoints from their libraries and teachings than I may buy that they actually care about their kids. But it's not, it's Florida. The beacon of being scared of their kids knowing anything about the real world and daring to have compassion for someone different than them.
- mrangle 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - nerdjon 3y ago
    I stand by what I said. And judging by the quite fascinating trend of voting up and down I am noticing on my comment most people understand exactly what I am referring too. Whether they agree with those actions or not.
    - mrangle 3y ago
      Let the record show that we all stand by what we said. Let it also show that absolutely everyone knows to what you are referring.
- evantbyrne 3y ago
  I don't mean to turn this into a religious discussion, but adding onto what you are saying here with a personal anecdote: having access to the internet allowed me to see viewpoints besides the religious right-wing perspective I had been conditioned with (for lack of a better term), but the internet did not start the process of leaving religion. I made the decision to seek other perspectives and did so through many avenues. Blocking teens from generally interacting with other people online certainly looks like a hamfisted attempt at ideological preservation. It won't work.
  - nerdjon 3y ago
    If you don't mind me asking what was the thing that prompted it? Tbh I was in a similar boat growing up and for me it was the internet that really first exposed me to things because I grew up in a very conservative area. I mean part of it for me is also being gay and at that time being pushed out in a way so I was also seeking that. I consider myself very fortunate that I had gone to talk to the school guidance counselor and she was able to get me a book to help as well. But Florida in particular is going multiple routes which is why I said what I said. Some kids will still seek it out, but some may just not be exposed to other viewpoints if they are more sheltered or live in a certain type of community. And I know that this really isn't going to work, especially in today's age. But there is also something unique about seeing someone else's life that is different than yours (admittedly though the filtered lens of social media) vs just seeing on tv/movies or even the news.
netsharc 3y ago
How TikTok users trolled the Trump campaign: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-rally-tiktok-crowds-tulsa/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-rally-tiktok-crowds-tulsa... Well, true, TikTok probably has more negatives than positives, but I have a feeling the American Talibans[1] in power don't like teens organizing, and where do they organize? On social media... [1] Yes this is an apt comparison. Suppression of opposing viewpoints, growing voter suppression and not even accepting results of democratic elections, and then the whole anti-Abortion movement.
Vegenoid 3y ago
> Restricting social media use is tantamount to brainwashing? I don't see the connection. The idea is that social media exposes kids to viewpoints that they wouldn't otherwise be exposed to, so parents who want their kids to be a certain way would not want this, as they cannot easily control what viewpoints their kids are exposed to online. Of course, every parent wants their kid to be a certain way, whether or not this is negative is dependent on how narrow that certain way is. The same applies to restricting what kids are exposed to: it is good to restrict exposure to some things, but too much restriction becomes bad. The Florida legislature has recently been restricting the education system's ability to talk about gender and race, and pushing for more Christianity in schools. This makes some people feel there is an implied extension to the apparent "This is to protect kids" message: This is to protect kids (by making them conservative and Christian)

holoduke 3y ago

Its should be categorized in the same way as gambling. Its addictive and useless in any form. The whole world would be better off without any social media. Including the most anti social people.

nerdjon 3y ago
I disagree, what social media has turned into thanks to algorithms and engagement is a problem. But in its purest form Social media isn't a bad thing and is a good way to actually keep in contact with friends. Also a good way to keep up on events happening around the world without relying on the news for everything.
RoyalHenOil 3y ago
Do you realize that this is a social media site?

dylan604 3y ago

> what is the point of the bill? This is a valid question for pretty much all legislation. It serves by allowing the congress critters to toot their horns as doing something for those that only pay attention to news bites while doing no harm by doing nothing

nerdjon 3y ago
I really hate how right you are. And that meaningless thing will be all over ads and or your opponent voted against it (since it was meaningless and shouldn't be on the books) that turns into an attack on them.
throwup238 3y ago
I feel like the Australian TV show Utopia should be mandatory viewing for anyone who wants to understand government, even though it is ostensibly a comedy.