4 ms·
This flies in the face of plenty of constitutional rights. It'll be interesting to see this hold up in court. edit: Based on these downvotes, I am *** SO DISAP
by echelon 3y ago
This flies in the face of plenty of constitutional rights. It'll be interesting to see this hold up in court.
edit: Based on these downvotes, I am *** SO DISAPPOINTED ** in modern hacker culture. This is not the hacker culture I grew up with. The one that welcomed youth and let them cut their teeth on the internet.
There's a growing element of censorship on both the right and the left that is wholly discouraging and dangerous. We must not lose our freedoms of speech, of access, of ideas, and of free thinking.
I AM SO DISAPPOINTED IN Y'ALL.
This is antithetical to everything I know at a bone-deep level.
Get this desire to control and to censor out of your minds.
Free thinking leads to a mind unbound by physics, uncaged by dictators. Censorship in all of its forms leads to polarization and lionization of evil thoughts and deeds. Do not succumb to this.
- FredPret 3y agoSurely it can be treated the same as liquor and cigarettes?
- pavlov 3y agoIs speech the same as a substance sold over the counter? Religious speech can be dangerous, addictive, and is regularly inflicted upon minors who have no choice. Is a ban appropriate?
- remarkEon 3y agoThere's a constitutional right for minors to access social media?
- coolspot 3y agoYes, direct quote from the founding fathers: “The right of young people to access TikTok shall not be infringed”.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoThe government here is both stopping citizens from reading others opinions and publishing their own, that would seem to be a first amendment slam dunk.
- remarkEon 3y agoHuh? Is Florida prohibiting its citizens from writing opinions in this? I thought the bill was about an age minimum for using an internet product.
- LegionMammal978 3y agoIt's simultaneously a restriction on what kinds of content you're allowed to distribute to other people if you happen to be operating an internet product.
- lolinder 3y agoThat type of restriction has a lot of existing precedent when we're talking about distributing content to children under the age of 16.
- remarkEon 3y ago“Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court: TikTok et al have a constitutional right to target minors with their social media internet products” Yeah good luck with that.
- dessimus 3y agoWhat about "parental rights" to determine whether their child can use social media? I thought conservatives hated having big government take away decisions from parents?
- xboxnolifes 3y agoIs this not similar to the current COPPA regulations that makes having <13 y/o users burdening to the point of prohibiting them on many websites? Or is this significantly different because it technically doesn't ban them, just makes it practically impossible for social media to have them, so the business does the banning?
- LegionMammal978 3y agoEDIT: I was complaining about the bill's provisions against distributing "material harmful to minors", unaware of existing obscenity laws that permit states to restrict it.
- lolinder 3y agoSmall but significant correction: the three parts of the test you lay out are joined by an AND, not an OR. So websites are restricted from distributing material that "appeals to the prurient interest" AND "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct" AND "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors". If the website is not substantially composed of material that meets all three tests then the bill does not require age verification.
- LegionMammal978 3y agoAh, thank you. I've updated my comment. Still, I maintain that it creates a new restriction, since some kinds of erotic writing would meet all three bars, meaning that websites are required under the bill to either place an age bar, or moderate all user-generated text everywhere for such content.
- lolinder 3y agoThat's also where the "substantial portion" requirement comes in, which is defined to be 33.3%. That won't affect most sites with user-generated content—even Tumblr wouldn't be required to verify ages to view.
- throwawa14223 3y agoI'm curious which rights you would consider this violating?
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoOff the top of my head the commerce clause and the first amendment since social media is all about publishing things.
- SamuelAdams 3y agoThe first amendment does not apply to private companies. They can censor, alter, or remove any content they disagree with. This applies to adults and minors for virtually all platforms. https://www.freedomforum.org/free-speech-on-social-media/ https://www.freedomforum.org/free-speech-on-social-media/
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoOf course, but here the government is denying access, not a company.
- maxglute 3y agoI don't know, pushing kids off platforms is probably good way to get them to start hacking together solutions to fill niche. Getting around barriers / obstacles not the worst thing to incentivize around.