5 ms·

Florida Passes Law Banning Social Media for Minors Under 14

50 points by ra7 3y ago

sleepingreset 3y ago
how enforceable is this?
- irjustin 3y ago
  It would basically be like under 18 no porn allowed. So.... not really.
- tempnow987 3y ago
  It's weak - but could easily be modified to a strong parental rights type law - companies have to verify in person parental approval for little kids to have social media, parent is then admin on account, and time limits must be settable by the parents for online account activity. And no vanishing text (snapchat etc). The effect would likely be the same, but rules to protect kids have stood up pretty well.
  - harimau777 3y ago
    How could a company realistically verify that a person has parental approval?
    - whatshisface 3y ago
      Similar laws in states like Utah and Texas, focusing on adult content, ask websites to block any user who hasn't either submitted government ID, or been vouched for by an ID compliance provider who themselves are required to have seen your papers (an industry these laws created).
      - harimau777 3y ago
        That seems like it would be a privacy violation waiting to happen. Especially in states like Utah, Texas, and Florida that don't have great track records on human rights.
        whatshisface 3y ago
        Some of them are being challenged on the basis that they chill the free speech of adults by adding dangerous interactions with third parties to only some forms of expression.
- 5kg 3y ago
  Political theatre? Courts will most likely strike it down for violating the First Amendment.
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    That could prove to be an empty hope, considering the fact that kids already don't have second amendment rights. There is also a long precedent of allowing bans on the medium (spraypaint, public parks and megaphones) that do not mention anything about the specific message.
tandr 3y ago
Random uneducated thoughts: 1. Government overriding parental rights in a state that is so proud of all possible "my rights"? I suspect some challenge in court for this law will happen sooner or later. 2. Closed circuit networks with some "private" server to chat between friends might get popular soon. There are enough quite capable 13y/o kids able to do so. Or 14yo, creating one for their little brother. 3. Not having a personal account might not prevent anything, as using parents' account is still possible. 4. Whole class on the same Signal chat room -- is it a "social media"? 5. Somehow parallels of Twitter getting banned during Arab Spring events come to mind.
- tempnow987 3y ago
  Your claim that parents have clicked yes to authorize all the kids accounts and activities is a total joke. When you say "parental rights" - the issue is that parents DON'T have admin rights to their kids social media stuff. Most of these companies do some kind of checkbox the 13 year old checks that confirms that if they are under 13 their parents have approved. The idea this is "parental rights" has to be a sick sick joke. NONE of these companies send anyone anywhere to actually check that the parents OK'ed going on omegle etc. Tweak the law so that the companies have to actually verify parental approval. Ie, something in person with parent and the kid. And that parents then are the admins on the account and get both see all activity and also control minutes / week of activity on the platform.
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    >NONE of these companies send anyone anywhere to actually check that the parents OK'ed going on omegle etc. Why don't we instead ask how many parents actually check? Instead of requesting Apple/Google/Microsoft to help parents see their kid's browsing history from the get-go, we seem to be working towards internet based controls that will also impact the privacy and freedom of adults.
    - ryandvm 3y ago
      Why do we prohibit children from buying booze and guns? Isn't it incumbent upon the parents to prevent them from accessing those things?
pyuser583 3y ago
Kids internet access is a real problem. This is not the solution. Most restrictive laws are not the solution. “The Solution” is to set parents up as universal admins. This obviously isn’t it. But this issue can’t be dismissed, and we can’t wait until a perfect law either.
- tenebrisalietum 3y ago
  Liability should be 100% on the parents. They are the ones who decided to have a child, and are the ones that are liable for any other type of neglect, such as not providing food or shelter, or letting them roam unsupervised. I don't know why it's different just because it's on a computer.
  - tempnow987 3y ago
    I hope you are not on a jury trying a child rapist and blaming the parents as 100% at fault. Liability is obviously not always 100% on the parents. Sometimes you have to send your kid to school. If they are beaten bloody every day that's not necessarily 100% the parents fault - others can exercise some responsibility with respect to kids in our society. The takes here on HN are frankly scary as a parent.
    - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
      > I hope you are not on a jury trying a child rapist and blaming the parents as 100% at fault. A result X may happen because of more than one entity A, B, etc. In this case: the rapist is obviously at fault. If the rape happens because the child was neglected/unsupervised, then the parents may be 100% at fault as well. Similarly parents who give their children phones and are neglectful via not supervising them should be 100% liable for harm that is caused as well as the harm-causing entity. If they cannot supervise them they should not give them the phone. You wouldn't give an 8 year old a weapon and then divert blame from yourself if the child killed someone, so why is it really any different because it's a phone? If your 10 year old makes a Facebook account, and Facebook doesn't delete it when knowledge of the user's age is known, Facebook is in the wrong, and the parent that didn't bother checking what their child is doing is also equally as wrong, and both should be fined equally.
ninjanomnom 3y ago
Ignoring the entire discussion of whether young children should use social media for the moment, this is hilariously unenforceable, which in an odd way makes me in favor of it. Telling children they "can't" do something, and then not doing anything to stop them from doing it is a great way to ensure they learn how to get around these kinds of barriers.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  Laws that make everyone (or in this case, every social media company) guilty aren't unenforceable, they're super-enforcable and result in a constructive ban.
0xcde4c3db 3y ago
> Florida Passes Law Banning Cringey Utterances on Web Forums and IRC Channels And just like that, a million angsty '90s kids vanished in a puff of legislative logic. (It me. I'm the cringey '90s kid.)
- whatshisface 3y ago
  This is either going to result in the total end of libertarians, or a wave of libertarianism in about twenty years like the US has never before imagined. ;)
unquietwiki 3y ago
My friends and I think this might technically ban Steam; unless Steam makes changes to not auto-play videos, allow "infinite scrolling", etc. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/BillText/er/PDF
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Some earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39817525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39817525

50 points by ra7 3y ago

sleepingreset 3y ago

how enforceable is this?

irjustin 3y ago
It would basically be like under 18 no porn allowed. So.... not really.
tempnow987 3y ago
It's weak - but could easily be modified to a strong parental rights type law - companies have to verify in person parental approval for little kids to have social media, parent is then admin on account, and time limits must be settable by the parents for online account activity. And no vanishing text (snapchat etc). The effect would likely be the same, but rules to protect kids have stood up pretty well.
- harimau777 3y ago
  How could a company realistically verify that a person has parental approval?
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    Similar laws in states like Utah and Texas, focusing on adult content, ask websites to block any user who hasn't either submitted government ID, or been vouched for by an ID compliance provider who themselves are required to have seen your papers (an industry these laws created).
    - harimau777 3y ago
      That seems like it would be a privacy violation waiting to happen. Especially in states like Utah, Texas, and Florida that don't have great track records on human rights.
      - whatshisface 3y ago
        Some of them are being challenged on the basis that they chill the free speech of adults by adding dangerous interactions with third parties to only some forms of expression.
5kg 3y ago
Political theatre? Courts will most likely strike it down for violating the First Amendment.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  That could prove to be an empty hope, considering the fact that kids already don't have second amendment rights. There is also a long precedent of allowing bans on the medium (spraypaint, public parks and megaphones) that do not mention anything about the specific message.

tandr 3y ago

Random uneducated thoughts: 1. Government overriding parental rights in a state that is so proud of all possible "my rights"? I suspect some challenge in court for this law will happen sooner or later. 2. Closed circuit networks with some "private" server to chat between friends might get popular soon. There are enough quite capable 13y/o kids able to do so. Or 14yo, creating one for their little brother. 3. Not having a personal account might not prevent anything, as using parents' account is still possible. 4. Whole class on the same Signal chat room -- is it a "social media"? 5. Somehow parallels of Twitter getting banned during Arab Spring events come to mind.

tempnow987 3y ago
Your claim that parents have clicked yes to authorize all the kids accounts and activities is a total joke. When you say "parental rights" - the issue is that parents DON'T have admin rights to their kids social media stuff. Most of these companies do some kind of checkbox the 13 year old checks that confirms that if they are under 13 their parents have approved. The idea this is "parental rights" has to be a sick sick joke. NONE of these companies send anyone anywhere to actually check that the parents OK'ed going on omegle etc. Tweak the law so that the companies have to actually verify parental approval. Ie, something in person with parent and the kid. And that parents then are the admins on the account and get both see all activity and also control minutes / week of activity on the platform.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  >NONE of these companies send anyone anywhere to actually check that the parents OK'ed going on omegle etc. Why don't we instead ask how many parents actually check? Instead of requesting Apple/Google/Microsoft to help parents see their kid's browsing history from the get-go, we seem to be working towards internet based controls that will also impact the privacy and freedom of adults.
  - ryandvm 3y ago
    Why do we prohibit children from buying booze and guns? Isn't it incumbent upon the parents to prevent them from accessing those things?

pyuser583 3y ago

Kids internet access is a real problem. This is not the solution. Most restrictive laws are not the solution. “The Solution” is to set parents up as universal admins. This obviously isn’t it. But this issue can’t be dismissed, and we can’t wait until a perfect law either.

tenebrisalietum 3y ago
Liability should be 100% on the parents. They are the ones who decided to have a child, and are the ones that are liable for any other type of neglect, such as not providing food or shelter, or letting them roam unsupervised. I don't know why it's different just because it's on a computer.
- tempnow987 3y ago
  I hope you are not on a jury trying a child rapist and blaming the parents as 100% at fault. Liability is obviously not always 100% on the parents. Sometimes you have to send your kid to school. If they are beaten bloody every day that's not necessarily 100% the parents fault - others can exercise some responsibility with respect to kids in our society. The takes here on HN are frankly scary as a parent.
  - tenebrisalietum 3y ago
    > I hope you are not on a jury trying a child rapist and blaming the parents as 100% at fault. A result X may happen because of more than one entity A, B, etc. In this case: the rapist is obviously at fault. If the rape happens because the child was neglected/unsupervised, then the parents may be 100% at fault as well. Similarly parents who give their children phones and are neglectful via not supervising them should be 100% liable for harm that is caused as well as the harm-causing entity. If they cannot supervise them they should not give them the phone. You wouldn't give an 8 year old a weapon and then divert blame from yourself if the child killed someone, so why is it really any different because it's a phone? If your 10 year old makes a Facebook account, and Facebook doesn't delete it when knowledge of the user's age is known, Facebook is in the wrong, and the parent that didn't bother checking what their child is doing is also equally as wrong, and both should be fined equally.

ninjanomnom 3y ago

Ignoring the entire discussion of whether young children should use social media for the moment, this is hilariously unenforceable, which in an odd way makes me in favor of it. Telling children they "can't" do something, and then not doing anything to stop them from doing it is a great way to ensure they learn how to get around these kinds of barriers.

whatshisface 3y ago
Laws that make everyone (or in this case, every social media company) guilty aren't unenforceable, they're super-enforcable and result in a constructive ban.

0xcde4c3db 3y ago

> Florida Passes Law Banning Cringey Utterances on Web Forums and IRC Channels And just like that, a million angsty '90s kids vanished in a puff of legislative logic. (It me. I'm the cringey '90s kid.)

whatshisface 3y ago
This is either going to result in the total end of libertarians, or a wave of libertarianism in about twenty years like the US has never before imagined. ;)

unquietwiki 3y ago

My friends and I think this might technically ban Steam; unless Steam makes changes to not auto-play videos, allow "infinite scrolling", etc. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/BillText/er/PDF

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

Some earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39817525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39817525