32 ms·

Florida's DeSantis signs law restricting social media for people under 16

• vaylian 3y ago
  Does anyone know where to find the actual law text? Otherwise it's hard to assess, what this really means.
  • mminer237 3y ago
    https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0003er.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0003&Session=2024 https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.as...
• thetrutender11 3y ago
  [dead]
• kouru225 3y ago
  At least it’ll encourage the kids to learn a little about computers while they scramble to get around this issue
• bregma 3y ago
  Does this require everyone present a government ID to access anything online? Are international content provider going to be compelled to report transgressions to Florida state authorities?
  • internetter 3y ago
    This is a good question. Does this only apply if I write "i'm 14" when I sign up for the app? Or will I need to prove I'm not underage?
  • sf_rob 3y ago
    I think structuring the law as a penalty is "smart" in that the government does not have to explicitly ask providers to require ID, but I can't imagine them not being at significant financial risk without doing so. This will make the providers look like the "bad guy" to an end-user.
• aNoob7000 3y ago
  The law is going to be shot down quickly if it is an undue burden on adults getting access to social media websites and apps.
  • edgyquant 3y ago
    Doubt. The reigning in of social media companies is one of the few issues with overwhelming bipartisan support
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • seanhunter 3y ago
    I'm not sure the law enshrines a right for adults to have burden-free access to social media websites and apps. It would be fascinating to be proved wrong about that.
  • infamouscow 3y ago
    Virtually every tech company has already been sued under Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. What makes you think the state law would get struct down in federal court?
• setgree 3y ago
  I support this in theory, but good luck trying to outmaneuver teens on the internet. I foresee a proliferation of age faking tools, VPNs, etc.
  • edgyquant 3y ago
    If you start fining the social media companies for breaking this law, this problem will be fixed quickly. Your demoralization propaganda is a line perpetuated by these companies to avoid responsibility
    • bsenftner 3y ago
      > If you start fining the social media companies for breaking this law, this problem will be fixed quickly. A rational solution that would work? Can't have that, won't have that. Who said this? Stop that person from breathing. (sarcasm folks.)
    • cpncrunch 3y ago
      It's a technical problem that isn't easily solvable though, unless facebook outright bans all VPNs.
    • unstruktured 3y ago
      decentralized approaches would be resilient to that.
  • repler 3y ago
    You may be surprised to learn that when asked, teens would actually prefer that everyone give up social media. The key word is “everyone” and it’s a collective action problem. Excellent article in The Atlantic titled “End the Phone Based Childhood Now” which covers this extensively. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/teen-childhood-smartphone-use-mental-health-effects/677722/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/teen-... The study cited in this excellent - but paywalled - article is here: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/2023-131/ https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/2023-131/
• justaman 3y ago
  I grew up as social media came into being(mid 2000s). When I was 13, I got Myspace. When I was 16, I got Facebook. It wasn't until well into college that I realized the impact social media had on my mental health. I would go further and say nobody until 18 should have social media, but that may be unrealistic in 2024.
  • capybara_2020 3y ago
    Just curious, how did it affect your mental health?
    • justaman 3y ago
      I would sit on facebook, refreshing and doom scrolling endlessly. When fb messenger came out I was monitoring facebook messenger when it first came out to see who was online. I was always a pretty lonely kid, and I thought social media would connect me with people. It didn't really.
      • ProllyInfamous 3y ago
        This reminds me of sitting around on AOL Instant Messenger, summer afternoons pre-2000. Facebook came out when I was in college, and I resisted for one semester; then if felt "inevitable" [that I join] since almost all classmates were on thefacebook. ---- At present, I do not carry a cell phone nor use email [it is heavenly, a rare gift]. When somebody is more than ten minutes late for a planned meetup, I depart.
  • dotnet00 3y ago
    Setting it to 18 is obviously pretty ridiculous. That's just going to continue the weird trend of infantilizing people by pushing back the age at which they learn to deal with things that require self control. At 16 there are at least 2 years where parents have the ability to actually interfere and help bring any negative effects under control.
    • skhunted 3y ago
• pjc50 3y ago
  Is there a canonical decision of SCOTUS that children don't have First Amendment rights, and therefore it's OK to restrict their ability to post? (note that rules which require proof of age tend also to turn into rules that end anonymity, because it's more work to separate the proof systems) Edit: I ask a question about caselaw and end up at -3? Yes, I know, don't complain about downvotes, but I don't understand these at all.
  • edgyquant 3y ago
    Yes we already restrict children from doing a ton of things e.g. buying or making pornography
    • pjc50 3y ago
      Separate question, though - that's particular kinds of material (and for some reason US caselaw basically doesn't regard anything pornographic as "speech"), while this is a blanket restriction.
      • onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
        If you're 15, you're not allowed in a bar, and you're not allowed on a porn site, and you're not allowed to buy cigarettes. The list goes on and on. I fail to see how not being allowed on Facebook is different.
        • brk 3y ago
          I think the argument is that there are no constitutional rights to bars, cigarettes, and porn. Social media is being held up as an example of "speech" here, which all US citizens are entitled to (at least in theory).
          • edgyquant 3y ago
            Social media is not “speech” it is a specific type of platform which you also do not have a constitutional right to.
• newsclues 3y ago
  It’s a start! Hope this gets studied before it gets shut down.
• karaterobot 3y ago
  There's no doubt in my mind that this would be healthier for everyone if it panned out. Whether it is legal or enforceable remains to be seen.
• margorczynski 3y ago
  People might see it as harsh but looking at reality and the hard numbers collected about the gigantic negative impact it has on kids and teenagers this is the right move, would even push it till 18.
  • newhotelowner 3y ago
    Why 18 and not 25?
    • ejb999 3y ago
      because under 18 is not an adult legally speaking, and 18+ is?
      • reaperman 3y ago
        Again, not the best argument given that the drinking age is 21. Additionally, children can volunteer for the military at the age of 16. So there's clearly a range, "legally speaking". Leaning on existing laws isn't really the best for these things, because existing laws may be flawed. Would prefer to base it on scientific insights, but we don't have much relevant for this stuff. So the real answer is "We don't know, and different states will try different ages and see what sticks, what people will accept."
        • throw0101b 3y ago
          > Additionally, children can volunteer for the military at the age of 16. In the US, under 18, only with parental consent.
          • reaperman 3y ago
            *Unless emancipated, which also often can happen at 16.
      • newhotelowner 3y ago
        Florida allows 14 years old to work 15 hours. A lot of states are removing restrictions for under 18 workers. Also, drinking age is 21.
• finfrastrcuture 3y ago
  isn't this misguided? good regulation would go after why sites are designed to be addictive / target children - targeted ads.
• mmkos 3y ago
  Great. I think few people have any doubts about social media being a net negative for young people.
  • demondemidi 3y ago
    Young people? I’d say people in general.
    • II2II 3y ago
      Perhaps that is part of the problem with these laws: we are playing a game of whack-a-mole instead of tackling the issue of mental health. While I personally avoid social media due to privacy concerns, I have encountered other adults my age who have expressed that they avoid social media for reasons related to mental health. While walking through my neighbourhood, it is clear that there are many people with mental health issues that society has all but abandoned. Then there are the people who have issues that they do not talk about and cannot be seen.
      • dotnet00 3y ago
        You are literally posting to social media right now.
        • II2II 3y ago
          Perhaps it is because I put a heavier emphasis on the word media, but I don't really classify HN as a social media site. It's more of a forum where people discuss submitted articles. The dynamics are entirely different. For one thing, there is a lot less "attention seeking" behaviour. While YCombinator and associated companies use it as a promotional tool, it is muted. Some end users may use it to drive traffic to their blogs or show off their skills, but it usually comes off as humble and related to common interests (or maybe the blatant self-promoters rarely make it to the front page). Even though some of the people who frequent (or pop in) here are more recognizable, I doubt that anyone is trying to win a popularity contest. I think stuff like that is important when considering the psychological impact of a site. For good or for ill, reality is reality. In contrast, social media sites tend to be driven by fantasy: fame and fortune for creators, endless exponential growth for investors, and all of that nonsense. That distortion of reality can be damaging for those who either seek to achieve it and for those who feel they will never measure up.
• djaouen 3y ago
  Solution for teens wanting to be in social media: move to a better state lol
  • HonestOp001 3y ago
    If you are saying a better state would allow them on social media, something that has been shown to be detrimental to children under eighteen, how can it be a better state?
  • Hugsun 3y ago
    Moving to another state is not accessible to most teenagers. You are probably joking and know that.
• aurareturn 3y ago
  >Critics have said the bill violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections for free speech and that parents, not the government, should make decisions about the online presence of their children of all ages. It's extremely difficult for parents to stop their children, especially early teens from using social media. This law should make it easier and it would put the work on Meta, Snap, Tiktok, Pinterest, Twitter to help parents. I'm personally glad that I grew up without social media but I worry about the kids growing up now. The amount of random junk young kids are exposed to on social media is worrying.
  • edgyquant 3y ago
    These critics have no understanding of the law. We’ve been making exceptions for children for decades at least, probably since the beginning of the republic
    • Cheer2171 3y ago
      I assure you I have an understanding of the law. This is such a a rude and preposterous assertion in bad faith. This is a law mandating ID verification for all children and adults. If you require controls for everyone below a certain age, you de facto require controls for everyone of every age who does not prove they are over the minimum age. In other words, even if you can legally discriminate against children, my rights to speak anonymously as an adult are being taken away because if I don't show my ID, I will be treated as a child who has fewer rights. We can disagree on the merits, but please don't imply that everyone who disagrees with you is ipso facto an idiot.
      • pjc50 3y ago
        Indeed. We've been round this when Facebook etc (most recently Glassdoor) instituted "real name" policies. I'm rather confused about HN's response to this because normally when a media platform voluntarily tries to censor certain kinds of bad behavior there's a massive backlash here, and now there's seemingly overwhelming support for simply removing a whole category of people from being able to speak at all, along with whatever real ID policy gets put in place to make it work.
• bvasilchenko 3y ago
  Ah! The good old party of small government, individual liberties and free market. Well done sticking to your principals sirs and madams!
  • itsoktocry 3y ago
    So the party of small government isn't allowed to make any laws, even for (what they consider, at least) the well-being of society? This concept that "the other side" can't do anything right is going to be the end of society.
    • hackable_sand 3y ago
      It's the hypocrisy of espousing liberty while systematically stripping away personal rights.
  • edgyquant 3y ago
    Nice strawman, the political realignment called and says it wants a word with you
    • Der_Einzige 3y ago
      The current political realignment is a sign that the voters have no ideological convocation and as such are intellectually bankrupt. If you are realigning your politics due to trump, you are the problem. All political realignments are bad because they are a sign of a lack of conviction and a decay in a requirement for consistency.
  • palmfacehn 3y ago
    In other news, 2024's 1.2T budget was recently approved. All roads lead to Rome. Both parties generally seek to expand the scope of the state. Although there are a few Republican senators who lean towards minarchist principles. Expect the cultural right to demand social media verification to protect the children. The illiberal left might demand ID verification to protect the public from the scourge of dangerous misinformation and hate speech. The rationalizations will vary for either side of the spectrum. The two goal posts have been positioned. Don't be surprised when the free-kick goes down the middle and Digital ID is presented as a panacea. https://www.google.com/search?q=digital+ID+site%253Aweforum.org https://www.google.com/search?q=digital+ID+site%253Aweforum....
• mycodendral 3y ago
  Good. Fuck social media.
• internetter 3y ago
  I agree with Meta that this should be implemented at an app store level
  • bart_spoon 3y ago
    That seems ridiculous considering virtually all social media is available both as an application, and as a website. App Store controls won’t do anything in regards to usage through the web.
    • Ajedi32 3y ago
      For the web it should be an HTTP header, integrated into the existing parental control systems on the device.
• nekochanwork 3y ago
  "I don't want my kids using social media without my permission" is a problem that already has a solution: put parental controls on your kids devices. We don't need Daddy Government to make decisions that can and should be made by parents.
  • fdsfdsafdsafds 3y ago
    Restricting access to devices is the easy part (although keeping ahead of kids breaking in is not). Exposing your kids to enormous peer pressure and social isolation is the hard part.
  • lolinder 3y ago
    There's a collective action problem here, though. Some parents are willing to do the hard thing and tell their kid no over and over and over. Most aren't. The result is that kids don't hang out in person any more and so the only social outlet left is digital, which makes the decision to ban it at the family level even harder because you may actually do more harm than good by forcing your child to not participate with his friends. If there's widespread agreement that social media is dangerous and yet widespread difficulty coordinating a response among parents, isn't that exactly what the government is for?
    • Buttons840 3y ago
      Kids will quickly learn that if their parents say "yes", they can get on social media, and so parents will still have to say "no" over and over again. The only difference is now we need to make sure our government papers are in order before we participate in the most important communication forum of our time.
    • iteria 3y ago
      We can apply this to everything. No one is trying to raise the age of candy and soda purchase to 16. Although we know that having access to these things drastically impacts children's health. Fast food too. Like it's the literal job of a parent to tell their kids no. Over and over and over again. So instead of parents teaching healthy habits easy with something a child will not be a le to avoid as an adult, we'll just unleash them on them right when failure is high impact because some parents are lazy and we're not willing to have public service campaigns anymore. Or really want this is is one more step to a de-anon'd internet, where everyone's speech can be controlled.
• djaouen 3y ago
  Talk about big government encroaching on personal liberties!
  • gallamine 3y ago
    It's a state government restricting minors ...
• Vox_Leone 3y ago
  In light of empirical evidence, it is positive legislation. However, let us not be fooled that the problem is the algorithms. In my anecdote I see a clear divide between the classic phase of interaction in chronological order and algorithmic intervention. The action of algorithms orchestrating human interactions reminds me of Asimov's Mule[0] and at this point in events it is certain that the algorithm builders have very fine control over human mental patterns. If I were to choose just one target for my efforts to sanitize the internet I would focus my fire on algorithms. Legislate without mercy. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_and_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_and_Empire
  • tech_ken 3y ago
    > at this point in events it is certain that the algorithm builders have very fine control over human mental patterns IMO this dramatically oversells the power of recommender systems, and in a way which further serves their owners' interests rather than challenging them. In fact, I think what's clear is that they are at best able to achieve a very gross level of control over human mental patterns, one which is not meaningfully different than previous forms of media that have popped up throughout history. "Engagement", keeping someone scrolling long enough that they accumulate a nontrivial probability of clicking on an ad, is the lowest common denominator of marketing. Television, radio, and print media have long understood how to keep people serially "engaged" (consider the 'if it bleeds it leads' mentality of local news, or the emergence of 'angertainment' on CNN or FOX in the 90s and onwards). But stimulating engagement is very different from actually controlling someone or altering their behavior in a way beyond "hey look at this interesting thing!". Consider that the click-through rate for Meta ads is on the order of ~1%, and this is literally their most valuable metric. They achieve this not by actually persuading people that an ad they don't care about is actually interesting (which to me would be the real acid test of whether they have 'fine control'), but rather by (a) effectively segmenting the audience in a way TV can't and (b) keeping the audience engaged long enough that maybe they click an ad. While they're no doubt good at both of these things, I think it's telling that the best these platforms have been able to do is the same strategy that every other form of mass media has also stumbled on: throw enough sensational crap your way that you stick around long enough to maybe click an ad. To your point more directly: I agree that being able to agitate large groups of people in the same way is a dangerous ability, but I think it's also one that's very old and very common. It is not the unique provenance of 'algorithms', it's just the nature of mass media acting as a demagogue (look at role of newspapers in the lead-up to the Spanish-American war, for an example that predates our modern era). The way we challenge this is IMO not by treating the problem as something entirely new and overwhelmingly powerful ("big tech algorithms are mind control rays"), it's by looking at the historical record and recycling the strategies which have worked before (libel and slander laws, journalistic ethics, and trust-busting). Certainly there are elements of the problem which are new and unique , but from where I'm sitting the differences seem smaller than the similarities.
• devsda 3y ago
  > Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, opposed the legislation, saying it would limit parental discretion and raise data privacy concerns because of the personal information users would have to provide to be age-verified. They can delegate or they can archive and choose not to use this data for anything other than the stated purpose. Are they indirectly saying that they can't restrain themselves and that any data they collect for whatever reasons is fair game ? I guess their problem is if someone submits identifying data willingly they will not be able to use it for other purposes without consent and they will look suspicious even when they infer the data/connections independently.
• ChrisArchitect 3y ago
  [dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39822577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39822577
• apantel 3y ago
  There’s an alternative to a blanket restriction on all types of social media: When I was growing up, there was basically just ICQ (predominantly chat, sparse text profile), then MSN (predominantly chat, sparse text profile with one or a few profile photos), then early MySpace where nobody was uploading their real identity. I think it would have been a shame to not have access to those types of networks. I met so many people through those types of networks. The law could put a restriction only on the post-2005 type of social media which is about publishing a curated stream of life updates with one’s real identity in rich media (photos, videos). If you take that all of that out, there’s nothing to ‘like’ or compare yourself to.
  • armchairhacker 3y ago
    According to the article, the bill requires social media platforms ban accounts belonging to underage users and delete “personal information collected from terminated accounts”. I’m no lawyer and haven’t read the actual text, but if you have a platform where there are no accounts and everyone posts anonymously or under a pseudonym, like 4chan, it completely sidesteps this.
• alphabettsy 3y ago
  The biggest problem I see is that we’re now essentially requiring ID to use substantial parts of the internet. So many business only have a Facebook page, Google maps has social features. I already didn’t want a Facebook account just to see a businesses specials, now I’ll need to present ID too? Certainly interested to see how all this plays out.
  • macintux 3y ago
    I’ve gotten by for the last several years without Facebook or Google (I do use a YT account, but not for anything meaningful). It’s annoying, but doable.
    • Clubber 3y ago
      >I’ve gotten by for the last several years without Facebook or Google (I do use a YT account, but not for anything meaningful). It’s annoying, but doable. I think the point is that the internet and particularly social media is now the de-facto town square. States are basically requiring identification to speak or criticize government in the town square. If you take a step back and look at it that way, it's grossly anti-American. Imagine back in the day, if you had any type of meeting/gathering to discuss anything that might be related to politics, and the police were there to collect everyone's Id. AA meetings, computer meetups, hobby gathering, HOA meetings, etc. This is essentially that, except on a computer. Just think of the children!
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • Gud 3y ago
        It’s not a defacto town square though. If anything, these services are more similar to shopping malls. And don’t be surprised when the mall cop throws you out for causing a scene, or just lounging about and not consuming enough.
        • thomastjeffery 3y ago
• evantbyrne 3y ago
  Pretty wild to watch the basic rights of people in red states backslide in real time. Now there is the (what should be unnecessary) legal question of whether you can even run a social media platform with anonymous users in the state of Florida. Needing de facto governmental verification to communicate with people on the internet is something I had hoped I would never live to see in America. Hopefully it will not be fully enforced to the letter of the law.
  • lolinder 3y ago
    There isn't really such a question. The law explicitly requires anonymous third-party age verification to be offered as an option. There are definitely concerns about how well that will work in practice, and I would definitely want to wait and see how it works in Florida before advocating for a wider rollout, but this Florida bill is actually the most reasonable of these age verification requirements rolled out to date. I'm all for a healthy skepticism of government intervention, but my feeling is let's let Florida try this out and see what happens.
    • kjkjadksj 3y ago
      If you think kids won’t route around this then you don’t know kids. Its a political move for desantis to rally his base, nothing more.
      • lolinder 3y ago
        Like I said, let's wait and see. I don't expect all kids to keep off social media—not all kids stay away from alcohol either—what I'd hope is that a significant enough percentage of them stay off that kids who do stay off have an easier time setting up healthier interaction patterns among their friend groups.
      • hackable_sand 3y ago
        The more insidious undertone is that Florida is (or is establishing legal precedence for) policing information access. If anything is detrimental to the health of a child, it's a restricted worldview.
• thrownaway561 3y ago
  The biggest thing about social media is that it NEVER stops. Growing up, if you had trouble with bullying at school, it ended when you went home, your home was your safe zone. Now there are no safe zones. not only that, but i fully believe that kids are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to impressionable and influenceable. there is a reason kids can't do a lot of things until 18 (even through the brain doesn't fully develop till 25). kids should not be influenced by social media to be doing permanent things that could harm themselves (like gender transitioning, getting a tatoo or piercing, or doing something dangerous challege) or their future careers (like breaking the law so they have a criminal record). honestly social media is a wonderful thing, but something has to be done. i personally believe that parents need to have more power in discipling their children. i don't like the fact that laws like this have to be created, but i see that they have to exists with the more power they take away from the parents.
  • KaiserPro 3y ago
    > if you had trouble with bullying at school, it ended when you went home, your home was your safe zone. I went to school just at the cusp of digital bullying. A yahoo group was set up specifically to bully one kid in my class. It was shut down by yahoo, but I think because it was hosting porn, not because it was mostly designed for bullying people. This was in the days of shared computers, and no real notifications. Now the bully is in your pocket. I don't know what the equitable answer is. out right banning is wrong. But we do need to significantly more to allow people to escape bullying.
• paxys 3y ago
  Right, Florida teenagers are totally not going to use social media after this law. It's like everyone commenting on this thread was born yesterday. This is a form of government control on your devices and eyeballs, nothing else. And considering it is effectively impossible to enforce, the state is soon going to start suing all the tech companies they don't like and push further restrictions/censorship.
  • Clubber 3y ago
    >Right, Florida teenagers are totally not going to use social media after this law. It's like everyone commenting on this thread was born yesterday. I mean they banned drugs and that totally worked, right? /s
• toyg 3y ago
  It was already de-facto illegal for people under 13 to have social accounts. Do you know any kids younger than that on social media? I do. This is the equivalent of paper bags for beer cans - it will do nothing to fix the problem, but it will make children slightly more secretive about their internet usage, which will make some situations (grooming, bullying) even worse.
  • bequanna 3y ago
    > Do you know any kids younger than that on social media? I do. That isn't really how laws work. You don't say: "Driving under the influence is illegal, but I totally know people who drink and drive so the law is useless". A solution doesn't need to be 100% effective for it to be hugely beneficial to society.
    • toyg 3y ago
      The point is that the pre-existing law was already completely ineffective. This one will be no better. One can restrict consuming a resource only if one has means to police such restrictions. Unless you agree to draconian measures, like having all browsers under police control at all times, there is no real way to police web access by age.
      • bequanna 3y ago
        So, we shouldn’t make laws even if we think they are good because we aren’t exactly sure exactly how we will enforce them? The legislative and executive functions are separate in our system. The former passes laws and the latter figures out how to enforce them.
• generalizations 3y ago
  I like this. We'll get another generation of anti-authoritarian hackers. These kids will learn to circumvent the laws, and the process will improve both their skills and their philosophy.
• maxehmookau 3y ago
  Pains me as it does to admit it, I'm OK with this, and I'm so glad that I grew up in an age before TikTok existed. Social media in its current form is designed to be as addictive as possible as a method of revenue generation. That's it. The more time we spend on these apps, the more money they make. Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok are designed from the ground-up to take as much time and attention as possible by using the same tricks that slot machines use. This is well-known and well-documented amongst _people like us_ who work in tech. It's less well-known outside our bubble. Plenty of adults are unable to break the curse of the endless scroll, so what chance do children have? It is, in my opinion, as dangerous as cigarettes, and we don't allow 11-year-olds to buy those. I don't know if a ban is the way to go, but something's gotta change.
• CivBase 3y ago
  I was curious how the bill defines "social media" since it is a vague term. Here's the bill: https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/3/billtext/er/pdf https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/3/billtext/er/pdf The definition starts near the bottom of page 3. Seems to me like this criteria would be hard to prove and easy for platforms to game: > Ten percent or more of the daily active users who are younger than 16 years of age spend on average 2 hours per day or longer on the online forum, website, or application on the days when using the online forum, website, or application during the previous 12 months or, if the online forum, website, or application did not exist during the previous 12 months, during the previous month; Anyone know why that criteria even exists in the first place?
• redserk 3y ago
  I think this adds an incredible amount of risk to almost any US-based social media site, big or small, regardless of which state you're in. You can't 100.0% block all Floridians from accessing your site, especially with GeoIP databases. This means someone who is close enough to the border of Alabama or Georgia with an IP address reportedly in another state could easily find reason to sue you. And because you're in the US, you can easily be made to show up in a costly court battle over state lines. This is horrifying news for small/medium sized social media sites.
  • Hugsun 3y ago
    The bill seems to be targeting certain types of social media platforms. I'm not sure everyone is at risk. What small/medium sites do you have in mind? HN doesn't seem to be a target for example.
    • redserk 3y ago
      I'm not a lawyer so I'll happily accept a more thorough analysis. My quick reading of the bill leads me to think that smaller forums might actually qualify -- unless I missed a section on size of social network. This bill says: (I apologize for the incredibly bad formatting below, I've edited a few times to try to get things right) > A social media site must fufill the criteria: > ... > 2. Ten percent or more of the daily active users who are younger than 16 years of age spend on average 2 hours per day or longer on the online forum, website, or application on the days when using the online forum, website, or application during the previous 12 months or, if the online forum, website, or application did not exist during the previous 12 months, during the previous month; ...when I was in high school, I spent a filthy amount of time on online tech forums. If Hackernews were around back then, I would've likely been on it for 2+ hours just reading random links. > 3. Employs algorithms that analyze user data or information on users to select content for users; and > > 4. Has any of the following addictive features: > a. Infinite scrolling, which means either: > (I) Continuously loading content, or content that loads as the user scrolls down the page without the need to open a separate page; or > (II) Seamless content, or the use of pages with no visible or apparent end or page breaks. > b. Push notifications or alerts sent by the online forum, website, or application to inform a user about specific activities or events related to the user's account > c. Displays personal interactive metrics that indicate the number of times other users have clicked a button to indicate their reaction to content or have shared or reposted the content. So... any algorithm that selects "hot/active" content based on views+interaction, upvotes or emails about people who reply to your comments. Now combine this with: > When taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. So what defines "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors"? This seems like something that might be applied on very arbitrary grounds and won't require much to trigger it. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/BillText/er/PDF
• thiht 3y ago
  I hope for them a "social media" is well defined, because it gets blurrier as years pass.
• tharmas 3y ago
  I find it disturbing that both political parties seem to be goose-stepping towards Authoritarianism albeit for different Ideological reasons.
• zafka 3y ago
  I feel that more than anything this is a subsidy for all of Desantis's lawyer friends - paid for by residents of Florida. While Florida was an odd state when I moved here 40 years ago, it has become more surreal at an accelerating pace. I wonder if the simulation has a local glitch.
• Buttons840 3y ago
  The recent World Happiness Report[0] concluded: > In many but not all regions, the young are happier than the old. But in North America happiness has fallen so sharply for the young that they are now less happy than the old. By contrast, in the transition countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the young are much happier than the old. In Western Europe as a whole happiness is similar at all ages, while elsewhere it tends to decline over the life cycle (with an occasional upturn for the old). I think social media is a red herring. For whatever reason, young people in America are unhappy and instead if dealing with hard problems we think "let's just take social media away, that will fix it". Does Finland not have social media? Why are young people in Finland happier than they are in America? I predict this trend will continue, we will take social media away from kids and they will still be unhappy as they look for things to do in their small apartment while mom and dad look at their cell phones. [0]: https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2024/happiness-and-age-summary/ https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2024/happiness-and-age-summ...
  • ericmcer 3y ago
    I have a 14 year old and the content of social media seems to be what bums her out. She seems to be ingrained with the idea that she will never own a home, environmental disasters will be constant and the economy will be in shambles by the time she reaches adulthood. Maybe America just has a uniquely depressive social media environment? I have not read any kind of large scale studies examining the "tone" of social media feeds in different countries but that would be interesting. * Also whenever she says stuff like that I respond by letting her know she will be able to buy a house if she wants one, the economy will always be good for people who are work smart and hard, etc.
    • psadauskas 3y ago
      > she will be able to buy a house if she wants one, the economy will always be good for people who are work smart and hard, etc. Yeah, I don't think that's true at all. Its just anecdata, but I have several friends in their 30s for which that's just not the case. They're smart and work (harder than I do, just not in tech), but the price of a down payment on a home is going up faster than they're able to save, and they already live relatively frugally. We live in a major metro area, not a particularly expensive one, but the same is true for most of my cousins in the same age range spread across the country. I feel like my age group (mid 40s) is the last one that could afford home ownership, and me only because I got lucky by working in tech. Other people I know that are better educated and work harder than me are just shut out of the housing market, without some kind of windfall.
• bananapub 3y ago
  I do love the US Right's hilariously dishonest obsession with "free speech" and how the rest of the US engages with them as if it is some good faith disagreement. the Right should also be more worried - requiring the construction of this sort of Technological Autocracy Infrastructure should scare them, since presumably they won't always be in charge. of course the flip side is that a lot of the leaders are Christian Dominionists who aren't worried about that, since they want to end the United States as it currently exists. anyway, cheery! hope everyone agrees that not letting kids see what Rhianna had for lunch or whatever was worth it.
  • djohnston 3y ago
    > hope everyone agrees that not letting kids see what Rhianna had for lunch or whatever was worth it Better your kids than mine. If you think that’s what is happening on social media your children are screwed.
    • bananapub 3y ago
      If you don’t want your kids to have access to social media, then you should definitely stop them. Don’t let them have a smart phone, put it in family mode, etc etc. Asking US states to build the infrastructure of a police state to stop your kids doing things you don’t want is … a ridiculous and dangerous overreaction.
• bananapub 3y ago
  worth remembering what this sort of stupidity actually means: creating the infrastructure for US government(s) mandated and approved identity verification on the Internet. this has a number of serious consequences, unrelated to children learning awesome dance moves: - it's obviously a massive violation of whatever remains of "free speech" in the US, and allowing this to happen creates a precedent for nibbling at all sorts of other things - creates precedent that children are even more subservient to their parents and random whims of whatever politicians are in charge at any point - it creates the technical infrastructure and precedent for random US governments and whatever lunatics control them at the time to mediate permission to access websites - it creates a massive database of PII, this time focussed on kids, which will be accessed endlessly by random companies, and will de facto have no actual access controls - it spews government-required and validated PII around loads of random websites - hacking a site and then quietly passively copying all their calls to the database will be of great interest to fuckwits around the world - will require trying harder to geo-locate users, creating even more PII and having even more of it being government-audited - creates a huge hammer for politicians to beat up on unfavoured companies / blackmail them - undermines the functioning of the US as a coherent unified state
• kgwxd 3y ago
  The year of the Lemmy off-shore instances!
• kirubakaran 3y ago
  Limiting it for people over 70 would probably do more good
• exabrial 3y ago
  I'll be the odd guy out and say it should probably be illegal to attempt to enter a contract (AUP, privacy policy, etc) with a minor anyway (for a lot of reasons around exploitation), so I don't _really_ have a major issue with this at face value. I know the devil is in the details though, so kinda curious what the actual provisions are. The alternative is a free internet, where we don't need accounts to do things, because we're not building or storing advertising profiles on users. Hmmmm... imagine that.
  • tremon 3y ago
    Plenty of other goods and services are used by children, even targeted at them, without them needing to enter a contract.
    • poorlyknit 3y ago
      Would you mind expanding that? I always assumed that renting, lending or buying anything constitutes a contract technically.
      • tremon 3y ago
        If you want to be really pedantic, everytime a minor makes a purchase in a convenience store, that's technically a fulfillment of a contract. We still consider this a normal interaction and we don't consider the purchase null and void because one of the parties was underage. I was thinking more about sports clubs, or things like the scouts or church groups. Sure, the payment side requires parental supervision but none of them operate under dracionan "accept our legalese or we won't let you play"-style rules. There's a lot of difference between "we have an implicit contract that's based around common values" and "we deny you access unless you agree to be exploited". I felt that the blanket statement "it should probably be illegal to attempt to enter a contract with a minor anyway" was implying that therefore young people should have no agency. That's probably not what the GP meant, but I thought it needed stating explicitly that we do expect children/teenagers/adolescents to gradually take more control over their own life, and that we do expect society to allow for that.
    • deleted 3y ago
• redleggedfrog 3y ago
  Well, I'll throw one my customer's ideas out there. "Only validate their age if they're under 16." Originally, "Only require a middle name when they have one."
• ijijijjij 3y ago
  What's the definition of social media in this case?
  • chrisco255 3y ago
    Yeah the definition of "social media" has got to be so loose that it will be a slippery slope law used to enforce ID requirements on all sorts of online applications, from games to instant messengers.
• tech_ken 3y ago
  To me this has the flavor of adding ratings for a video game or movie, or having porn sites ask if you're over 18 before letting you in. I guess possibly it will do some good (assuming that the implementation isn't crap, which is a stretch), but overall seems like a probable nothingburger in terms of actually being good for young adults' mental well-being. Evidence for the negative impacts of social media on young adults is thin AFAIK, so ultimately seems more like an attempt to cash in on the social-media/trans rights moral panic that DeSantis has built his political brand around. I do wonder why the bill seeks to restrict users' freedoms, rather than making it illegal to advertise to children in general or something (as many other countries besides the US did decades ago to target children's television). I don't want to impute too much into DeSantis' motivations without evidence, but from where I'm standing it certainly seems like the difference is the model of harm. If your model is: "advertising to children is profitable, so social media will do shady things to keep them engaged to shill them crap" then banning ads makes sense, whereas if it's: "children go on social media/the internet[0], meet new people, and learn that they may be gender non-conforming in some way" then dramatically curtailing their access to the internet seems more effective. [0] Given the dominance of social media platforms these terms seems basically interchangeable in this context, IMO.
• LVB 3y ago
  Let the experiment take place, I say. Just like Oregon’s now-repealed drug use decriminalization bill. It didn’t achieve its intended goals, but there is now a mass of data about what assumptions were wrong, implementation issues, etc. IMO there is real value in letting states put such changes into play to get beyond the debate and actually test the hypotheses.
  • rhelz 3y ago
    > IMO there is real value in letting states ... test the hypotheses. "Experience is a dear teacher, but fools will have no other" -- Benjamin Franklin
    • b112 3y ago
      Experience keeps a dear school, yet Fools will learn in no other. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/05/25/dear-school/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/05/25/dear-school/
      • petesergeant 3y ago
        > The adjective “dear” means high-priced, costly, or expensive in the context below To save someone else a click
  • Solvency 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • serial_dev 3y ago
      Are you sure that's correct? This seems to indicate that you aren't? https://www.floridahealth.gov/programs-and-services/immunization/children-and-adolescents/school-immunization-requirements/index.html https://www.floridahealth.gov/programs-and-services/immuniza...
• AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Would HN be "social media" under this law?
• zkid18 3y ago
  Can anyone not from the US explain how we can work with the data from social media? These are the questions we need to address: 1. How can we identify if the user is based in Florida? 2. How can we determine their age? 3. How can we map the parent-child relationship here? 4. What will happen if the account was created in Argentina during traveling?
• newobj 3y ago
  tHe PaRtY of LImIteD goVerNmEnT
  • djohnston 3y ago
    Should Republicans only repeal laws? Is that the point you’re struggling to make?
• soygem 3y ago
  >kids getting brain less damaged by shorts and tiktoks We are so back >id required for more stuff It's so over
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• ein0p 3y ago
  Could we maybe also start passing laws under which internet connected devices such as phones are not allowed in schools during class? I fear that we’re raising a generation of scatter brained know nothings with attention spans of a fruit fly, who watched YouTube in class instead of listening to the teacher. That is not without cost - some of those kids will have much worse life outcomes due to the lack of even basic education.
  • sodality2 3y ago
    Your fear is not unfounded in the slightest. Going to repost a comment I made on the same article elsewhere: There is an enormous wealth of research showing social media access at a young age is INCREDIBLY detrimental. * [The Smartphone Kids Are Not All Right](https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/03/smartphone-anxious-generation-mental-health/677817/ https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/03/smartph...) - Hanna Rosin, The Atlantic, March 2024 * [End the Phone-Based Childhood Now](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/teen-childhood-smartphone-use-mental-health-effects/677722/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/teen-...) (Unpaywalled at [MSN](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/end-the-phone-based-childhood-now/ar-BB1jONI0 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/end-the-phone-base...)) - Jonathan Haidt, The Atlantic, March 2024 * [Get Phones Out of Schools Now](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/ban-smartphones-phone-free-schools-social-media/674304/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/ban-smartp...) - Jonathan Haidt, The Atlantic, June 2023 * [The Dangerous Experiment on Teen Girls](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/facebooks-dangerous-experiment-teen-girls/620767/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/facebooks-...) - Jonathan Haidt, The Atlantic, November 2021 * [The Teen Mental Illness Epidemic Began Around 2012](https://www.afterbabel.com/p/the-teen-mental-illness-epidemic https://www.afterbabel.com/p/the-teen-mental-illness-epidemi...) - Jonathan Haidt, Afterbabel, February 2023 * [Kids Who Get Smartphones Earlier Become Adults With Worse Mental Health](https://www.afterbabel.com/p/sapien-smartphone-report https://www.afterbabel.com/p/sapien-smartphone-report) - Jonathan Haidt and Zach Rausch, Afterbabel, May 2023 * [Coddling Plus Devices? Unequivocal Disaster for Our Kids.](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/books/review/jonathan-haidt-the-anxious-generation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/books/review/jonathan-hai...) - Tracy Dennis-Tiwary, New York Times, March 2024
• stainablesteel 3y ago
  a good step forward but i think it would be both better and easier to make it illegal for < 16 yo's to have a smart phone the reason being that you can assume that's how they're using social media, so its a pretty good way to stop it, and this doesn't require annoying age or identity verification mechanisms for everyone else
• darkhelmet 3y ago
  I don't think this is really about protecting minors, or hurting big tech, or scoring some short term votes, or anything like that. I feel it's more likely that the long game is ultimately about de-anonymizing the Internet. This particular objective is a solid plausible explanation of so many initiatives over the last few years. Perhaps not full public de-anonymization, but at the very least to make it easier for things like CALEA to exist in these spaces as well. The public is constantly shown techniques in whodunnit TV shows where the good guys can instantly look up an IP address or other identifying log entry and associate it with a name/address/etc. IMHO, the plan is to make Business As Usual untenable and make it cheaper and financially safer for tech companies to give in and identify everybody as a survival mechanism. When its safer to record a passport/realid/etc as a legal defense then at some point it'll be done. After that happens then it's easy to plug in something like CALEA. The public is already being primed to accept it with the benefits being constantly shown on the likes of CSI/NCIS/etc/etc/etc shows. Of course, from a profit perspective, it certainly wouldn't hurt that all this valuable user data that is being being compiled is finally cross checked and validated. Or maybe I'm completely wrong and there's no ulterior motive and there's nothing more to it than politicians trying to be seen to be doing the right thing. Hah! I'm way too cynical for that.
  • notyourwork 3y ago
    Although I don't support it, would the internet be a better place with people being identified? For this to be a constructive discussion, can we assume companies have a proper and secure way to validate identities and store your data? A lot of the extremism we see online is because people hide behind their keyboard. I sometimes wonder if the internet as we know it and social medias pervasive influence would be much different if people were less anonymous. Please convince me I'm crazy or provide anecdotes that suggest this to be a terrible idea. I grew up with internet access in the early 90s and have been behind a keyboard ever since. edit: Downvotes are not for disagreement, please provide constructive discussion to a reasonable question.
    • Nathanba 3y ago
      People will be even less likely to tell you their real opinions online if a data breach can uncover the real identity behind all their posts
• shark_laser 3y ago
  Sounds like Mastodon and other ActivityPub enabled services are about to be flooded with Floridian teenagers?
• TheAlchemist 3y ago
  This may be one of the rare instances where regulation is not a bad thing. Social media, especially the recent evolution with shorts, reels and tik-tok, are destroying young minds (and older too). I'm pretty sure there are millions of people who try to limit their consumption of social media, without any luck - it's just too addictive. If one was able to make a decision - to completely ban for example tik-tok (like make it disappear forever) my feeling is that many people would decide yes. As this is obviously not possible, we all struggle with the overall negative impact.
• xyst 3y ago
  On one hand: social media preys on people of all ages to collect precious data points, know your habits, sell your profile to advertisers which then is used to deliver “targeted ads”. The algorithm then picks up on your habits, and recommends shit you would interact with. The more you interact with “x” content, the more the algorithm tests you with related content or worse (ie, anti abortion ads, aLpHa MaLe content, “own the libz”, “let’s Go BrAnDoN”). Echo chambers formed. The country becomes further divided. Adversaries of the US inch closer to disrupting a “super power” as the country implodes from within (it nearly happened on January 6th, 2021). Social media is like a drug. And should be treated as such. I would kind of support this legislation. BUT, at the same time. Why is the state government mandating this? Where are the parents? Maybe they are also dazed by the drug of social media. ItS jUsT aN aPp, mentality. Yet what they don’t realize is these companies spend billions of dollars to fine tune the algorithm to build profiles on all of their users. Focus grouped to help. Decades of psychology used against the mind of a pre-teen, elderly, or the uneducated. They stand no chance. I’m also concerned at where this stops. First its to protect the children. Then it progresses to full blown censorship of the internet (ie, “Great (fire) Wall of china”). The so called “small government party” is pushing this as well, which is concerning.
  • Terretta 3y ago
    > The so called “small government party” is pushing this as well, which is concerning. Is there any such thing as a small government party, or only parties that want any parts of government they disagree with to be non-existent*? An examination of the past several years in Florida may shed light on this. * And often more of the parts they like.
• killjoywashere 3y ago
  My kids are 19 and 22. I saw them go through this at a time when we just didn't know. Now, I advise friends with young children: you don't want your kids to be the last to get phones, or the first to get phones. But you should be in explicit competition with your fellow parents to be second-to-last. Sort of a Dutch auction situation.
  • justrealist 3y ago
    > you don't want your kids to be the last to get phones Why? Other than maybe bitching and moaning about it, what's the actual harm?
• gnicholas 3y ago
  I recall hearing Professor Haidt (NYU) describe an experiment he ran with teenagers. He asked them how much they'd have to be paid (per month?) to not use some social media site. The typical answer was ~$40. Then he said that they were going to get all the other kids in the school off the social media site, and asked again what the student would want to be paid to be off the site. The answer was that students would actually pay to be in that situation. For some kids at least, this is a coordination problem, where they'd all rather not be on social media, but assuming others are, they want to be there. I could be getting the details/dollar values wrong, and I don't know that this bill is the right way to address the issue. But it's pretty clear that social media is something that many teens wish they could avoid, but currently feel they can't. That doesn't mean we need to Do Something™, but it does mean that we're not currently in the optimal situation. Edit: found the experiment. Haidt wrote about it, but it was done by University of Chicago economist Leonardo Bursztyn. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/teen-childhood-smartphone-use-mental-health-effects/677722/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/teen-...
  • friend_and_foe 3y ago
    I know I've felt that feeling. I'm not a teenager, but I can imagine the FOMO and loss of social clout a kid would feel not being connected in ways that their peers are. My solution was to not care if I was missing out. Counterintuitively, it's not until you do that that you're free to find the life you want for yourself. Good luck explaining that to a 16 year old though, they're not there yet, they're not building the life they want, they're finding their tribe, and you have to be connected to do that.
    • Nextgrid 3y ago
      Keep in mind that social media is pretty much the only outlet you have for social signalling as a teenager. Disconnecting from it at that age is social suicide. Disconnecting as an adult is much easier/worthwhile because you now have other means of signalling.
      • willcipriano 3y ago
• downrightmike 3y ago
  Suddenly everyone's birthday: 1/1/1111
• calculatte 3y ago
  If we could do the same for people 16 and over, the world would be a better place.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• hn_acker 3y ago
  Hey Reuters, no thanks for not linking to the Florida bill in question. The bill is CS/CS/HB 3 - Online Protections for Minors [1][2]. [1] https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=80144 https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.as... [2] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/00003/ https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/00003/
• cultofmetatron 3y ago
  if we really wanna get the kids off social media, we need to bring back thrid places. kids need places where they can meet in person. we dismantled those and the kids went to social media to meet each other. getting rid of social media without letting them hang out in person is just goin to create an epidemic of social lonliness
• hasty_pudding 3y ago
  I wonder if kids on social media is going to be looked at in a hundred years like we look at kids smoking cigarettes from 100 years ago.
• rysertio 3y ago
  This'll probably have a Streisand effect by making having a secret social media account the cool kids thing and probably add up even more to the societal pressure to get in social media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
• josephd79 3y ago
  This won't work, 99.9% of parents will just consent. Also, they'll just find another way around it or like I've already seen where they have large imessage groups going.
  • josephd79 3y ago
    or use something like internet forums etc.