3 ms·

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.
    - mwigdahl 3y ago
      The question is whether the venue in which the speech is performed in is sufficiently public as to be exempt from regulation. Given that participation on these sites exposes participants to heavy commercial advertising, traffic analysis, and data harvesting, I think it's a reasonable stance that the state can regulate participation.
    - bart_spoon 3y ago
      I’m not sure I buy “social media” = “speech”. By that definition, social media companies shouldn’t be able to prevent anyone from using their website for any reason. Being banned for anything would then be equivalent to violating someone’s rights to speech. Social media companies aren’t required to give a voice to anyone. They are platforms for enabling exercising speech, but they aren’t speech themselves. This seems equivalent to stating that not allowing children in bars or strip clubs violates their right to assembly.
      - hackable_sand 3y ago
        Social media isn't controlled by the government though.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  COPPA, a US federal law, has mandated that websites operating under US jurisdiction receive parental consent prior to collecting online information from children under age 13.[1][2] As far as I'm concerned, this Florida state law practically extends it to children age 16 and under specifically with regards to social media websites and services. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Online_Privacy_Prot... [2]: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-312 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C...
- edgyquant 3y ago
  This is not a blanket restriction it is a ban on social media which a specific thing. Social media != speech it is a product created by a company for profit
Triphibian 3y ago
Voting.
dgfitz 3y ago
Driving, buying nicotine/lottery/porn, working, being in school, etc.

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.
  - mwigdahl 3y ago
    The question is whether the venue in which the speech is performed in is sufficiently public as to be exempt from regulation. Given that participation on these sites exposes participants to heavy commercial advertising, traffic analysis, and data harvesting, I think it's a reasonable stance that the state can regulate participation.
  - bart_spoon 3y ago
    I’m not sure I buy “social media” = “speech”. By that definition, social media companies shouldn’t be able to prevent anyone from using their website for any reason. Being banned for anything would then be equivalent to violating someone’s rights to speech. Social media companies aren’t required to give a voice to anyone. They are platforms for enabling exercising speech, but they aren’t speech themselves. This seems equivalent to stating that not allowing children in bars or strip clubs violates their right to assembly.
    - hackable_sand 3y ago
      Social media isn't controlled by the government though.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Dalewyn 3y ago
COPPA, a US federal law, has mandated that websites operating under US jurisdiction receive parental consent prior to collecting online information from children under age 13.[1][2] As far as I'm concerned, this Florida state law practically extends it to children age 16 and under specifically with regards to social media websites and services. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Online_Privacy_Prot... [2]: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-312 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C...
edgyquant 3y ago
This is not a blanket restriction it is a ban on social media which a specific thing. Social media != speech it is a product created by a company for profit

Triphibian 3y ago

Voting.

dgfitz 3y ago

Driving, buying nicotine/lottery/porn, working, being in school, etc.