7 ms·

>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 decis

• 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.
      • thomastjeffery 3y ago
        It's still early in the day. I expect this thread to get more diverse attention over time.
      • ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
        > a whole category of people from being able to speak at all Hot take but I can go without the opinions of children.
        • wizzwizz4 3y ago
          Well, yeah. I can go without the opinions of any underrepresented group. (A lot of theoretical computer science work in my field was done by pseudonymous children, but it's not like I need that to live.) Doesn't mean they can go without me hearing what they have to say.
          • ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
            What theoretical computer science work is being done by middle schoolers? Are you a Minecraft YouTuber?
            • wizzwizz4 3y ago
              I was thinking things like complexity theory. The Minecraft kids are generally more on the applied side of things: software engineering, usability work, that kind of stuff; and afaik they don't really publish in ways that are easy to cite in academia. (I'm only familiar with that sort of thing in passing.)
    • fakecontent000 3y ago
      [dead]
    • KaiserPro 3y ago
      But you have that for many things in the states. If you subscribe to cable, you need to prove your financial record, which excludes most people under 18. if you want to buy the special channels, you have to go through an extra set of hoops. Buying actual real media porn in stores or mail order, require(d) some level of age verification. If it went to a minor, massive fine and or a criminal record. You need to prove your age to drink(or buy) alcohol and drive a car, and vote. Minors are treated differently in most common law countries.
• Cheer2171 3y ago
  > It's extremely difficult for parents to stop their children, especially early teens from using social media. What are you talking about? Parents can use on-device controls, you can lock a phone down in many ways. There will be whiz kids who can get around these, but those few whiz kids can also easily get around any controls via legislation with VPNs.
  • mwigdahl 3y ago
    It doesn't require a whiz kid to get around the absolutely terrible implementation of parental controls on iOS. Based on the number of bugs in ScreenTime (TikTok restricted to 15 minutes, but on the same screen shows 2.5 hours of use that day) I'm half convinced the feature is just parental control theater.
• reacharavindh 3y ago
  Not speaking from personal experience. My kid is only 4. Your argument seems like exactly what my parents would have said about me spending so much time on TV, computers and electronics instead of studying, playing outside, sports etc. Almost exactly like your last paragraph.. “I’m personally glad that I grew up without infinite channels on TV, computers and its games, cell phones and your SMSes. I’m worried about your generation. You guys are exposed to a lot of junk and things that waste your attention.” - Dad. Yet, here we are…. May be kids of now will just need to be educated about the real impact and not be treated as if they are in glass houses?
  • aurareturn 3y ago
    I think there are magnitudes and cliffs for this stuff. TV --> has quality control, professionally done, goes through a team of editors/creators before making it onto the screen Early internet --> Mostly harmless content, can find dark stuff if kids look for it but it's pretty hard to find. More dangerous than TV but not too bad. SMS --> just chatting with people you know. Not afraid. TikTok, IG Reels, Youtube Shorts, Snapchat, Twitter: Good luck to you. Your kid is going to see a ton of deep fakes, edited images of unrealistic body proportions that the influencer won't disclose, heaps of radical and extremist views, undisclosed sponsorships masquerading as advice, targeted ads that anyone can buy, etc. The magnitude is much higher now - hence I think laws need to come in to make it easier for parents to get back some control. Go ahead and try to teach your kid who is going to spend hours each day seeing hundreds of videos each day - probably tens of thousands in a year. What are you going to do? Watch 100 Instagram Reels per day with your kid and explain each and every single one? As an adult, even I'm easily influenced by this stuff.
    • freedomben 3y ago
      You make a fair point. I think you have won me over philosophically. However, there is still the pragmatic and realistic approach to consider. Personally, I think moving to a world where internet content is gated behind ID checks is a terrible and horrible precedent to set that is going to have ramifications far beyond simply protecting teens who are under 16. As a parent of teenagers who are falling into this trap right now, it is something I am gravely concerned about. I am no tech, lightweight, and blocking and even regulating. This stuff is pretty much impossible. Short of helicopter parenting your child at all times. Nor do I think that sort of heavy-handed regulation is necessarily healthy, although that depends very much on the age in my opinion. But what does a world look like where every website and app has to, for liability reasons alone, assume that everyone is underage before proving that they are not?
• bdw5204 3y ago
  So you grew up without AOL Instant Messenger, Yahoo accounts, web forums and MySpace? Or for the generation before that, Geocities and Usenet? The current form of interactive online platforms may be flawed but banning teens from using them is not the solution and any effective method of enforcing such a law is likely to run afoul of the 1st Amendment. Besides obviously the Tinker v. Des Moines precedent about how teens have the right to engage in non-disruptive speech at school which is probably sufficient to overturn this if the Supreme Court recognizes the precedent. Under COPPA, the "parental consent" requirement for under-13s to sign up for online accounts turned into a de-facto ban because no parent or web site wants to deal with mailed permission forms. The informal "don't ask don't tell" policy works pretty well though because it functions as an IQ test to keep the kids who are too dumb to figure out that you're supposed to lie about your age (as I did to be able to use Geocities when I was 10) off of the internet. A "parental consent" requirement is effectively a ban which is what it was in the original law that DeSantis vetoed. But it sounds like this was a major priority for the Speaker of the state House so it was going to happen in some form possibly over the governor's veto in a worse form if he completely opposed it.
  • aurareturn 3y ago
    >So you grew up without AOL Instant Messenger, Yahoo accounts, web forums and MySpace? Or for the generation before that, Geocities and Usenet? Both.
  • MissTake 3y ago
    I grew up in a time when social computing was when we geeks of ages 13-15 brought each others Computers to a house and challenged each other to write games on another device. Back in the days when I had an Acorn Atom and friends would bring their Spectrum, Oric—1, TRS-80, Commodore 64 etc.
  • prpl 3y ago
    You forgot IRC. Most the bad stuff I saw on the internet ~99/2000 was from IRC. I had the unfortunate idea to nick myself TheGiver after the novel at 14.
  • mixmastamyk 3y ago
• tmaly 3y ago
  I know there is this big push to limit screen time for kids. I give screen time more as a reward for hard work and getting chores done. I use the screen time feature on Apple devices to limit my kids screen time and the type of apps they can access.
  • ricardobeat 3y ago
    It doesn’t work though. Using instagram web bypasses the app limit. If you set a website limit, it only applies to Safari. If you block TikTok, they will find video compilations in Spotify, which shouldn’t have to be blocked. It’s a mess.
    • tmaly 3y ago
      I solve this with an absolute limit on time to 15 minutes a day. This blocks even educational apps.
    • mixmastamyk 3y ago
      ST can work by time as well as app. Recommend revoking app install privileges. No one should have third-party corporate surveillance apps installed anyway.
      • ricardobeat 3y ago
        Sorry, I don’t see how that comment answers mine? In my experience it’s impossible to properly block anything that is also available as a web app (which is most of social media apps).
        • mixmastamyk 3y ago
          You block app by time or uninstall it, and black/white list the site.
          • deleted 3y ago
            [deleted]
• Clubber 3y ago
  The funny thing is Facebook already has restrictions on serving ads to and collecting data from kids under 13. They have a popup that asks, "Are you over 13?" at which point my then 11 year old daughter clicked yes. This is feel-good legislation and is not realistically enforceable. People can argue about it all they want, it won't change anything because it's not enforceable. >It requires them to use a third-party verification system to screen out those who are underage. We'll see how well that works.
• dahart 3y ago
  As a parent, I’m concerned about social media, and it has been more or less impossible to stop my teens from using it. They were jailbreaking and using VPNs and bypassing my parental controls a lot earlier than I expected. I did notice that whenever my kids didn’t have access to phones and games for several days for whatever reason, they were less grouchy and more willing to engage with us and do family or social activities. That said, one thing my teenagers clued me in to is that these efforts to require parental involvement by law have some underlying motivations that are not being said out loud. One of them is to out kids to their parents early and cut off online support for teens going through gender identity issues, especially gay and trans kids, perhaps under the assumption that gender identity is a choice and that online activities are somehow causal. Considering the suicide rates among teens with gender issues, and the growing number of physiological indicators, I’m not sure cutting off all online support for them is a good idea. One of my kids does have gender identity issues and has considered suicide, and as a parent that breaks my heart and scares me more than anything. It was surprising to find out about the gender issues, and it started coming out around 14, so it’s easy to jump to conclusions that social media is a bad influence. But in retrospect, the signs had been there for a long time and we failed to see and acknowledge them. Our kid said that online support is what kept her from attempting suicide even earlier.
  • mock-possum 3y ago
    Yeah, what a weird spooky coincidence that someone like DeSantis would make a move that’s cut off kids’ means to countermand their parents’ information lockout. Send them to a private school, or even better, homeschool, control what kind of people they make friends with, keep them busy with church and Sunday school and bible study, burn the books and defund the public libraries, control what music they listen to and what shows and films they watch and the games they play… and, of course, control their means of communication. Heaven forbid your child ever be exposed to anything that might make them question the reality of this little garden of Eden you’ve imprisoned them in.
    • dahart 3y ago
      I’m not in favor of the DeSantis law for the above reasons. You appear to be against this law as well, so I’m a little baffled why you’ve turned that on me and imagined a whole lot of stuff I didn’t say. Am I correct in deducing that you are not a parent yet? I’m not religious, but this law we’re commenting on is coming from a group of people that are pandering to religion, and this law is a direct part of that effort. I didn’t try to control my kids “information” other than when they were young trying to make the really nasty stuff not come up first or by default or on accident. They weren’t security conscious, because they were kids, so white/black lists preventing malware, phishing, and viruses seemed prudent. They also didn’t have a ton of self control, and games are infinitely more tempting than school work, chores, and even self-care and sleep, so screen time limits are useful. For example, we had multiple pee in the pants and on the couch accidents because our kids were so focused on playing games they wouldn’t stop to go to the bathroom. Google used to have a bad habit, when “safe mode” was turned off, of taking an innocuous search about human bodies and returning very hard core porn. We had an accident with one of our kids who searched carefully and incrementally for “naked ladies on the beach” and got back a list of pictures and videos of anal sex gang bangs. This was with a kid younger than 10, and the very week this happened to us, Google announced in a press release that it would start returning results that were more closely aligned with the literal search query, and it was instantly obvious to us what they meant and why they needed that. So anyway, this is all to ask, maybe cool your jets so you’re not attacking people who might otherwise agree with you? Parental controls have legitimate functions that are not about cutting kids off from the world, and if/when you have kids you will come to understand it and probably try to use some parental controls too. Parental controls are not on & off; the term represents a whole spectrum of goals and options. Even the most absolute and strict use of parental controls, which is rare among any parents I know, is automatically less of a totalitarian option than disallowing any screen time or mobile device use.
• Buttons840 3y ago
  > It's extremely difficult for parents to stop their children, especially early teens from using social media. I'm trying to decide whether it's "extremely easy" or "extremely difficult" for parents to stop their children from having a cell phone. One the one hand, all you have to do is not spend money and not buy a phone, easy. And yet, almost every kid has a cell phone, so evidently it is hard for parents to say no. This law will put social media in the same situation. It will be "extremely easy" for parents to simply not give permission, but, like cell phones, I think most kids will end up having social media accounts anyway.
  • rokkitmensch 3y ago
    I had a conversation with a mom recently where she wanted my input on her media choices because she thought what I was doing was cool and admirable. It all fell apart when she realized that she'd have to yank the XBox, the PS*, the Switch, etc. Her kid, and all of the other entitled ones with endless access to everything on the internet, are utterly intolerable when they come over -- until they go outside with my kids for a few hours and come back in with their heads reset!
    • ricardobeat 3y ago
      A Playstation or Nintendo Switch has no internet browser, or access to any social media.
  • gnicholas 3y ago
    Phones are not that expensive anymore. Kids can buy used phones for $100, or get hand-me-downs from friends. They can use them on wifi, or if they are able to get a prepaid SIM they can use them on cellular also.
  • anonfornoreason 3y ago
    From personal experience with a teenager - you can't stop it. They get a device from their friend, they are easy to find. They keep them hidden, and you only find them by being a total snoop and seeing new devices popup on your wifi network. Or, they only use them at friends houses on their wifi, etc. I don't think half the people commenting in this thread have even one single clue about any of this, from real world experience. You can do everything right on your end, but they sit with their friends on their devices when not around your house.
• mfrc 3y ago
  Why should companies be forced to help parents supervise their own children? It's ironic that DeSantis is all about parental freedom yet wants to turn the companies into a nanny.
  • dpkirchner 3y ago
    He's a leader in the party of big government -- but I doubt he would admit it. At least the other side doesn't hide the fact that they're in favor of regulations.
    • sib 3y ago
      He's a leader in t̶h̶e̶ a party of big government FTFY In the US, at least, all significant parties are parties of big government...
      • dpkirchner 3y ago
        There's degrees, though. One party wants government to be so large that it won't allow you to get certain forms of standard medical care, after all.
  • mlrtime 3y ago
    Should liquor stores be required to stop children from buying alcohol? Should 7-11 be required to stop children from buying pornography magazines?
• mise_en_place 3y ago
  Yeah it is difficult being a parent. Welcome to parenting and adulthood. The solution isn't more big government and a massive police/surveillance state. It's no wonder Stumpy didn't get too far in the primaries, people could spot his deep state tendencies from a mile away.
• crysin 3y ago
  This trope that kids are more vulnerable to the influence of social media is dangerous. Media literacy, social media literacy, and internet literacy are critical for all ages, as without it you could be 10 or 40 and be equally influenced by some "influencer" you watch daily videos from. There are plenty of adults who react just as equally as a child would. Age does not guarantee maturity or competency.
• gnicholas 3y ago
  One thing I worry about, as a parent in Silicon Valley, is that my kid will somehow procure a phone and hide it from us. My kids don't have enough cash to go buy a new phone without us noticing, but used phones are pretty cheap. Also, a wealthy friend/boyfriend could buy a phone and pay for cellular (MVNOs are quite inexpensive these days), which would defeat router-based monitoring. My kids are currently too young to do any of this, but I foresee it as an issue in the future.
  • mixmastamyk 3y ago
    There’s a ton of old devices sitting unused in drawers that aren’t worth the time to sell.
• paulddraper 3y ago
  > parents, not the government, should make decisions Now do alcohol, cigarettes, adult bars