4 ms·

> Let the experiment take place, I say. I think the experiment is more about the judiciary and about tribal politics. There's ample case law against something

> Let the experiment take place, I say. I think the experiment is more about the judiciary and about tribal politics. There's ample case law against something like this, so to me this seems unconstitutional, and I doubt it will stand. But DeSantis will win some more heart and minds of the folks who secretly do want big government protecting them from the boogieman. Regardless of anyone's views about social media, the fact that the government wants 'papers please' for you to access a website should really scare everyone.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
d0gsg0w00f 3y ago
Laws are often just social signals in writing. A law indicates that a large group agrees that something is bad. Often times people find it easier to just agree with a law rather than navigate the mental gray area around behaviors that aren't black and white.
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  Is that the case here? What is that large group and what is it comprised of? Does it represent all Floridians?
  - d0gsg0w00f 3y ago
    Of course it doesn't represent all mindsets. That's what elections are for. All Floridians participate in the vote to elect a desired philosophy into power and then the winning party hopes that philosophy will reflect in the laws and policies created in the near future. You elect a like minded leader to act on your interests so you don't have to micro manage the governance of a state. The alternative could be to have every piece of legislation go to popular vote rather than elected officials. I feel this could be wrought with problems though as the public could get vote fatigue and weird laws would slip through simply through low turnout or "social media fueled" outliers for extreme turnout on specific bills.
    - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
      I am well aware of how direct democracy vs representative democracy works, so I don't need you to educate me on the subject. My issue with your comment is that you assume that a large group of people agree with the law as if we're talking about direct democracy, which I believe is not true. I do not believe that a large number of Floridians (large enough to matter in terms of voting, I'm not saying large as in city-large) agree with requiring an ID to access social media. The same thing happened with reproductive rights. As it turns out, an even larger group of republicans don't really agree with banning abortion, although their representatives think otherwise.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- munk-a 3y ago
  That understanding really breaks down when partisan politics are involved - if it's us vs. them you can do a lot of stuff without your base raising a stink as long as it's posed as being against your opposition.
  - hackable_sand 3y ago
    Pollitical chicken.
- freejazz 3y ago
  This is such an unhelpful platitude.
- toss1 3y ago
  >>A law indicates that a large group agrees that something is bad. No, it only indicates that a potentially very small group who has gained power agrees that something is bad. This is especially true in a system that does not require runoff elections (or an Instant Runoff voting system) so that the winner must gain a majority of votes, or where various forms of voter suppression, skewing, or not playing by the rules happen (e.g., sham elections as happened in Russia).
  - windexh8er 3y ago
    Exactly this. It's unfortunate that in the United States today, my initial reaction to new law is: "what money is behind this". It's not the standard that laws are being made for protecting citizens, but instead a minority of the wealthy with vested interests in playing unfairly through their capital and relationships.
vkou 3y ago
> But DeSantis will win some more heart and minds of the folks who secretly do want big government protecting them from the boogieman. Those supporters aren't very secret about it. In fact, they are quite open about it.
WalterBright 3y ago
> the government wants 'papers please' for you to access a website should really scare everyone We've been doing that for R and X movies forever.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > We've been doing that for R and X movies forever. Those aren't enforced by the government. Movie ratings and the enforcement of them are entirely voluntary on the part of producers and theaters. Some films are released that are non-rated, and enforcement at the ticket booth/theater level has never been consistent or particularly effective. Enforcement by retail is basically non-existent (Nobody is stopping a 13 year old from buying an R rated movie at walmart), and it's the same with streaming services. Quite rightly, it's up to parents to police what media their kids watch.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    Wasn't Janet Jackson fined for a nipslip during her Superbowl Show? I recall Howard Stern being fined $millions for indecency on radio.
    - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
      > Wasn't Janet Jackson fined for a nipslip during her Superbowl Show? Overturned by the SCOTUS because of all of that free speech. And CBS was fined, not Janet Jackson. And the Howard Stern content is a well-known free speech issue. And OP was responding to your comment about movies. None of these are movies, so I don't understand why you would bring up something like this. Public radio and TV broadcast are a different beast. Is your argument that private social media services are akin to public broadcasters? Let's see what the courts think.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        I brought it up because it is an instance of the government restricting speech.
nemo44x 3y ago
The case law actually supports this. Lots of speech is restricted from minors and since social media companies aren’t publicly funded institutions it’s even more ironclad. For instance public schools have more restrictions on limiting expression than private schools. I think it’s excellent the government is taking a stand to protect kids when it’s obvious most parents are unable to. Kids have no business in the discourse.
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  Let's see how this plays out in the courts, then. This is why I said this is an experiment for the judiciary. One of the issues here is that it restricts speech towards people who do not have an ID.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

d0gsg0w00f 3y ago

Laws are often just social signals in writing. A law indicates that a large group agrees that something is bad. Often times people find it easier to just agree with a law rather than navigate the mental gray area around behaviors that aren't black and white.

maximinus_thrax 3y ago
Is that the case here? What is that large group and what is it comprised of? Does it represent all Floridians?
- d0gsg0w00f 3y ago
  Of course it doesn't represent all mindsets. That's what elections are for. All Floridians participate in the vote to elect a desired philosophy into power and then the winning party hopes that philosophy will reflect in the laws and policies created in the near future. You elect a like minded leader to act on your interests so you don't have to micro manage the governance of a state. The alternative could be to have every piece of legislation go to popular vote rather than elected officials. I feel this could be wrought with problems though as the public could get vote fatigue and weird laws would slip through simply through low turnout or "social media fueled" outliers for extreme turnout on specific bills.
  - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
    I am well aware of how direct democracy vs representative democracy works, so I don't need you to educate me on the subject. My issue with your comment is that you assume that a large group of people agree with the law as if we're talking about direct democracy, which I believe is not true. I do not believe that a large number of Floridians (large enough to matter in terms of voting, I'm not saying large as in city-large) agree with requiring an ID to access social media. The same thing happened with reproductive rights. As it turns out, an even larger group of republicans don't really agree with banning abortion, although their representatives think otherwise.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
munk-a 3y ago
That understanding really breaks down when partisan politics are involved - if it's us vs. them you can do a lot of stuff without your base raising a stink as long as it's posed as being against your opposition.
- hackable_sand 3y ago
  Pollitical chicken.
freejazz 3y ago
This is such an unhelpful platitude.
toss1 3y ago
>>A law indicates that a large group agrees that something is bad. No, it only indicates that a potentially very small group who has gained power agrees that something is bad. This is especially true in a system that does not require runoff elections (or an Instant Runoff voting system) so that the winner must gain a majority of votes, or where various forms of voter suppression, skewing, or not playing by the rules happen (e.g., sham elections as happened in Russia).
- windexh8er 3y ago
  Exactly this. It's unfortunate that in the United States today, my initial reaction to new law is: "what money is behind this". It's not the standard that laws are being made for protecting citizens, but instead a minority of the wealthy with vested interests in playing unfairly through their capital and relationships.

vkou 3y ago

> But DeSantis will win some more heart and minds of the folks who secretly do want big government protecting them from the boogieman. Those supporters aren't very secret about it. In fact, they are quite open about it.

WalterBright 3y ago

> the government wants 'papers please' for you to access a website should really scare everyone We've been doing that for R and X movies forever.

autoexec 3y ago
> We've been doing that for R and X movies forever. Those aren't enforced by the government. Movie ratings and the enforcement of them are entirely voluntary on the part of producers and theaters. Some films are released that are non-rated, and enforcement at the ticket booth/theater level has never been consistent or particularly effective. Enforcement by retail is basically non-existent (Nobody is stopping a 13 year old from buying an R rated movie at walmart), and it's the same with streaming services. Quite rightly, it's up to parents to police what media their kids watch.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Wasn't Janet Jackson fined for a nipslip during her Superbowl Show? I recall Howard Stern being fined $millions for indecency on radio.
  - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
    > Wasn't Janet Jackson fined for a nipslip during her Superbowl Show? Overturned by the SCOTUS because of all of that free speech. And CBS was fined, not Janet Jackson. And the Howard Stern content is a well-known free speech issue. And OP was responding to your comment about movies. None of these are movies, so I don't understand why you would bring up something like this. Public radio and TV broadcast are a different beast. Is your argument that private social media services are akin to public broadcasters? Let's see what the courts think.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      I brought it up because it is an instance of the government restricting speech.

nemo44x 3y ago

The case law actually supports this. Lots of speech is restricted from minors and since social media companies aren’t publicly funded institutions it’s even more ironclad. For instance public schools have more restrictions on limiting expression than private schools. I think it’s excellent the government is taking a stand to protect kids when it’s obvious most parents are unable to. Kids have no business in the discourse.

maximinus_thrax 3y ago
Let's see how this plays out in the courts, then. This is why I said this is an experiment for the judiciary. One of the issues here is that it restricts speech towards people who do not have an ID.