6 ms·

This is obviously unconstitutional and it'll be shot down in the courts before it takes effect since this is their version of KOSA among other First Amendment i

This is obviously unconstitutional and it'll be shot down in the courts before it takes effect since this is their version of KOSA among other First Amendment issues. Some context here: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/11/nys-safe-for-kids-act-a-lesson-in-how-not-to-regulate-the-internet/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/11/nys-safe-for-kids-act-a-...

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
What is unconstitutional about it?
- jcranmer 2y ago
  It's content-based discrimination, which means it goes straight to strict scrutiny.
  - josho 2y ago
    How is it discriminating content? It’s not putting restrictions on content that can be shown.
    - jcranmer 2y ago
      It's discriminating between social media companies purely on the basis of their speech--the recommendation algorithms they choose to use.
      - jimbokun 2y ago
        If the algorithm constitutes speech by the social media companies, doesn’t that remove their common carrier status? If the speech is theirs, they are responsible for its content.
        jcranmer 2y ago
        > If the algorithm constitutes speech by the social media companies, doesn’t that remove their common carrier status? They aren't common carriers and never have been.
        Nasrudith 2y ago
        Good god, not that zombie lie again!
- leotravis10 2y ago
  [1] Age veriifcation [2] Content discrimination [3] Has the unfortunate side effect of restricting LGBTQIA+ youth and adults' speech There's a reason why most of these bills are legally challenged.
  - apantel 2y ago
    I don’t understand #3.
surge 2y ago
First Amendment doesn't cover things that cause direct harm or speech to minors. In this case, you can draw a straight line between social media usage and an increase in teen suicides, and keeping them on it for long periods is detrimental to their overall mental health especially when they don't have fully developed impulse control or are not legally expected to. You're not allowed to advertise gambling products, alcohol and tobacco to minors under the First Amendment. You can't intentionally show porn to a minor without going to jail in many cases. (18 U.S. Code § 1470 - Transfer of obscene material to minors) You want to get adults addicted and express yourself to them, so be it, but the legal distinction on limitations on what you can express to minors is well documented.
- baq 2y ago
  Just a reminder that getting adults addicted to stuff is not always legal either.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  > You can't intentionally show porn to a minor Anyone can go to pornhub and see a landing page full of highly explicit sexual images without any kind of age verification whatsoever. How is this legal, if what you say is true? Is it just that they don't know it's a minor on the other side of the screen, so they can say it's not "intentional"?
  - kube-system 2y ago
    Intent is when someone mentally commits to an action
  - munchler 2y ago
    Pornhub home page has a very clear warning before you get to anything explicit: This is an adult website This website contains age-restricted materials including nudity and explicit depictions of sexual activity. By entering, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from and you consent to viewing sexually explicit content. I am 18 or older - Enter I am under 18 - Exit
owisd 2y ago
Seems like they're getting around the complaints about the previously overturned laws by just going after the feed order while not banning access to the underlying content via conventional means.
gwbas1c 2y ago
> This is obviously unconstitutional "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" Well, is social media "speech" or "press"? Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines, and in general, certain topics and words aren't allowed in the daytime. Another example: Tobacco advertising is severely curtailed, *especially advertising targeted towards minors." In this case, what isn't restricted is social media platforms ability to express ideas or otherwise function as "press." Instead, what's restricted is the addictive nature and activities that cause psychological harm.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  > Well, is social media "speech" or "press"? whichever benefits them at that point in time
- jcranmer 2y ago
  > Well, is social media "speech" or "press"? Speech. > Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines As far as the content restrictions, they only need to do so if they are broadcast channels (or cable rebroadcasts of broadcast channels), and FCC is constitutionally prohibited from regulating speech on cable-only channels. The argument for why they can do broadcast is the "compelling government interest" in policing the inherently limited broadcast spectrum, which (quite frankly) is pretty shaky precedent if you ask me. > Another example: Tobacco advertising is severely curtailed Advertising is commercial speech, which the government has much more powerful abilities to restrict than expressive speech.
  - akdor1154 2y ago
    There's a pretty strong argument that an algorithmic feed optimised for engagement is commercial speech.
    - jcranmer 2y ago
      How is that feed "proposing a commercial transaction"?
hot_gril 2y ago
The bill sponsors are senator Andrew Gounardes and assemblywoman Nily Rozic. Rozic told CBS news: "Jewish parents are being told to remove social media apps completely from their phones because there is no way to actually prevent what their children will see."
O1111OOO 2y ago
> This is obviously unconstitutional I also wonder if this is a first salvo to get users to submit IDs before using online services. How do you determine if a user is a minor or an adult without some form of ID, right?
- leotravis10 2y ago
  Exactly, since age verification is going to be required which means collecting a LOT of personally idenificable information (PII) by ways of ID which govenrnments don't have a good history in securely storing that information.
leotravis10 2y ago
Some more context: Hochul told a reporter, “we’ve checked to make sure, we believe it’s constitutional.” And, that’s just laughable. Checked with whom? Every attempt I saw to call out these concerns was brushed off as “just spewing big tech’s talking points.” The Constitution is not a “big tech talking point.” What the actual research shows is not a “big tech talking point.” https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/21/today-we-save-our-children-says-governor-hochul-signing-bill-that-will-not-save-anyone/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/21/today-we-save-our-childr...

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

What is unconstitutional about it?

jcranmer 2y ago
It's content-based discrimination, which means it goes straight to strict scrutiny.
- josho 2y ago
  How is it discriminating content? It’s not putting restrictions on content that can be shown.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    It's discriminating between social media companies purely on the basis of their speech--the recommendation algorithms they choose to use.
    - jimbokun 2y ago
      If the algorithm constitutes speech by the social media companies, doesn’t that remove their common carrier status? If the speech is theirs, they are responsible for its content.
      - jcranmer 2y ago
        > If the algorithm constitutes speech by the social media companies, doesn’t that remove their common carrier status? They aren't common carriers and never have been.
      - Nasrudith 2y ago
        Good god, not that zombie lie again!
leotravis10 2y ago
[1] Age veriifcation [2] Content discrimination [3] Has the unfortunate side effect of restricting LGBTQIA+ youth and adults' speech There's a reason why most of these bills are legally challenged.
- apantel 2y ago
  I don’t understand #3.

surge 2y ago

First Amendment doesn't cover things that cause direct harm or speech to minors. In this case, you can draw a straight line between social media usage and an increase in teen suicides, and keeping them on it for long periods is detrimental to their overall mental health especially when they don't have fully developed impulse control or are not legally expected to. You're not allowed to advertise gambling products, alcohol and tobacco to minors under the First Amendment. You can't intentionally show porn to a minor without going to jail in many cases. (18 U.S. Code § 1470 - Transfer of obscene material to minors) You want to get adults addicted and express yourself to them, so be it, but the legal distinction on limitations on what you can express to minors is well documented.

baq 2y ago
Just a reminder that getting adults addicted to stuff is not always legal either.
SoftTalker 2y ago
> You can't intentionally show porn to a minor Anyone can go to pornhub and see a landing page full of highly explicit sexual images without any kind of age verification whatsoever. How is this legal, if what you say is true? Is it just that they don't know it's a minor on the other side of the screen, so they can say it's not "intentional"?
- kube-system 2y ago
  Intent is when someone mentally commits to an action
- munchler 2y ago
  Pornhub home page has a very clear warning before you get to anything explicit: This is an adult website This website contains age-restricted materials including nudity and explicit depictions of sexual activity. By entering, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from and you consent to viewing sexually explicit content. I am 18 or older - Enter I am under 18 - Exit

owisd 2y ago

Seems like they're getting around the complaints about the previously overturned laws by just going after the feed order while not banning access to the underlying content via conventional means.

gwbas1c 2y ago

> This is obviously unconstitutional "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" Well, is social media "speech" or "press"? Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines, and in general, certain topics and words aren't allowed in the daytime. Another example: Tobacco advertising is severely curtailed, *especially advertising targeted towards minors." In this case, what isn't restricted is social media platforms ability to express ideas or otherwise function as "press." Instead, what's restricted is the addictive nature and activities that cause psychological harm.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
> Well, is social media "speech" or "press"? whichever benefits them at that point in time
jcranmer 2y ago
> Well, is social media "speech" or "press"? Speech. > Television and radio stations need to abide by FCC guidelines As far as the content restrictions, they only need to do so if they are broadcast channels (or cable rebroadcasts of broadcast channels), and FCC is constitutionally prohibited from regulating speech on cable-only channels. The argument for why they can do broadcast is the "compelling government interest" in policing the inherently limited broadcast spectrum, which (quite frankly) is pretty shaky precedent if you ask me. > Another example: Tobacco advertising is severely curtailed Advertising is commercial speech, which the government has much more powerful abilities to restrict than expressive speech.
- akdor1154 2y ago
  There's a pretty strong argument that an algorithmic feed optimised for engagement is commercial speech.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    How is that feed "proposing a commercial transaction"?

hot_gril 2y ago

The bill sponsors are senator Andrew Gounardes and assemblywoman Nily Rozic. Rozic told CBS news: "Jewish parents are being told to remove social media apps completely from their phones because there is no way to actually prevent what their children will see."

O1111OOO 2y ago

> This is obviously unconstitutional I also wonder if this is a first salvo to get users to submit IDs before using online services. How do you determine if a user is a minor or an adult without some form of ID, right?

leotravis10 2y ago
Exactly, since age verification is going to be required which means collecting a LOT of personally idenificable information (PII) by ways of ID which govenrnments don't have a good history in securely storing that information.

leotravis10 2y ago

Some more context: Hochul told a reporter, “we’ve checked to make sure, we believe it’s constitutional.” And, that’s just laughable. Checked with whom? Every attempt I saw to call out these concerns was brushed off as “just spewing big tech’s talking points.” The Constitution is not a “big tech talking point.” What the actual research shows is not a “big tech talking point.” https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/21/today-we-save-our-children-says-governor-hochul-signing-bill-that-will-not-save-anyone/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/21/today-we-save-our-childr...