4 ms·

Florida already passed a similar law. Nice to see both left and right can agree that some things are common sense.

thruway516 2y ago
This. This and the recent trend to hold parents of juvenile mass shooters to account if they enabled the kid gives me hope that there our still functioning parts of our collective brains not completely rotted by the culture wars and twitter/x/facebook
- wonderwonder 2y ago
  Agree but I want to see this enforced not just on kids that walk into a school and opens fire. I want it enforced in large urban areas. Any minor that opens fire, their parents need to be arrested. The law is currently only being applied to kids that get their hands on so called assault rifles. It needs to be applied to handguns in urban areas that comprise the majority of shootings by minors.
  - y-c-o-m-b 2y ago
    I only support this if the minor is determined to have obtained the weapon from a parent that was negligent in preventing access to that weapon. E.g. when a parent fails to lock the weapons in a safe or purchases weapons for the child. I do not support this in instances where the minor unknowingly gets access to weapons behind the parent's back (illegally through telegram for example or through their friends). As someone with a troubled teen and a witness to numerous other parents dealing with troubled teens, it's virtually impossible to prevent them from doing whatever they want these days unless you literally lock them up 24/7. Even then they will weaponize reporting you to CPS with lies about abuse. Many of these kids are growing up in perfectly decent homes and taught well by their parents, but they get influenced by their peers to cause trouble.
    - bradlys 2y ago
      If your kid is that problematic and wants to get CPS involved then throw them to CPS and let them ruin their lives. You clearly failed earlier on and can’t course correct any further. You should’ve been more involved earlier on if your kid is getting involved in gang violence, getting weapons, and is going to be out there shooting people. You failed big time. A lot of these kids don’t grow up in good homes - the parents are negligent and incompetent. They play dumb just like you are doing.
      - DangitBobby 2y ago
        > Children are not people, they are an extension of their parents, and bad children means bad parents. Provide evidence for your claims, please. Having troubled children is bad enough without having to deal with this type of ignorance.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - thruway516 2y ago
    Yes, anytime a parent is directly responsible or deliberately negligent and it leads to deaths, whether school or urban area. I mentioned mass shooting because that is the most visible instance where it has been applied so far. Let's not make it about politics (sigh, maybe I'm hoping for too much)
zeroonetwothree 2y ago
I mean, most people agree on 95% of policies. The media just focuses on the remaining 5% in which there is disagreement.
- falcolas 2y ago
  Not to drag this out in the mud, but that 5% is filled with some really nasty legislation and policies. And yes, I'm mostly referring to Republican lead legislation that encourages or enforces conversion therapy, minority disenfranchisement (Haitians most recently, but also black, mMuslum, and Palestinian groups), and anti-LGBTQIA+ (more specifically anti-trans) actions.
scarface_74 2y ago
And it’s just as toothless and it will be unless they take the draconian measure of forcing everyone to verify thier ID before using the internet.
- heavyset_go 2y ago
  This is the end game, an internet where you need to upload pictures of yourself and your ID in order to do anything. Legislators want it, site owners want to be able to prove their users are real people, advertisers, as well, etc.
krapp 2y ago
All I see is left and right agreeing that social media has become too dangerous and they need to create a moral panic and smokescreen as a pretext to regulate it. Same shit as the FUD around TikTok and "Chinese mind control." Can social media be addictive? Yes. Should we trust the government when it claims it wants to "protect the children?" Absolutely not. This will end up being about enabling surveillance, harassment of minorities and policing political wrongthink, like every other such initiative. And it's kind of sad that Hacker News, which is usually critical of the motives of government almost to a fault, is willing to let its hatred of social media excuse naked and authoritarian power grabs like this. Like y'all rise up if Apple tries to track CP on people's phones but if someone declared all social media illegal tomorrow most people here would have a party.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  IMHO, social media should be much more heavily regulated (specifically: mandating transparency) in democracies. Used to be, you could buy a newspaper and print your viewpoint, but everyone could see it. Now, you can trivially individually target users, invisible to any oversight. How is that not an existential threat to democracy? (Whether from a foreign nation-state or anyone else is immaterial)
  - krapp 2y ago
    I think the bigger threat to democracy in this case is having the government be the gatekeeper of public discourse.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Mandating transparency doesn't require publishing censorship.
- jappgar 2y ago
  You can trust that the government wants to protect the children. The question is what does "protect" really mean. Western governments do a pretty good job of protecting kids from labour exploitation, for example. But that's because it's relatively easy to enforce. Protecting them from other harms is more difficult and involves tradeoffs with personal or parental freedoms. I really don't think these initiatives are intentional power grabs... although you're correct that opportunist entitites will exploit these regulations to empower themselves.
NikkiA 2y ago
SCOTUS is just going to end up affirming that companies have a first amendment right to reach those kids, anyway.

This. This and the recent trend to hold parents of juvenile mass shooters to account if they enabled the kid gives me hope that there our still functioning parts of our collective brains not completely rotted by the culture wars and twitter/x/facebook

wonderwonder 2y ago
Agree but I want to see this enforced not just on kids that walk into a school and opens fire. I want it enforced in large urban areas. Any minor that opens fire, their parents need to be arrested. The law is currently only being applied to kids that get their hands on so called assault rifles. It needs to be applied to handguns in urban areas that comprise the majority of shootings by minors.
- y-c-o-m-b 2y ago
  I only support this if the minor is determined to have obtained the weapon from a parent that was negligent in preventing access to that weapon. E.g. when a parent fails to lock the weapons in a safe or purchases weapons for the child. I do not support this in instances where the minor unknowingly gets access to weapons behind the parent's back (illegally through telegram for example or through their friends). As someone with a troubled teen and a witness to numerous other parents dealing with troubled teens, it's virtually impossible to prevent them from doing whatever they want these days unless you literally lock them up 24/7. Even then they will weaponize reporting you to CPS with lies about abuse. Many of these kids are growing up in perfectly decent homes and taught well by their parents, but they get influenced by their peers to cause trouble.
  - bradlys 2y ago
    If your kid is that problematic and wants to get CPS involved then throw them to CPS and let them ruin their lives. You clearly failed earlier on and can’t course correct any further. You should’ve been more involved earlier on if your kid is getting involved in gang violence, getting weapons, and is going to be out there shooting people. You failed big time. A lot of these kids don’t grow up in good homes - the parents are negligent and incompetent. They play dumb just like you are doing.
    - DangitBobby 2y ago
      > Children are not people, they are an extension of their parents, and bad children means bad parents. Provide evidence for your claims, please. Having troubled children is bad enough without having to deal with this type of ignorance.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- thruway516 2y ago
  Yes, anytime a parent is directly responsible or deliberately negligent and it leads to deaths, whether school or urban area. I mentioned mass shooting because that is the most visible instance where it has been applied so far. Let's not make it about politics (sigh, maybe I'm hoping for too much)

zeroonetwothree 2y ago

I mean, most people agree on 95% of policies. The media just focuses on the remaining 5% in which there is disagreement.

falcolas 2y ago
Not to drag this out in the mud, but that 5% is filled with some really nasty legislation and policies. And yes, I'm mostly referring to Republican lead legislation that encourages or enforces conversion therapy, minority disenfranchisement (Haitians most recently, but also black, mMuslum, and Palestinian groups), and anti-LGBTQIA+ (more specifically anti-trans) actions.

scarface_74 2y ago

And it’s just as toothless and it will be unless they take the draconian measure of forcing everyone to verify thier ID before using the internet.

heavyset_go 2y ago
This is the end game, an internet where you need to upload pictures of yourself and your ID in order to do anything. Legislators want it, site owners want to be able to prove their users are real people, advertisers, as well, etc.

krapp 2y ago

All I see is left and right agreeing that social media has become too dangerous and they need to create a moral panic and smokescreen as a pretext to regulate it. Same shit as the FUD around TikTok and "Chinese mind control." Can social media be addictive? Yes. Should we trust the government when it claims it wants to "protect the children?" Absolutely not. This will end up being about enabling surveillance, harassment of minorities and policing political wrongthink, like every other such initiative. And it's kind of sad that Hacker News, which is usually critical of the motives of government almost to a fault, is willing to let its hatred of social media excuse naked and authoritarian power grabs like this. Like y'all rise up if Apple tries to track CP on people's phones but if someone declared all social media illegal tomorrow most people here would have a party.

ethbr1 2y ago
IMHO, social media should be much more heavily regulated (specifically: mandating transparency) in democracies. Used to be, you could buy a newspaper and print your viewpoint, but everyone could see it. Now, you can trivially individually target users, invisible to any oversight. How is that not an existential threat to democracy? (Whether from a foreign nation-state or anyone else is immaterial)
- krapp 2y ago
  I think the bigger threat to democracy in this case is having the government be the gatekeeper of public discourse.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Mandating transparency doesn't require publishing censorship.
jappgar 2y ago
You can trust that the government wants to protect the children. The question is what does "protect" really mean. Western governments do a pretty good job of protecting kids from labour exploitation, for example. But that's because it's relatively easy to enforce. Protecting them from other harms is more difficult and involves tradeoffs with personal or parental freedoms. I really don't think these initiatives are intentional power grabs... although you're correct that opportunist entitites will exploit these regulations to empower themselves.

NikkiA 2y ago

SCOTUS is just going to end up affirming that companies have a first amendment right to reach those kids, anyway.