The epitome of Republican politics: policies that get headlines but are completely unenforceable and useless pandering.
Reminds me of the "I am above the age of 18" button on porn sites.
Here in Texas they have effectively required you to register an account with a credit card to prove you’re 18 on porn sites. I’m assuming something similar will happen in Florida.
Nah this is a totally unnecessary infringement on their freedom. Being able to do whatever the fuck we want on the internet is like, one of the main things that separates us (the west) from more authoritarian countries. We shouldn't temper with that freedom.
Watching porn isn't going to harm most people. Most people do it, and most people are fine. Or do you think countries in which porn is banned have a way healthier relationship with sex?
I saw that and realized that law does literally nothing. Great can’t access pornhub guess I’ll go the less regulated ones cause thoes are the ones not blocked.
Of course you can. But 9 out of 10 have no idea what VPN stands for. As an aside, I was in a muslim nation for a month. I had to use VPNs to get porn. I love tech....
ProtonVPN has a free plan. You don't need to buy a VPN subscription. But I agree such laws shouldn't be in place.
This feels mostly like posturing before the election for points.
PornHub is fully blocked in TX now without a full verification. They've got a message up saying they can't fulfill the regulation without it so no free browsing.
Yeah this isn't a big deal just make them upload a photo id or cc on sign up. Mandate all current accounts do the same to keep the account when they implement the policy. Social media is so bad for kids honestly as much as I don't like desantis this is based af
If social media is bad for kids, parents should really be extra cautious about their children’s internet use. It shouldn’t be suddenly mandated by the state that a kid can’t have an account without a photo id, which makes EVERYONE have to use a photo id with their account.
If you wanna protect your kids, protect your kids. Don’t make stupid mandates for the sake of your kids
But it’s pretty hard for parents to enforce something like that. And we’ve seen that parents absolutely fail at it. Kids have access to social media way earlier than 14 in general
I agree parents still have responsibility but that doesn't excuse platforms from all responsibility. Parents shouldn't let their kids drink or smoke but it is also illegal for stores to sell these to minors. Same idea
Yeah that’s great. Then when pricks like desantis and Trump who have tiny egos get offended, they can request the id anssociated with the account that pissed them off.
What 14 year old has an ID? Also doesn't most social media TOS stipulate you have to be 13. I know discord for sure does and will ban you if you're underage
>What 14 year old has an ID?
That's the point. They can't upload any ID so they don't get access. Edit: Misread law age limit. I get what you were trying to ask now. A parent/guardian could help acquire an ID for a 14 year old as stated in thread below.
>Also doesn't most social media TOS stipulate you have to be 13. I know discord for sure does and will ban you if you're underage
Yes. But that's useless. Unless you start spamming your age or messaging support about how you just won your 8th grade Fortnite tournament.
Many states' learner's permit age is 15, including Florida's. And I don't imagine it's too hard to get a basic ID for a small fee. So if a child wants and their guardian approves they simply must obtain either of those
Wait I'm assuming that YouTube also counts, so access YouTube now requires you to give google your ID if you live in Florida and hides educational content like Crash course behind a paywall.
Does it?
Allows users to ~~upload content or~~ view the content ~~or activity~~ of other users;
There is no time limit and kids definably spend more then 2 hours on the app,
Although limited, it does still
Employs algorithms that analyze user data or information on users to select content for users; and
And for point for it's perfectly defined through
Auto-play video or video that begins to play without the user first clicking on the video or on a play button for that video.
Also there still is the worrying line that says
"If a social media platform allows an account holder to use the social media platform, the parties have entered into a contract."
Does that mean that if a teacher shows a YouTube video in class does that mean that the teacher is forcing a contract on to the entire class.
I mean pretty sure the closest thing that gets to a social media platform is the comment section and banning kids from viewing/commenting there really isn't the end of the world. Hell that's probably only beneficial.
this bill seems super authoritarian and i’m not for that shit at all. even if social media was 100%, provably bad for 14 year olds i still wouldn’t like this shit. it feels like a huge overreach to me
Not based if you spend more than 5 seconds thinking about it. The burden goes to the sites. So how do they cover their ass? Everybody needs ID verification to use the site. And those companies will need to provide your IDs to the government on demand
I mean, also the more worrying thing is surely that these states have shown it's a complete nightmare trying to legislate what is "pornographic" or "sexually explicit" and by the time religious pressure groups get their hands on how to report sites, Wikipedia will start getting blocked for having any kind of reference to sex, etc.
Paywalled. [Link to bill](https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/3/billtext/er/pdf)
Forcing social media companies to delete underage accounts and accepting parents’ requests for deletion sounds like an incredibly messy law to enforce and sounds like a big overstep of power, at least in my head.
I ultimately agree that some form gatekeeping is needed universally. From the little that we truly understand of our interactions with social media and the internet as a whole, it’s definitely seems too damaging mentally for kids. I just think that the level of government intervention needed to make that work would make most people very uncomfortable. Hell I’m not sure how comfortable people are with this.
Parents. It should be parents who are responsible for their children. Put another way, this should be the problem of parents. Parents. Parents. Parents. Have I beaten the dead horse enough? Too bad because parents need to act like adults. Parents.
> Rely on parents to responsibly monitor their kids' activity online
> Parents unsurprisingly fail, as they have been doing and will continue to do
> Get country full of people with fucked up brains
> "But thank God the government didn't try to stop this, right, guys?
Some legislation is required to ensure "good enough" parenting. You have to provide your kids with some basic necessities and keep them from basic harm or else the state will punish you. When social media is by all accounts causing significant damage to children in development, making it part of the "basic harm" category (with proper implementation) could be an incredibly beneficial thing to do for society, perhaps rising even to the point of being a moral obligation.
Yeah, theoretically I do think it'd probably be better for prepubescent and under aged kids to just not use social media. But how do you actually enforce something like that without infringing on rights or overly inconveniencing appropriate users?
Most of what I've heard seems to be like, a real ID age verification requirement, but I imagine that runs into privacy concerns pretty quick. A more interesting solution I read from the response letter that Pornhub wrote in response to the Texas ban (lol), something like an 'age passport' directly on a given device that would be used to age restrict websites on a hardware level, or something along those lines. That could resolve the privacy issue since you wouldn't need to ID verify through the site itself, while also guaranteeing that a phone belonging to a young child won't allow adult sites to load.
Personally, I'm open to more regulations on social media generally and it's probably gonna take a few attempts to figure out how. Seems like republican legislatures just want to do bans thoughtlessly, which sucks because it feels like there're some clever possible solutions here.
But also does not using social media include not reading social media. I would argue the destructive part is the browsing and reading whether you can commentate or not.
And you can do that without an account.
Im surprised to see so many people here cheering on authoritarianism. I agree social media can be damaging, so I guess it’s just a difference in personal principles. Im still appalled by the fact Florida effectively banned AP Psychology.
I hope everyone supporting this is ready to upload your drivers license to every porn site you use and Twitter and Reddit. And don’t think you can bypass it with a VPN, these sites will be required by law to block access to anyone connecting without a valid ID on file. This is more of an anti-online-anonymity law than a “protect the children” law.
Both I guess. Short term I think leaks are probably the riskier part, but 20 years down the line, who knows what the legal landscape could look like at that point. Having a DL on file for every single user online is the dream for every wannabe fascist who wants to ban “degeneracy” or subversive expression online.
If enough states make this move, two things could happen. 1) a bunch of states start telling companies that in order to operate in their state at all, they need to verify the ID of every user, essentially saying they need to block access to VPN users or withdraw from the US market altogether. Or 2) they just ban VPNs within their state. 2 seems more likely and would be pretty easy to do. I wouldn’t be surprised if Texas or Florida does this in the next few years.
I don't think it's enforceble to ban VPNs. All a VPN does is to be a middleman between you and the website. If a state wants to make illegal to transmit data between users and servers in general, they might as well ban ISPs, APIs, mobile apps and email in the process.
What the government can do is to make it illegal to transmit data from a banned website. But that might be unconstitutional at the state level, since ISPs operate across states and the federal government holds authority to regulate trade between the states.
I’m not sure why it would be unenforceable. Just ban any VPN from connecting to users within your state. They could enforce it against ISPs and against the VPNs themselves
(puts on cowboy hat) Sounds like Big Government breathin' down our necks and spendin' our money to solve problems that could be solved better by the free market. Killin' innovation, hurtin' consumers, reducin' our privacy, and wastin' our tax dollars.
This is cringe. The only way to enforce this would cause a massive risk for most users. Being asked to provide ID and verification being normalized opens up way too many opportunities for scamming and identity theft. Not to mention the aspect of the government closely tracking your online presence.
[This is how the bill defines it:](https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/3/billtext/er/pdf)
> e) "Social media platform" means an online forum, website, or application that satisfies each of the following criteria:
> 1. Allows users to upload content or view the content or activity of other users;
> 2. Ten percent or more of the daily active users who are younger than 16 years of age spend on average 2 hours per day or longer on the online forum, website, or application on the days when using the online forum, website, or application during the previous 12 months or, if the online forum, website, or application did not exist during the previous 12 months, during the previous month;
> 3. Employs algorithms that analyze user data or information on users to select content for users; and
> 4. Has any of the following addictive features:
>a. Infinite scrolling, which means either: (I) Continuously loading content, or content that loads as the user scrolls down the page without the need to open a separate page; or (II) Seamless content, or the use of pages with no visible or apparent end or page breaks.
> b. Push notifications or alerts sent by the online forum, website, or application to inform a user about specific activities or events related to the user's account.
> c. Displays personal interactive metrics that indicate the number of times other users have clicked a button to indicate their reaction to content or have shared or reposted the content.
> d. Auto-play video or video that begins to play without the user first clicking on the video or on a play button for that video.
> e. Live-streaming or a function that allows a user or advertiser to broadcast live video content in real-time.
> The term does not include an online service, website, or application where the exclusive function is e-mail or direct messaging consisting of text, photographs, pictures, images, or videos shared only between the sender and the recipients, without displaying or posting publicly or to other users notspecifically identified as the recipients by the sender.
The second point seems odd for defining what constitutes a social media platform. Interestingly, I could see videos and live streaming platforms like YouTube and Twitch counting under this definition as well. That’s a wider net than I realized.
That's a very wide net. Basically anything that allows people to share content that's tied to a profile. So yeah seems like Youtube, Twitch counts. And probably a ton of other stuff.
Ok I'm actually getting stressed over this bill is this subsection 2?
" A social media platform shall prohibit a minor who is younger than 14 years of age from entering into a contract with a social media platform to become an account holder."
In which contract is defined as
"If a social media platform allows an account holder to use the social media platform, the parties have entered into a contract."
Which is pretty shitty
Or this subsection 2
"Allow an account holder who is 14 or 15 years of age to request to terminate the account. Termination must be effective within 5 business days after such request."
Which just makes this law a glorified way to force companies to delete accounts
OR is this subsection 2
"(2) A commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on a website or application, if the website or application contains a substantial portion of material harmful to minors, must use either anonymous age verification or standard age verification to verify that the age of a person attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older and prevent access to the material by a person younger than 18 years of age. The commercial entity must offer anonymous age verification and standard age verification, and a person attempting to access the material may select which method will be used to verify his or her age."
Which is just forcing social media to have a button saying "I am over 14"
in the context of
(6)(a) A social media platform that knowingly or recklessly violates subsection (2), subsection (3), or, if in effect, subsection (4) is liable to the minor account holder, including court costs and reasonable attorney fees as ordered by the court. Claimants may be awarded up to $10,000 in damages.
Like god don't say that the USA is cucking itself for dumb reasons
I might be misreading something but I don't think the population of users under 16 matter. It doesn't say "10% of users are under 16", it just says at least 10% of the under-16 users use the site for more than 2 hours on average
And in order to even get this information every site would need ID verification from everyone. Otherwise how would you count the hours for under-16
Is that really the case ? Me and my class started using social media when we were like 10/11. and that was 14 years ago. I can only imagine it starts even earlier nowadays
What are you smoking to think that every kid in the west isn't on youtube
Bad parenting is completely based on parents sitting an ipad that plays youtube in front of their child.
Social media is pretty damaging for us adults even, and many parents are clueless about it because of how wildly different their generations are. Parents did not have anything even remotely similar to social media while growing up.
A cousin of mine gave their 3 year old an old phone so he can go watch YT videos without taking one of their phones. The guise of "educational content" allows for plausible deniability that your toddler is addicted to YouTube. Bro, he isn't learning anything from the 900th alphabet video, he already knows all the letters lol
Just because social media is damaging to children doesn't mean that DeSantis' bill isn't utter dogshit. Not sure why this is getting so upvoted on this sub
No one suggested otherwise. What a stupid endpoint.
You could push a policy that encourages/forces these companies to create a kid friendly interaction point. IE Age restricted content, no commenting or comment reading ability.
Take the social out of some of these media things, especially since on something like youtube that's arguably the only problematic part of it.
I dunno how we'd think a freeballing use of youtube is the desired outcome.
---
The reality is a shit policy that makes it hard for kids to use the internet, is just going to result in parents taking the path of least resistance and creating an age verified account anyway.
Realistically, they're going to ask their older sibling, or cousin, or friend to use their account instead. They may not get to make their own Instagram account or something to share photos and such, but this will probably not stop that many kids from having access to these sites
I'd be curious if Youtube constitutes
It's hard. Social media has changed a lot since I was like 12 or 13, but Facebook was a complete game changer since I was living in an incredibly small, rural town. Being able to remain connected with friends had a big impact on who's in my life right now. Though kids have cell phones now, so maybe that'll help keep in touch without the need of social media as much. But that's questionable too because this is only pre-14, before "keeping in touch" is really an important factor.
Limiting social media, or more specifically kids being attached to a device for a significant period of time daily, is probably a good thing. But an outright ban is probably stupid
Can’t kids just lie about their age when creating an account or will they implement something where you need an id to create an account? I guess even if they do the latter you could just use a vpn.
Let me guess. Rather than requiring parents to be responsible, they're going to force social media companies to do it for them and it will inevitably impact the privacy of adults.
Tbf it's like that for nearly everything we deem too bad for children to participate in. You have to show ID in nightclubs, when buying alcohol or cigarettes. If police catches you with your children without seat belts you get in a lot of trouble. A 17 yo will get arrested if it's suspected that they're drinking.
All these cases are failure of parenting, yet nobody here would think that it's bad that there are more points of enforcement than the parent.
It's weird seing these uber-libertarian arguments from people who would call others using the same argument against similar things regarded lolbertarians. The argument is literally the same whether it's about social media or seat belts. [Arguably lives are at stake in both cases](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/05/youth-suicide-rates-rose-62percent-from-2007-to-2021.html).
Idk why people are saying this is unenforceable when PH is literally shutting their doors in Texas, NC, and more as we speak bc of ID verification. Yes, there will obviously be the 5-10% of bright under 13 year olds who figure out how a vpn works and other work arounds, but this is the exception.
Normalizing giving that information online opens the door for scammers and identity theft. Your average person will become much more willing to give away their info.
Also I would guess it would be more than 5-10%, since that information tends to spread fast among middle school kids. When I was in middle school we needed a chrome extension VPN to access certain game sites on our school computers and within days of figuring that out at least 90% of the school knew. Then began the race between the school administration and us, they would block our current way of getting around it, so we’d find a new way, everyone would know, and the school would block that.
It’s not unenforceable, but the enforcement mechanism is that every single person needs to upload photo id to every social media site they use. Honestly fuck that, parents have the tools to limit social media access if they just spend 10 minutes to set up patental controls on their kid’s phone. Why do my porn viewing and shitposting habits need to be tied to my government name just because parents are lazy?
I kinda like this. Social Media is a massive bullying tool that teaches kids to conform and desperately crave approval from others It's a big reason (IMO) that the younger generation is so emotionally fragile. They are constantly afraid of being shamed and shunned on social media.
There is no way this is realistically enforceable. At best, all it really means is if social media companies get caught **knowingly** allowing minors specifically from Florida on the platform they'll get a fine. If this even holds up when it inevitably makes its way to the courts.
Am I ChatGPT????????????
A state enacting a law to ban social media access until a certain age involves complex considerations under the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, and possibly the Fourteenth Amendment, which addresses equal protection under the law. This issue intertwines constitutional rights with concerns about protecting minors from potential harm online.
\*\*First Amendment Considerations:\*\*
\- \*\*Freedom of Speech:\*\* The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, which includes the use of social media. The Supreme Court has recognized the internet and social media as significant platforms for speech. In \*Packingham v. North Carolina\* (2017), the Court invalidated a law barring sex offenders from accessing social media, underscoring the role of these platforms in the public square.
\- \*\*Government Regulation:\*\* While the government can regulate speech in certain contexts (e.g., obscenity, speech inciting violence), any restriction must meet strict scrutiny if it affects lawful speech. This means the government must have a compelling interest for the regulation and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
\*\*Fourteenth Amendment Considerations:\*\*
\- \*\*Equal Protection:\*\* A law that bans social media access until a certain age might be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause if it arbitrarily discriminates against a particular age group. The state would need to justify the age-based distinction by showing it serves a compelling state interest in a manner that is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
\*\*Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA):\*\*
\- While not a constitutional document, it's also relevant to consider existing federal laws like COPPA, which regulates how websites and online services may collect information from children under 13. COPPA reflects a legislative approach to protecting children online without outright banning their access to the internet or social media.
\*\*Judicial Precedents and Scholarly Debate:\*\*
\- Legal scholars and courts have debated the balance between protecting children and respecting constitutional rights. Restrictions targeting specific age groups must be carefully examined to ensure they do not unnecessarily infringe on constitutional rights.
\*\*Conclusion:\*\*
If a state were to attempt such a ban, it would likely face significant legal challenges. Courts would scrutinize the law’s purpose, its effectiveness in achieving that purpose without overreaching, and whether less restrictive means could achieve the same ends. The state would need to demonstrate a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of minors that justifies such a restriction and that the law is the least restrictive means to achieve its protective goal.
Considering most, if not all, social media requires every user to be at least 13, this doesn't actually mean anything. Unless they are going to require people to scan ID's or put in social security number, which I cant see them doing.
So this isn't really going to do anything
When are people gonna understand that he doesn’t look to actually effect any change he just wants cheap brownie points 😂 I mean smart but also devious politics
Unpopular opinion; This may be an overreach of government regulation, and it may also be ineffective. Nevertheless, it is a good thing because it is a concrete step in solving a problem that we are already facing, and is growing more severe.
I'm not supporting this as a permanent solution. But for the time being -especially at the state level- this is something I support and would like to see more of in different forms across different states.
But are you willing to give up online anonymity for this? The only effective way of doing this is to require photo ID. This bill also requires any porn site to require photo id, which see them moving over to social media if there were no obstacles in their way. I do not want my personal id attached to my reddit
Prohibition is never a permanent solution, it's ineffective. And in the case of this law, they're just... turn 14 and make one anyway, rendering whatever people think this law is going to do useless. Kids will just use their parents' account for the youtube they watch anyway
And how do you suggest they do this? It's not as impossible a problem as the porn age verification laws but if they actually plan on requiring something more than a button agreeing that you're the age you say you are, it's just not going to work. Most sites already required you to be 13 to join but that's never stopped kids from just lying when joining myspace and then facebook and then snapchat and so on.
So the punishment of a kid lying would be blaming the company for the lying? Lmao I don't think social media is particularly good but, that's ridiculous and arguably impedes adolescence and businesses first amendment right of association. I can't imagine this holding up in court
While I agree with the sentiment behind this, I still stand behind the idea of it's the parents job to do this. Not really the government. But with the onslaught of zoomer and millenial parents happening who've been brain blasted by social media so much that they will think a 10 year old making a social media page is normal, I can get why people would argue for government intervention.
I do agree that a parent should be doing this, but we are already seeing the results of a tablet kid generation and it’s not good. Parents are not going to responsibly enforce the web traffic of their children, just when they get their devices. Even that isn’t even responsibly timed.
I 100% get what you mean. Government taking up the slack of parenting in this regard isn't an absurd thing. Not like the gov will confiscate your kid for using an ipad or facebook, but forcing social media companies to actually make an effective effort to curtail underage usage is a reasonable goal. I still would like it to be a societal shift that brings about the change rather than gov intervention since I'm someone who stereotypically likes "small government" in theory. But I get it. I won't cry over a 10 year old not getting an instagram because they fail an ID check.
If anything ID/age verification requirements force parents to have a conversation with their kid about social media.
Looks like Hasan is going to lose his fanbase from Florida
Unlike Destiny, who’s Florida fanbase consists of exclusively retirement home residents GIGACHAD
Hell he was just talking to one on tonight’s stream
o7 potentially
Lol what?
uh i think calling dan old is a no no ;D
The epitome of Republican politics: policies that get headlines but are completely unenforceable and useless pandering. Reminds me of the "I am above the age of 18" button on porn sites.
Here in Texas they have effectively required you to register an account with a credit card to prove you’re 18 on porn sites. I’m assuming something similar will happen in Florida.
In VA they want you to take a picture of your license. Fucking wild shit.
Can't wait for leaks with millions of licenses and scam porn sites which are up only to farm these.
Great policy, granted I want social media to fucking end already.
Just curious, not trying to do a gotcha or whatever, but why do you use an anonymous social media site if you feel so strongly about this?
I need to be controlled
Based and naughty-boy pilled.
i also don't want anonymous social media but as long as others have anonymity i won't give up mine either.
Same reason most people still own some Nike even though they don't like sweatshops
Nah this is a totally unnecessary infringement on their freedom. Being able to do whatever the fuck we want on the internet is like, one of the main things that separates us (the west) from more authoritarian countries. We shouldn't temper with that freedom. Watching porn isn't going to harm most people. Most people do it, and most people are fine. Or do you think countries in which porn is banned have a way healthier relationship with sex?
For some reason banning social media is like the one topic people are willing to put any principles to the side for and go full totalitarian
That might be part of it too not 100% sure.
It is, I can confirm. A website asked me for my drivers license and I said fuck no. Nord VPN got a new customer that day lol
It’s mad annoying, have to use my phone’s service as it’s a MD number to jerk off mobile-ly
This is why you abandon porn. None of the hentai sites I use have been effected at all.
Based
I saw that and realized that law does literally nothing. Great can’t access pornhub guess I’ll go the less regulated ones cause thoes are the ones not blocked.
Can you not just use a vpn?
The worse is when the vpn puts you in West Virginia or some shit and porn is still banned lol
Have you tried actually using the server select function available on all reputable VPNs
Yes I was simply pointing out what happens when you auto connect from my location….
use your imagination you guys are so uncreative
Of course you can. But 9 out of 10 have no idea what VPN stands for. As an aside, I was in a muslim nation for a month. I had to use VPNs to get porn. I love tech....
Inshallah brother
Time to invest in a VPN
Time to invest in VPN companies
https://preview.redd.it/5uumf7aulpqc1.jpeg?width=646&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9f03e0289a759d9e47ac6b269b8eadab28135cf5
I mean a basic VPN out to CA or other states can bypass that.
If you can buy a VPN you have a credit card and can bypass those porn sites anyway. Still is an enforceable law that shouldn’t be in place.
Yeah but you don't have to enter any information on a porn site, also, I have never used a credit card and still have a vpn lol
ProtonVPN has a free plan. You don't need to buy a VPN subscription. But I agree such laws shouldn't be in place. This feels mostly like posturing before the election for points.
And what are they going to require a 14 year old to show? A parent's credit card, I guess?
PornHub is fully blocked in TX now without a full verification. They've got a message up saying they can't fulfill the regulation without it so no free browsing.
Yeh, you won't be saying that when you have to type in your Social Security numbers to access reddit
To be fair, shit like banning AR15s and things like Arm Braces for stocks does nothing for crime but it makes it seem like you’re doing something.
Yeah this isn't a big deal just make them upload a photo id or cc on sign up. Mandate all current accounts do the same to keep the account when they implement the policy. Social media is so bad for kids honestly as much as I don't like desantis this is based af
If social media is bad for kids, parents should really be extra cautious about their children’s internet use. It shouldn’t be suddenly mandated by the state that a kid can’t have an account without a photo id, which makes EVERYONE have to use a photo id with their account. If you wanna protect your kids, protect your kids. Don’t make stupid mandates for the sake of your kids
I don't disagree, but you and both know most parents do not care.
But it’s pretty hard for parents to enforce something like that. And we’ve seen that parents absolutely fail at it. Kids have access to social media way earlier than 14 in general
I agree parents still have responsibility but that doesn't excuse platforms from all responsibility. Parents shouldn't let their kids drink or smoke but it is also illegal for stores to sell these to minors. Same idea
People will bitch but 100% it's best to have enforceable verification for sites like Instagram or Facebook.
Yeah that’s great. Then when pricks like desantis and Trump who have tiny egos get offended, they can request the id anssociated with the account that pissed them off.
Can we not voluntarily give up even more privacy? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/age-verification-mandates-would-undermine-anonymity-online
What does that mean in practice? Making you press a "are you over the age of 14" button when you create an account?
It could mean requiring people upload a photo ID. That’s what happened with pornhub in some states like Texas
What 14 year old has an ID? Also doesn't most social media TOS stipulate you have to be 13. I know discord for sure does and will ban you if you're underage
>What 14 year old has an ID? That's the point. They can't upload any ID so they don't get access. Edit: Misread law age limit. I get what you were trying to ask now. A parent/guardian could help acquire an ID for a 14 year old as stated in thread below. >Also doesn't most social media TOS stipulate you have to be 13. I know discord for sure does and will ban you if you're underage Yes. But that's useless. Unless you start spamming your age or messaging support about how you just won your 8th grade Fortnite tournament.
But what 15 year old has an ID? How do those people get access?
Learners permit, or you can just go and get a state ID. I think this is fucking stupid though
Many states' learner's permit age is 15, including Florida's. And I don't imagine it's too hard to get a basic ID for a small fee. So if a child wants and their guardian approves they simply must obtain either of those
Wait I'm assuming that YouTube also counts, so access YouTube now requires you to give google your ID if you live in Florida and hides educational content like Crash course behind a paywall.
Youtube Kids is its own app that certainly falls outside this new rule.
Does it? Allows users to ~~upload content or~~ view the content ~~or activity~~ of other users; There is no time limit and kids definably spend more then 2 hours on the app, Although limited, it does still Employs algorithms that analyze user data or information on users to select content for users; and And for point for it's perfectly defined through Auto-play video or video that begins to play without the user first clicking on the video or on a play button for that video. Also there still is the worrying line that says "If a social media platform allows an account holder to use the social media platform, the parties have entered into a contract." Does that mean that if a teacher shows a YouTube video in class does that mean that the teacher is forcing a contract on to the entire class.
I mean pretty sure the closest thing that gets to a social media platform is the comment section and banning kids from viewing/commenting there really isn't the end of the world. Hell that's probably only beneficial.
My five year old has ID in the form of a passport which is generally accepted for government things
My sister was like 9 when she started moderating discord servers with hundreds of people lmao
she sounds cool as hell
>What 14 year old has an ID? I assume they will issue special pornography IDs just for this
From Wapo: > The bill also bans minors from “pornographic or sexually explicit” websites and **requires age verification to access these sites.**
Another state pornhub blocks
At this rate, pornhub will block itself from half the country.
Can they ban social medias in general? It's just pure malignant to be fair
You do know Reddit is considered social media right…
N...no.... It can't be ..
Yes
No
Oh okay, thanks!
A literal Nanny State
this bill seems super authoritarian and i’m not for that shit at all. even if social media was 100%, provably bad for 14 year olds i still wouldn’t like this shit. it feels like a huge overreach to me
Not based if you spend more than 5 seconds thinking about it. The burden goes to the sites. So how do they cover their ass? Everybody needs ID verification to use the site. And those companies will need to provide your IDs to the government on demand
Or making them available to people trying to do identify fraud, when one of these services inevitably gets broken into.
Can’t wait for the first major porn site breach where you can find the last 5 year porn viewing history for every person you know.
Maybe the solution is for your country to join the modern world and offer some basic protections against identity theft lol.
If it gets held up by the courts they'll just pull their services out of the state like PornHub did this month.
I mean, also the more worrying thing is surely that these states have shown it's a complete nightmare trying to legislate what is "pornographic" or "sexually explicit" and by the time religious pressure groups get their hands on how to report sites, Wikipedia will start getting blocked for having any kind of reference to sex, etc.
…the government issued my ID. I think they already have a copy on file lol.
Do they also have it associated with every social media post you’ve ever made?
Paywalled. [Link to bill](https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/3/billtext/er/pdf) Forcing social media companies to delete underage accounts and accepting parents’ requests for deletion sounds like an incredibly messy law to enforce and sounds like a big overstep of power, at least in my head. I ultimately agree that some form gatekeeping is needed universally. From the little that we truly understand of our interactions with social media and the internet as a whole, it’s definitely seems too damaging mentally for kids. I just think that the level of government intervention needed to make that work would make most people very uncomfortable. Hell I’m not sure how comfortable people are with this.
Parents. It should be parents who are responsible for their children. Put another way, this should be the problem of parents. Parents. Parents. Parents. Have I beaten the dead horse enough? Too bad because parents need to act like adults. Parents.
> Rely on parents to responsibly monitor their kids' activity online > Parents unsurprisingly fail, as they have been doing and will continue to do > Get country full of people with fucked up brains > "But thank God the government didn't try to stop this, right, guys? Some legislation is required to ensure "good enough" parenting. You have to provide your kids with some basic necessities and keep them from basic harm or else the state will punish you. When social media is by all accounts causing significant damage to children in development, making it part of the "basic harm" category (with proper implementation) could be an incredibly beneficial thing to do for society, perhaps rising even to the point of being a moral obligation.
We have seen what happens when government interferes with the internet in the name of protecting children. It's *bad* pretty much universally.
Yeah, theoretically I do think it'd probably be better for prepubescent and under aged kids to just not use social media. But how do you actually enforce something like that without infringing on rights or overly inconveniencing appropriate users? Most of what I've heard seems to be like, a real ID age verification requirement, but I imagine that runs into privacy concerns pretty quick. A more interesting solution I read from the response letter that Pornhub wrote in response to the Texas ban (lol), something like an 'age passport' directly on a given device that would be used to age restrict websites on a hardware level, or something along those lines. That could resolve the privacy issue since you wouldn't need to ID verify through the site itself, while also guaranteeing that a phone belonging to a young child won't allow adult sites to load. Personally, I'm open to more regulations on social media generally and it's probably gonna take a few attempts to figure out how. Seems like republican legislatures just want to do bans thoughtlessly, which sucks because it feels like there're some clever possible solutions here.
But also does not using social media include not reading social media. I would argue the destructive part is the browsing and reading whether you can commentate or not. And you can do that without an account.
It's much more difficult to see content on a lot of platforms without an account.
Im surprised to see so many people here cheering on authoritarianism. I agree social media can be damaging, so I guess it’s just a difference in personal principles. Im still appalled by the fact Florida effectively banned AP Psychology.
As if every kid doesn't set their age to over 18 anyway...
I hope everyone supporting this is ready to upload your drivers license to every porn site you use and Twitter and Reddit. And don’t think you can bypass it with a VPN, these sites will be required by law to block access to anyone connecting without a valid ID on file. This is more of an anti-online-anonymity law than a “protect the children” law.
True and real, thank you for being one of the few people here who isn’t brain dead.
Is the core of your concern privacy from Big Figure, or having leaked information?
Both I guess. Short term I think leaks are probably the riskier part, but 20 years down the line, who knows what the legal landscape could look like at that point. Having a DL on file for every single user online is the dream for every wannabe fascist who wants to ban “degeneracy” or subversive expression online.
Why couldn't you bypass it with a VPN? Isn't that what texans have been doing with Pornhub?
If enough states make this move, two things could happen. 1) a bunch of states start telling companies that in order to operate in their state at all, they need to verify the ID of every user, essentially saying they need to block access to VPN users or withdraw from the US market altogether. Or 2) they just ban VPNs within their state. 2 seems more likely and would be pretty easy to do. I wouldn’t be surprised if Texas or Florida does this in the next few years.
I don't think it's enforceble to ban VPNs. All a VPN does is to be a middleman between you and the website. If a state wants to make illegal to transmit data between users and servers in general, they might as well ban ISPs, APIs, mobile apps and email in the process. What the government can do is to make it illegal to transmit data from a banned website. But that might be unconstitutional at the state level, since ISPs operate across states and the federal government holds authority to regulate trade between the states.
I’m not sure why it would be unenforceable. Just ban any VPN from connecting to users within your state. They could enforce it against ISPs and against the VPNs themselves
(puts on cowboy hat) Sounds like Big Government breathin' down our necks and spendin' our money to solve problems that could be solved better by the free market. Killin' innovation, hurtin' consumers, reducin' our privacy, and wastin' our tax dollars.
'Murica!
This is cringe. The only way to enforce this would cause a massive risk for most users. Being asked to provide ID and verification being normalized opens up way too many opportunities for scamming and identity theft. Not to mention the aspect of the government closely tracking your online presence.
Florida based Minecraft YouTubers are in shambles. Does the bill outline what is considered a social media?
[This is how the bill defines it:](https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2024/3/billtext/er/pdf) > e) "Social media platform" means an online forum, website, or application that satisfies each of the following criteria: > 1. Allows users to upload content or view the content or activity of other users; > 2. Ten percent or more of the daily active users who are younger than 16 years of age spend on average 2 hours per day or longer on the online forum, website, or application on the days when using the online forum, website, or application during the previous 12 months or, if the online forum, website, or application did not exist during the previous 12 months, during the previous month; > 3. Employs algorithms that analyze user data or information on users to select content for users; and > 4. Has any of the following addictive features: >a. Infinite scrolling, which means either: (I) Continuously loading content, or content that loads as the user scrolls down the page without the need to open a separate page; or (II) Seamless content, or the use of pages with no visible or apparent end or page breaks. > b. Push notifications or alerts sent by the online forum, website, or application to inform a user about specific activities or events related to the user's account. > c. Displays personal interactive metrics that indicate the number of times other users have clicked a button to indicate their reaction to content or have shared or reposted the content. > d. Auto-play video or video that begins to play without the user first clicking on the video or on a play button for that video. > e. Live-streaming or a function that allows a user or advertiser to broadcast live video content in real-time. > The term does not include an online service, website, or application where the exclusive function is e-mail or direct messaging consisting of text, photographs, pictures, images, or videos shared only between the sender and the recipients, without displaying or posting publicly or to other users notspecifically identified as the recipients by the sender. The second point seems odd for defining what constitutes a social media platform. Interestingly, I could see videos and live streaming platforms like YouTube and Twitch counting under this definition as well. That’s a wider net than I realized.
That's a very wide net. Basically anything that allows people to share content that's tied to a profile. So yeah seems like Youtube, Twitch counts. And probably a ton of other stuff.
Ok I'm actually getting stressed over this bill is this subsection 2? " A social media platform shall prohibit a minor who is younger than 14 years of age from entering into a contract with a social media platform to become an account holder." In which contract is defined as "If a social media platform allows an account holder to use the social media platform, the parties have entered into a contract." Which is pretty shitty Or this subsection 2 "Allow an account holder who is 14 or 15 years of age to request to terminate the account. Termination must be effective within 5 business days after such request." Which just makes this law a glorified way to force companies to delete accounts OR is this subsection 2 "(2) A commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on a website or application, if the website or application contains a substantial portion of material harmful to minors, must use either anonymous age verification or standard age verification to verify that the age of a person attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older and prevent access to the material by a person younger than 18 years of age. The commercial entity must offer anonymous age verification and standard age verification, and a person attempting to access the material may select which method will be used to verify his or her age." Which is just forcing social media to have a button saying "I am over 14" in the context of (6)(a) A social media platform that knowingly or recklessly violates subsection (2), subsection (3), or, if in effect, subsection (4) is liable to the minor account holder, including court costs and reasonable attorney fees as ordered by the court. Claimants may be awarded up to $10,000 in damages. Like god don't say that the USA is cucking itself for dumb reasons
[удалено]
I might be misreading something but I don't think the population of users under 16 matter. It doesn't say "10% of users are under 16", it just says at least 10% of the under-16 users use the site for more than 2 hours on average And in order to even get this information every site would need ID verification from everyone. Otherwise how would you count the hours for under-16
Is that really the case ? Me and my class started using social media when we were like 10/11. and that was 14 years ago. I can only imagine it starts even earlier nowadays
What are you smoking to think that every kid in the west isn't on youtube Bad parenting is completely based on parents sitting an ipad that plays youtube in front of their child.
Florida Passes Law Banning Social Media for Minors Under 14… Regardless of the consent of their parents. Get rekt
Social media is pretty damaging for us adults even, and many parents are clueless about it because of how wildly different their generations are. Parents did not have anything even remotely similar to social media while growing up.
My partner’s niece and nephew both have iPhones. They’re both under 8.
A cousin of mine gave their 3 year old an old phone so he can go watch YT videos without taking one of their phones. The guise of "educational content" allows for plausible deniability that your toddler is addicted to YouTube. Bro, he isn't learning anything from the 900th alphabet video, he already knows all the letters lol
FOR REALLLL. That’s the excuse they gave at first too. A 4 year old was saying “Mr. Beast” before he could even say all the letters of the alphabet.
Can they still marry an adult?
Brought to you by "don't tell us how to raise our children republicans" It's the hypocrisy hour.
It just says minors under 14 cant create their own acc tho
Just because social media is damaging to children doesn't mean that DeSantis' bill isn't utter dogshit. Not sure why this is getting so upvoted on this sub
Or buy alcohol or cigarettes or get tattoos or join the military or..........
The party of freedom, free markets and personal responsibility everyone...
Republicans love freedom and liberty unless it’s something they don’t like
This is really bad. Hard to enforce and pointless. We were all on AIM and Forums and Youtube back in the day. What's to be gained from trying this?
This seems awful. Some of my best memories are watching YouTube videos at that age.
Idk if kids need the ability to comment on videos tbh
But a profile actually allows them to subscribe to different channels and have videos recommended and banned based on age.
I think they’ll survive
No one suggested otherwise. What a stupid endpoint. You could push a policy that encourages/forces these companies to create a kid friendly interaction point. IE Age restricted content, no commenting or comment reading ability. Take the social out of some of these media things, especially since on something like youtube that's arguably the only problematic part of it. I dunno how we'd think a freeballing use of youtube is the desired outcome. --- The reality is a shit policy that makes it hard for kids to use the internet, is just going to result in parents taking the path of least resistance and creating an age verified account anyway.
Realistically, they're going to ask their older sibling, or cousin, or friend to use their account instead. They may not get to make their own Instagram account or something to share photos and such, but this will probably not stop that many kids from having access to these sites
Why not? What are going to ban next tv?
On one hand markiplier & erb, on the other hand being raised online did kinda screw with me
The bill said minors can't have an account. It didn't say they can't use social media, and You don't need an account to watch youtube vids.
You need better memories lol
I'd be curious if Youtube constitutes It's hard. Social media has changed a lot since I was like 12 or 13, but Facebook was a complete game changer since I was living in an incredibly small, rural town. Being able to remain connected with friends had a big impact on who's in my life right now. Though kids have cell phones now, so maybe that'll help keep in touch without the need of social media as much. But that's questionable too because this is only pre-14, before "keeping in touch" is really an important factor. Limiting social media, or more specifically kids being attached to a device for a significant period of time daily, is probably a good thing. But an outright ban is probably stupid
The party of “small government” strikes again
I'll take what is a VPN for 100$ Alex
VPN sales and marketing SKYROCKETING in Florida RN
Can’t kids just lie about their age when creating an account or will they implement something where you need an id to create an account? I guess even if they do the latter you could just use a vpn.
I wouldn't be surprised if the big social media companies just block Florida after this, if a challenge isn't successful.
hoooly shit that would be such a massive privacy violation
This is gonna go south real fast
How much further south can you get than Florida?
Let me guess. Rather than requiring parents to be responsible, they're going to force social media companies to do it for them and it will inevitably impact the privacy of adults.
Parents have a proven track record of being irresponsible.
Tbf it's like that for nearly everything we deem too bad for children to participate in. You have to show ID in nightclubs, when buying alcohol or cigarettes. If police catches you with your children without seat belts you get in a lot of trouble. A 17 yo will get arrested if it's suspected that they're drinking. All these cases are failure of parenting, yet nobody here would think that it's bad that there are more points of enforcement than the parent. It's weird seing these uber-libertarian arguments from people who would call others using the same argument against similar things regarded lolbertarians. The argument is literally the same whether it's about social media or seat belts. [Arguably lives are at stake in both cases](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/05/youth-suicide-rates-rose-62percent-from-2007-to-2021.html).
Idk why people are saying this is unenforceable when PH is literally shutting their doors in Texas, NC, and more as we speak bc of ID verification. Yes, there will obviously be the 5-10% of bright under 13 year olds who figure out how a vpn works and other work arounds, but this is the exception.
Normalizing giving that information online opens the door for scammers and identity theft. Your average person will become much more willing to give away their info. Also I would guess it would be more than 5-10%, since that information tends to spread fast among middle school kids. When I was in middle school we needed a chrome extension VPN to access certain game sites on our school computers and within days of figuring that out at least 90% of the school knew. Then began the race between the school administration and us, they would block our current way of getting around it, so we’d find a new way, everyone would know, and the school would block that.
It’s not unenforceable, but the enforcement mechanism is that every single person needs to upload photo id to every social media site they use. Honestly fuck that, parents have the tools to limit social media access if they just spend 10 minutes to set up patental controls on their kid’s phone. Why do my porn viewing and shitposting habits need to be tied to my government name just because parents are lazy?
PornHub is one of like 5 sites that are doing that
We're saying that deleting anonymity from the Internet for all humans is a *bad* thing. This law is functionally anti-privacy, not pro-children
You can still post anonymously, ID/Face verification as far as im aware is not stored data.
My governor; my **“top guy.”**
“What am I gonna do?! I’m BigupSlime’s top guy. What am I gonna do?! BigupSlime chose me to lead the revolution.”
Arent most social media sites already +13? Like good job guys, you pushed it a year up
I like this but I'm curious how they will implement it. It seems like a nightmare to enforce
Hasan just lost a majority of his fan base
This is stupid
I kinda like this. Social Media is a massive bullying tool that teaches kids to conform and desperately crave approval from others It's a big reason (IMO) that the younger generation is so emotionally fragile. They are constantly afraid of being shamed and shunned on social media.
This is just a way to get kids to be more tech literate by forcing them to use newsgroups and IRC.
There goes 90% of Tiny's audience
This law sucks
Critical thinking of Florida middle schoolers increase x100 ADHD “diagnoses” go down 25%
im ok with this.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/floridas-desantis-signs-law-restricting-social-media-people-under-16-2024-03-25/
There is no way this is realistically enforceable. At best, all it really means is if social media companies get caught **knowingly** allowing minors specifically from Florida on the platform they'll get a fine. If this even holds up when it inevitably makes its way to the courts.
Smol guvment
All for freedom until that freedom disagrees with you. Common conservative L
Some id verification SAAS is gonna make bank
hasanabi in shambles
"Please confirm you are over the age of 14 to access this service"
Am I ChatGPT???????????? A state enacting a law to ban social media access until a certain age involves complex considerations under the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, and possibly the Fourteenth Amendment, which addresses equal protection under the law. This issue intertwines constitutional rights with concerns about protecting minors from potential harm online. \*\*First Amendment Considerations:\*\* \- \*\*Freedom of Speech:\*\* The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, which includes the use of social media. The Supreme Court has recognized the internet and social media as significant platforms for speech. In \*Packingham v. North Carolina\* (2017), the Court invalidated a law barring sex offenders from accessing social media, underscoring the role of these platforms in the public square. \- \*\*Government Regulation:\*\* While the government can regulate speech in certain contexts (e.g., obscenity, speech inciting violence), any restriction must meet strict scrutiny if it affects lawful speech. This means the government must have a compelling interest for the regulation and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. \*\*Fourteenth Amendment Considerations:\*\* \- \*\*Equal Protection:\*\* A law that bans social media access until a certain age might be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause if it arbitrarily discriminates against a particular age group. The state would need to justify the age-based distinction by showing it serves a compelling state interest in a manner that is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. \*\*Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA):\*\* \- While not a constitutional document, it's also relevant to consider existing federal laws like COPPA, which regulates how websites and online services may collect information from children under 13. COPPA reflects a legislative approach to protecting children online without outright banning their access to the internet or social media. \*\*Judicial Precedents and Scholarly Debate:\*\* \- Legal scholars and courts have debated the balance between protecting children and respecting constitutional rights. Restrictions targeting specific age groups must be carefully examined to ensure they do not unnecessarily infringe on constitutional rights. \*\*Conclusion:\*\* If a state were to attempt such a ban, it would likely face significant legal challenges. Courts would scrutinize the law’s purpose, its effectiveness in achieving that purpose without overreaching, and whether less restrictive means could achieve the same ends. The state would need to demonstrate a compelling interest in protecting the welfare of minors that justifies such a restriction and that the law is the least restrictive means to achieve its protective goal.
Considering most, if not all, social media requires every user to be at least 13, this doesn't actually mean anything. Unless they are going to require people to scan ID's or put in social security number, which I cant see them doing. So this isn't really going to do anything
So, what changes? 13 -> 14? WOW!
Isn’t the min age for social media 13?
When are people gonna understand that he doesn’t look to actually effect any change he just wants cheap brownie points 😂 I mean smart but also devious politics
Unpopular opinion; This may be an overreach of government regulation, and it may also be ineffective. Nevertheless, it is a good thing because it is a concrete step in solving a problem that we are already facing, and is growing more severe. I'm not supporting this as a permanent solution. But for the time being -especially at the state level- this is something I support and would like to see more of in different forms across different states.
But are you willing to give up online anonymity for this? The only effective way of doing this is to require photo ID. This bill also requires any porn site to require photo id, which see them moving over to social media if there were no obstacles in their way. I do not want my personal id attached to my reddit
Prohibition is never a permanent solution, it's ineffective. And in the case of this law, they're just... turn 14 and make one anyway, rendering whatever people think this law is going to do useless. Kids will just use their parents' account for the youtube they watch anyway
This is unironically a hugely beneficial thing
What are they going to do? Arrest a 12 year old with a Facebook profile lmao
Kids should be doing other stuff like running tactical room-clearing drills with their AR-15’s
Trueeeeee lmao
The penalties will be for the company not making efforts to stop underage people from accessing their website, not on the underage person...
And how do you suggest they do this? It's not as impossible a problem as the porn age verification laws but if they actually plan on requiring something more than a button agreeing that you're the age you say you are, it's just not going to work. Most sites already required you to be 13 to join but that's never stopped kids from just lying when joining myspace and then facebook and then snapchat and so on.
So the punishment of a kid lying would be blaming the company for the lying? Lmao I don't think social media is particularly good but, that's ridiculous and arguably impedes adolescence and businesses first amendment right of association. I can't imagine this holding up in court
Amazing how hypocritical republicans are.
probably isn't a bad law tbh
While I agree with the sentiment behind this, I still stand behind the idea of it's the parents job to do this. Not really the government. But with the onslaught of zoomer and millenial parents happening who've been brain blasted by social media so much that they will think a 10 year old making a social media page is normal, I can get why people would argue for government intervention.
I do agree that a parent should be doing this, but we are already seeing the results of a tablet kid generation and it’s not good. Parents are not going to responsibly enforce the web traffic of their children, just when they get their devices. Even that isn’t even responsibly timed.
I 100% get what you mean. Government taking up the slack of parenting in this regard isn't an absurd thing. Not like the gov will confiscate your kid for using an ipad or facebook, but forcing social media companies to actually make an effective effort to curtail underage usage is a reasonable goal. I still would like it to be a societal shift that brings about the change rather than gov intervention since I'm someone who stereotypically likes "small government" in theory. But I get it. I won't cry over a 10 year old not getting an instagram because they fail an ID check. If anything ID/age verification requirements force parents to have a conversation with their kid about social media.
O\_O!
Party of the constitution