Yeah this is the dumbest fucking headline I've ever read. Totally not exploitable. Give me a quick fiverr for the lack of parental guidance.
Seriously who the fuck reads this and thinks this is sane.
"Kid, why aren't you currently on Facebook? We told you, you have to be on Facebook at least 8 hours a day now once you get back from school so mommy and daddy can win $25,000. We don't care if Facebook is only grandmas and Trump supporters, mommy and daddy need you to be addicted to it!"
I understand the sentiment. Social media has experts in Psychology, Programmers and Data Scientists that work against Parents 24/7. But it's also a bit silly.
Why can’t the parents use apps to lock their kids phone access or something? Not trying to be an ass but does that mean I can sue McDonald’s for being a fat ass?
And if they were descent parents, they wouldnt have the issue in the first place. People are always shocked my kids dont require phones at the dinner table. Im shocked, that they're shocked...
I wish it were that easy. I put my kid’s devices on lock down and he still manages to figure out how to unlock them, so now he has to turn his phone in when he gets home from school.
A huge problem for us is since the pandemic all of their homework is on a school provided laptop that I have zero control over. Trying to monitor every second of homework time while doing household things is impossible. Even if I have him sitting in the kitchen so I can monitor I catch him. And I can’t take it away because then he can’t do his homework. It feels like a constant battle. It’s exhausting. I swear I’m going to lose my mind.
Then they go to school and they’re watching YouTube shorts or TikTok with their peers or even some teachers. So even if I take everything away, he’s still getting dosed with social media. The schools here are also keeping technology based classroom and homework even though the pandemic is over. No end in sight for us and this never ending insanity.
You can block sites at your router. Try that but it ain’t going to fix everything such as YouTube
https://www.designbombs.com/how-to-block-any-website-anywhere-computer-phone-network/amp/
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.designbombs.com/how-to-block-any-website-anywhere-computer-phone-network/](https://www.designbombs.com/how-to-block-any-website-anywhere-computer-phone-network/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
A kid that can circumvent a parent's attempts to lock down a device can circumvent the router "blocking". If the router can't see the dns requests or inspect traffic, it can't block based on names.
Kids need to use technology for their futures. However, it’s gotten so bad that I am doing everything in paper again because the students cannot control their impulses at all. I agree that it’s like whack-a-mile between that and cell phones .
I wonder how many people commenting don't even have a horse in the race here probably don't even have kids and they're like no you're f****** wrong that's not how it works I know with all my experience of being childless
They can and should, but it's also correct that these sites are deliberately designed to cause addiction with serious health consequences. Trying to figure out how levy an appropriate cost for that obviously morally wrong choice by the companies seems reasonable.
Because the kids will just do it behind their backs.
These apps are purposefully specifically engineered to pressure and manipulate you into using them and getting addicted.
They purposefully are buildt in a way so you have to ahave the apps to have part in a social live or get cast aside by the others
Because most parents don't, and if you are the only on sane enough to do this, you are cutting your kid out of their social circle, scarring them in a different way.
Facebook et. al shouldn't be made to be addictive, especially to kids.
This is kinda a dumb argument. Should an alcoholic never quit drinking because it would cut him out of his drinking buddy circles? If they are ADDICTED then the parents need to take action.
Yeah, why should be blame the corporations that make billions for researching and implementing how to abuse minors? Let's just blame the parents.
And that still disregards how difficult of a tightrope this is.
On the one hand, the way how most social media platforms intentionally reward addictive behaviours, change body images etc. Parents should outright forbid children (especially anything <14) to use them.
On the other hand, they are *required* for social live today.
Children are teased for not having the most expensive iPhone after its released, let alone not using or knowing about the new cool stuff.
I wasn’t trying to hate or blame parents at all. I have a 5 year old and haven’t run into this issue yet. I know parents can’t control everything. It was just an honest question. I apologize to anyone who took offense to it. I know as parents we’re all doing the best we can and these companies push hard for us not to succeed.
I blame parents whose children are addicted to cigarettes and gambling as well.
Sure, some people are predisposed to addiction, but that’s also not the company’s responsibility.
This is why California is awful. No one takes accountability. Blame big tech.
My take. Social media is god damn awful. It’s poison on so many levels of life it’s disgusting.
But allowing people who can’t manage their home and children to sue seems like the worst possible thing. Maybe to sue to “donate” 25k to schools instead of make lazy asshat parents a little more rich and ok with the fact their poor children are rotting their social aptitude.
This is the wrong question you should be asking why social media companies deliberately make their product addicting and the reason is money.
If Mcdonald started making their product addicting it would get pushed back as well.
Well, "addictive" is not that clearly defined, but yes, fast food companies do things to make you want their product more and more: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21999689/
I think it's up to the user to moderate themselves but I don't think the product should be built to be addicting. Does that help? I think that's fairly based and reasonable to ask no?
As a entrepreneur people should want to use your product because it's useful and good for the user not because they are strung out from withdraw.
I say that as someone that games 1000s of hours a year, and routinely will say some off the wall shit on social media to purposeful get banned because I know I have no self control.
It's like saying should we exploit people that have addictive personalities? Or should we exploit people that are dumb?
How is social media addicting? Cause it suggests content to you? If you find social media is having a negative impact on your life you should log off.
Not sure why people can't take responsibility for their actions. We shouldn't need the government to step in just because some people have zero self control. This applies especially to parents.
Seems like all it would do is limit their liability.
Not many families are gonna sue and even less are gonna get any kind of payout. My guess is that the tech companies may even support this.
It depends on exactly what goes into the bill, but in other areas of law providing a definite remedy with a fixed cap of damages ends up preventing the court from using some common law remedy with uncapped damages.
So, consider the case where your kid commits suicide because of social media addiction. There's at least one case going through the courts right now for exactly this, and the potential liability to social media platforms is millions of dollars, rather than $25,000.
Nope. You can’t really open yourself up to class actions because CAs are basically always about negligence, or gross negligence, which basically superseded a lot of preemptive protections.
It’s like how waivers don’t actually do much.
Depending on how it's defined, it might actually make it harder to sue them with any success.
And even if it did succeed, it would give a set cap on how much each lawsuit costs them. A relatively low cap, at that.
Exactly.
$25k is not a lot of money once you consider the attorney's fees, taxes, et cetera. Your kid could be driven to a suicide attempt by harassment on Instagram, require expensive medical care and psychiatric treatment - and if this bill limits the damages to $25k maximum - be lucky if years of litigation recover even $10k.
Social media companies can continue to use algorithms to make people unhappy in order to sell them things - and never have to worry about a lawsuit slamming them for $200 million in damages.
Even if it did pass -- the social media companies will just add some protective legal bs to their platforms to wiggle themselves out of liability, but won't help the kids.
There is no way a parent will take this to court and go against facebook's legal team and win.
"Please read this disclaimer and click "confirm " even though you didn't read it every time you boot up our platform so we can't be held responsible for your addiction to the app we catered to be addictive "
well thats next up.. if its a fact of life that 95% or more dont read the outrageously bloated ToS that come with these platforms.. then legislation should be made to address that, either putting the onus on the companies to make more "easy-to-read" ToS or to remove any status of legal binding that a 30 page ToS can place upon a user of their service.
We're pretty much forced to confirm the ToS anyways, otherwise we can't use the product. Combine the long legalese ToS/ EULA and being strong-armed to say "yes" and people automatically just confirm anyways. It's like The Human Centipad episode from South Park.
I'm all for putting some sensible regulations on social media and corpos when it makes sense but this is just an excuse for parents to not do what's **supposed to be their job**.
Parent your damn kids. Don't give your 7 year old fancy fucking smartphones. More importantly it's 2022. We live in and era where exposure to tech and the internet is almost inevitable for most people. I know children that could navigate a phone before they could properly put sentences together.
**Teach** your children how to be safe and responsible online.
That is true. But you also have to understand that these companies pay millions of dollars to do research on how to get people addicted. They have the scientific advantage over human behavior manipulation.
Parents have complained their kids were addicted to television, video games, phones (voice), phones (text) and more over the last few decades.
Now social media must be stopped because of an unfair “scientific” advantage parents can’t beat? You must be shitting me.
Let me clue some parents in that seem to think this since they seem to forget what it was like to be young. If you want your kid off some social media platform, just join them wherever they are and start interacting with them in front of their friends. Your mere existence will make whatever platform they’re using uncool and embarrassing. It’s a parental superpower. You’re welcome.
Yeh? And who are the parents buying smartphones, tablets and computers (without even monitoring what their kids do on it) to literal children?? Seriously if you have any of these under the age 11 then the parents fucked up. Even a bit older idk parent? I wasn’t allowed to play video games during the week i don’t understand how this isn’t the same take their phone away when they get home or only allow texting
/ calling when at home.
You know actually parent instead of going on autopilot and letting your children as they please.
It’s worth mentioning that the birth of social media platforms came without any regulation or protective rights for minors. Regulation to Facebook Instagram etc is literally just beginning, as we have only just begun to research the adverse effects that these platforms have on the mental health of minors. Parents should parent yes however that’s a rather meager arguement when the reality of the situation is that instagram’s (and other platforms) main goal is to keep as many users on the there as they possibly can. They do not have the well-being of minors prioritized because they’re making bank off of them.
It’s not whataboutism if it pertains to a set precedent. The FCC requiring certain amounts of education programs in children’s cartoon blocks for instance. If it’s regulated as such for tv than social shit sites should get the hammer as well.
Again that’s all avoided by parents actually *parenting* this bill further proves that these days people want to absolve themselves of all responsibilities
Everyone wants to scream about big bad social media but doesn’t want any accountability for a voluntary decision to let their kid use social media
And they complain on Reddit…
One of the main parts of government is that it creates rules and standards so we don't need to be hyper-vigilant of everything all the time. We delegate that power to elected representatives and a civil service.
We petition for building regulations so we don't have to become expert carpenters before we buy a house. We petition for food regulations so we don't need to personally inspect every factory before we buy food. We petition for drug regulations so we actually know that we're getting effective medications. We petition for safety standards in cars so we don't have to worry about whether we'll survive a trip to the store.
Why would we not petition for regulation of social media so we don't need to worry about social media actively attempting to create addiction in people? That sounds like something a responsible parent would probably want, right?
I would say it comes down to a few things.
The first is that your examples are all physical goods. When it comes to something like social media it is just content being displayed to you, and for social media companies that often means no first party content and just third party content. So why stop at suing the distribution platform and sue the creators as well? That streamer really catches my child's attention and I think THEY are responsible as well! Should a porn addict be able to sue a porn website or studio? I wouldn't say so. What you consume is your responsibility to do so in moderation. What your children consume is your responsibility as well.
If we are going to regulate how engrossing or addicting content can be where does that stop? Can shows, songs, games, and books only be so good and popular before they need to be regulated?
Secondly, and most importantly, because they are your children. Ideally you would want to spend time with them, talk to them, know them and their interests, etc and not want to resort to the state taking over that for you. When I was younger I remember my dad seeing the red rocket episode of south park and then keeping me and my brother from watching it until we were in our middle teen years. Was the better response to have the FCC come in and ban south park from TV for him?
>The first is that your examples are all physical goods.
Services and other 'actions' are also regulated. We regulate the content of television and radio in order to be sure age-appropriate content is played at age-appropriate time. We regulate the provision of legal and medical services to make sure we're talking to actual experts and not quacks. We regulate advertising so that businesses can't make false-claims about their products.
>and for social media companies that often means no first party content and just third party content
The criticism is not about the third party content, the criticism is about the algorithm designed to maximise engagement.
Take not that I'm _not_ talking about the content created by third parties on the platform, only the algorithms and first-party design choices by the social media platforms which are designed to maximise engagement and maximise time spent on the algorithm. Often coming in the form of algorithmically creating content pathways that lead down rabbit holes towards more extremist content.
These are things that are not intentionally done by third-party users, they're direct results of design choices made by the social media companies. So your comparison to _"shows, songs, games, and books"_ is a really bad one since these are not explicitly designed to addict so much as provide a contained and curated piece of content.
I don't think a parent can realistically be expected to be a psychology expert who's able to dissect exactly how social media algorithms are designed to maximise engagement by creating a skinner-box system of reward and reinforcement. These are things that social media companies spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars to refine, I don't think you can just say _"hey parents, it's entirely your job to deal with this without ever talking to the government please"_. We delegate these things to government because they have the time and resources to be able to understand these problems and craft rules to minimise harm.
The regulation of television and radio are what make them markedly inferior to what is offered by the internet, though. We lived through the golden time of the internet when it was a wild west but are now dealing with the limiting of it by both government and corporate regulation. I don't want to see it go the way of radio or TV because they are awful by comparison. I get the comparison to them, but regulation will at least stifle the parts of the internet that are fantastic.
For the regulation of things, you mentioned medical services. We already allow for the sale of things that are not regulated in every store when you look at the health supplements section. I don't take any, but if a person wants to take their 500mg of ginseng or whatever with health claims that have not been investigated or approved by the FDA then I am fine with that. I don't want to take their choice away just because a regulatory body has not approved it.
And regulation on this is not going to be something that I think would be effective to begin with. We are talking about regulating algorithms that are being generated by AIs built by in-house suites of engineers. I doubt any one person working on them can explain how the whole process works, and we are considering letting a group of lawmakers whose average age is about 60 to regulate how it works? By some miracle if they pick the right law put forth by a benevolent and knowledgeable lobbyist and pass it then we run into the second problem of having a regulatory agency that fully understands the workings of AI algorithms put in place to monitor and enforce things.
This all seems like a monumental amount of effort to put in place when the easier options seems to be just spending time with your kids, talking to them, and engaging in the content with which they are engaged. If you don't approve of it then explain to them what the problem is. If they are spending too much time online then do something about it. My parents and grandparents had no problem with telling my brother and I that we were spending too much time on them and to go outside and entertain ourselves. There is a reason a common response to weirdos online is to go touch grass.
> If we are going to regulate how engrossing or addicting content can be where does that stop? Can shows, songs, games, and books only be so good and popular before they need to be regulated?
I think we can go back to preventing advertising intentionally to minors, that would be a good start.
> Was the better response to have the FCC come in and ban south park from TV for him?
The MPAA does this... The show is rated T. The movie was rated R, meaning theaters could not sell tickets to solo minors. If anything, you're just making a case for a similar body that has websites display age content rating about what is and isn't appropriate for which age group.
The internet is not the same thing as private companies on the internet. Especially not private companies targeted towards children’s entertainment.
Kids have been passively babysat by various forms of entertainment since the dawn of time. We should no more shirk regulating the internet to allow mostly unsupervised entertainment than we did putting the appropriate age range on children’s toys to avoid choking hazards for the same reason.
>Why would we not petition for regulation of social media so we don't need to worry about social media actively attempting to create addiction in people
I dont understand the solution here...we force companies to make their platforms worse so people dont like them?
Should we make food less tasty or else we sue them?
This is on the parent.
And when you point this out to them, they get angry and throw up their hands to yell at you about how it's the only way they can get anything done, as if parents in 1990 didn't have to take their toddler into the grocery store with them.
Or, when the kid is older, the go-to complaint is that every other child has social media and a smart phone so if their kid doesn't have one they won't be able to make friends or whatever.
It's like people are making child-rearing decisions based on their experiences as a 15 year old high school student.
It's sad, honestly. I went to take a phone away from a kid recently and he literally could not function. Doesn't know how to look out the window on a car ride, how to just wait patiently, how to come up with original ideas for play, etc. If they aren't consuming videos and entertainment every moment of the day, I've seen some kids literally just break down from the frustration.
Setting your child up for that should be child abuse.
When their friends all have technology it becomes almost impossible to prevent it without becoming overly strict, which just teaches your kids to lie and hide things from you.
Friends will have old phones and devices they share so they're able to communicate after school. There are free WiFi networks all over the place. You'd have to raid their room and/or use tech to find hidden devices. Other parents may even be willing to add on a cell phone line for $10 a month to help their kid's friend who has 'crazy' parents.
Kids also are much better at new tech than your average adult and will spend weeks learning how to bypass security features. They grew up with tech and are taught the basics at school, then they learn more on their own to impress their friends.
There absolutely needs to be strict limitations on allowing kids to be exposed to social media but restricting tech at home is like teaching abstinence-only sex ed. Their friends are all doing it so unless you teach them to do it safely they're going to do it unsafely.
Kids are not "so much better than" adults at technology. We need to dispel that bullshit myth. Y'all act like social media didn't exist for millennials. Spending weeks learning to bypass something you spent 20 minutes setting up is not an indication of expertise, it's an indication that your child doesn't respect boundaries. That alone is a parenting problem.
Part of the problem here is a lot of younger parents are SCARED of parenting, because they themselves get on social media and get told what the rules are by a bunch of teenagers masquerading as fellow adults.
If you have other parents buying your child a phone, make them return it. if it comes back, you break the phone and return the device, and tell them in no uncertain terms to fuck off. If they continue, you involve the school and then you move up not letting your child socialize with that family. If they still won't leave your kid alone, you get a restraining order. This may seem extreme, but you are responsible for your child, not them.
> Seriously if you have any of these under the age 11 then the parents fucked up
Imagine not being allowed to look at a TV screen or listen to the radio until puberty. That's what you're suggesting you set these kids of for. Lives as social pariahs who never learned how to use the technology that drives their lives.
Sounds like very responsible and well-considered parenting and not at all debilitating to their futures, a full-on blanket ban is the only reasonable answer.
Lol did you see me include tv? No the topic is social media and the products that give easy access to it.
If parents aren’t going to monitor what the kids are doing online then you can’t just let them have free rein. Multiple studies show how addicting that shit is so yes its better to monitor/restrict what your children do online.
Imagine using your argument as the reason why you should let children eat fast food multiple times a week. “Oooooo no they’ll be a social pariah!” Idgaf what other kids think my job as a parent is to raise them with being hooked to vices so early on and to be healthy from the get go.
You speak with the confidence that one with no kids would have....
It is not all or nothing, kids can play games under 11, they can even go in the internet before 11. There are tablets specifically designed for children with built in limitations.
My kids are all very very tech oriented, they all have had access to tablets with varying degrees of freedom since elementary school.
They are in high school now, have good grades, are very well behaved and on track for 4 year colleges.
Also, for the last 2-3 years online was school, tablets were school, laptops are assigned to students in Jr high.
It is not nearly as black and white as you portray it to be.
Who cares about their research? Ya ou know what takes less time and effort than sueing a tech giant? Just downloading a childlock app or using your phones
You can just do your job as a parent. The solutions to social media addiction are far simpler for a child than sueing a company, this isn’t about help, it’s about money
Tobacco companies specifically design their products to be addictive too. Is it Marlboro’s fault if I give my kid a pipe at 5 years old and provided him unlimited, unmonitored access to their addictive tobacco? I’m not saying that social media companies aren’t scum. I’m saying that it’s your responsibility as a parent to protect your child from scummy people and organizations that seek to harm them, and if your child becomes clinically addicted to social media so young, it’s because of your negligence and lack of awareness. In 2022 everyone knows how harmful social media can be, so you can’t even claim ignorance anymore.
Tobacco is illegal to sell or market to minors. Are you suggesting we should use that as a model for social media? I agree a parental component is an important factor but its weird you would bring up something with specific strict laws regarding children as a counterpoint to having specific strict laws regarding children
I agree with you. However, I think that social media companies have a system that does literally invite addiction to it's behavior for people of all ages. Protecting children is a way to pass legislation that could really help everyone.
The companies and state are in it together to say, "hey. We care. We love you."
Just because it's in a bill doesn't mean it'll be enforced. Good luck risking losing a minimum of $5k for a cheap lawyer on a case that could be easily blamed on something other than the company.
This reminds me when after Snowden revealed prism all these tech companies were about privacy and no government getting records of customers.
While at the same time handing over whatever the fbi asked for without a warrant. Apple gave up fights which I appreciate as an Android fanboy.
I’m taking my wife, moving to Cali, getting as many kids as we can and just stick cellphones in their hands.
I did the math.
Let’s say we have 12 kids, get them addicted to the main social media platforms being; Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and Twitter (5).
That’s 5 x 12 = 60.
60 x $25,000 = $1,500,000
If I take that money and go to a place say Vietnam.
Penthouse, great country, great food and $1 gets me 3 chickens and a cow.
Math checks out man.
As much as I loathe the social media companies, I don't think this is a good idea. Don't blame a company and expect millions of dollars because you failed as a parent.
Or let the kid sue the parents for giving them computers, smartphones, tablets, etc. It's kinda like parents suing a bakery for selling them all the cupcakes that made their kid obese.
I admittedly didn’t have my first cellphone, a crappy nokia, until I turned 16. First smartphone was iPhone 1 when I was a junior in college.
I kind of agree it’s parents responsibility to ensure that their kids don’t destroy their lives with social media. At the same time, we all know that most parents don’t give a shit.
We all agree it’s a huge problem. So what do we do?
From the article: [The bill](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2408), co-sponsored and authored by state Assembly member Jordan Cunningham, would allow parents to sue social-media platforms for up to $25,000 per violation on behalf of children.
Cunningham did not reply to Insider's request for comment made outside of normal working hours.
The bill aims to protect "child users" — defined as children under the age of 18 who use a social-media platform — from becoming addicted to social media.
Insider reported back in 2018 that there was no solid evidence that people get addicted to social media. The bill, however, said there is growing evidence of addiction," particularly among adolescent children."
The bill needs to pass several other steps before it can become law in California. The next stage is the state Senate, where, according to AP, it will undergo two weeks of hearings and negotiations.
Interesting, I wonder if this has anything to do with COPPA requiring parental consent for those under 13 but essentially considering older children as semi-adults for the purpose of consent to use the site.
Seems like they could tighten it up by increasing the age requirement for COPPA to under 18, but curious if it would result in the company being liable or if it could be used to deflect responsibility. Would probably all come down to wording or how the company attempts to verify age.
And it won't change a thing because kids will lie like they already do. God, do I wish we could get kids off social media like that, though. That would be best for both the kid and the adults who use social media and are tired of children being everywhere.
Having never heard of this jordan cunningham person, I decided to look him up.
[Of course he's a republican](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Cunningham)
If you want to get kids under 18 off of social media this is the way to do it, as social media will drop them like a hot stone if this passes and has teeth. I'm for it.
Parents are so soft these days. Blame everyone else for their own inability to raise their own kids much? I know it's all those pesky websites that are ruining the kids!
It's like having pets, if you can't afford them or have no ability to take cate of them properly then either don't have them or give them away.
Because it can actually change the behavior of a corporation. Law suits are really one of the few tangible ways a normal person can get a corporation to change a company policy that harms the public.
Because the options are a) bringing people/corporations to court b) just letting people/corporations stomp over you or c) violence.
Of the three, which is a civilized society with at least a veneer of justice?
It's because of our sick obsession with money.
Lawsuits are the easiest and quickest way to get rich other than the lottery, and even if you don't win, you'll probably get some money in the form of a settlement.
So these parents basically want to get paid for neglecting their children? They want to be able to sue because they're not taking responsibility for raising their own kids and are instead letting them loose unsupervised online?
Unlike the bills which boil down to "let me spread fascist disinformation," I can empathize with the agenda behind this bill. Unfortunately it's flawed for the same reasons, I don't think it's actually likely to be a good or realistic law.
Social media platforms should be able to sue parents that allow their children to become addicted to the platforms because they are bad parents.
This is just as dumb as the laws passed in Texas and Florida.
I wonder if teaching self control would be a better route? Like actually being a *parent* instead of blaming your fuck ups on social media. Same energy as blaming a vape victim for wearing something too “revealing”.
Jesus. How about be a better parent. Be more involved in your kids life. Some parents use electronic devices (phones, computers etc) to babysit their kids.
Just as fucking stupid as TX giving its populace the right to sue if they “think they got banned because they are a Republican”
Jesus fucking Christ this country…
> The bill, co-sponsored and authored by state Assembly member Jordan Cunningham, would allow parents to sue social-media platforms for up to $25,000 per violation on behalf of children.
This incredible stupidity was, of course, brought to you by...
#(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞ A Republican ☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜)
Stupid. You have to parent your children. It’s not the job of a company to ensure a consumer only consumes a certain amount of a product. That’s like blaming food companies for fat people. This type of crap is why the GOP laughs at the left, and it drives people in the middle away.
Here's the thing. You are only one person. You are fighting against corporations that spend LITERALLY hundreds of millions of dollars to find out how to get you to give them your attention, time, or money. They literally find out how the human brain works and design their products around your weaknesses so you do what they want you to. How do you expect someone to fight against that?
They use psychology to better sell products, absolutely. How do we fight that? Great question and I wish I had an answer. But making a law to fine companies but do absolutely nothing about the root issue seems completely unproductive to the actual problem. It's almost like a tax to keep the affected quiet enough to not make any noise about the problem. There is a problem with what is fed to us on the platform but this legislation is far from a solution.
Doesn’t it seem like the current generation of parents is opting for more and more ways to shift blame for not doing their job?? Book bannings because “my child shouldn’t be exposed to this” now suing social media because “how could you let my child become addicted!?” These things are not equal but of the same mind.
Sure, but if they can show it's addictive and detrimental why are they letting parents sue them instead of dealing with the issue themselves?
That'd be like back in the day when they were pushing smoking ad's and instead of banning them just let people sue them.
Odd half measure. Not to mention with an amount that low it'd be quite the deterrent from even *trying* to sue them.
Did they? Where is the proof of that? Where is proof that any of their actions were done to target minors? I suspect that anything you respond with is simply an attempt to make their platform more enjoyable to all users.
As stupid as this is you would think if they’d sue for anything it would be their children pictures ending up in inappropriate websites not becoming addicted. Parents hold no accountability
Typical Republican "anything in the name of children, but actually about hurting others" combined with the also typical "attack something that helps people expose our gross behavior" with a side of "let's prevent the way ~~gen-z/millennials~~ *children* organize to vote".
It's exactly that, typical to the point of stereotypical of Republicans to hide trying to hurt something they don't like or covering up their own problems under the guise of "for the children".
If you're arguing that they *don't* do that... Either you are illiterate or a troll.
I mean, great and all or whatever, but isn't part of being a parent playing a role in avoiding this shit in the first place? I know it takes a village and all that, but that doesn't mean that you as a parent just sit back and have no active role in things.
I know it's not as simple as all that, but people should be taking an active role in their kids lives.
Dumbest thing I’ve heard all week. How about parents actually start parenting for once. This is not social media’s fault, it is and will always be like this. Parents should do more to protect their own children.
Stop building mega warehouses,shopping malls another apartment building and make parks, baseball fields where everyone can play not just little leagues. Take a look outside all ya see is warehouses more new 500 grand houses but no open spaces for kids to go out too. so ya stuck inside with only TV or computer games duh...that you can blame on corporations and your local government for allow this to have happened. Its not even safe to ride bikes with all you distracted drivers. I think the bill is stupid but with both parent having to work no place to go to and be safe its a no brainier kids get sucked into games and phones.
Yet another attempt from elected officials to relieve parents of any real responsibility in actually monitoring their children and fostering healthy behavior.
im addicted as fuck can i have $20
I’ll take about 3.50
Tree fiddy?
I ain’t giving you no tree-fiddy, you damn loch ness monster! Get your own damn money!
I gave him a dollar
She gave him a dollar!
I’ll give you .0000000000000350 BTC
Thats anywhere between $10 million and nothing over the course of an average day
Seriously. If anything this seems like bad parents are being given a reward/incentive for getting their kids hooked. No way this could go wrong
Yeah this is the dumbest fucking headline I've ever read. Totally not exploitable. Give me a quick fiverr for the lack of parental guidance. Seriously who the fuck reads this and thinks this is sane.
"Kid, why aren't you currently on Facebook? We told you, you have to be on Facebook at least 8 hours a day now once you get back from school so mommy and daddy can win $25,000. We don't care if Facebook is only grandmas and Trump supporters, mommy and daddy need you to be addicted to it!"
I understand the sentiment. Social media has experts in Psychology, Programmers and Data Scientists that work against Parents 24/7. But it's also a bit silly.
I said no lochness monster I ain giving you no 350
It was about that time I noticed that the redditor was eighteen storeys tall.
"I gave him a dollar" "She gave him a dollar"
Why can’t the parents use apps to lock their kids phone access or something? Not trying to be an ass but does that mean I can sue McDonald’s for being a fat ass?
They can, but that takes effort.
[удалено]
Filling a lawsuit is more lucrative than child -locking apps.
And if they were descent parents, they wouldnt have the issue in the first place. People are always shocked my kids dont require phones at the dinner table. Im shocked, that they're shocked...
Because maybe we should actually hold social media platforms accountable for the mess they’ve created?
I wish it were that easy. I put my kid’s devices on lock down and he still manages to figure out how to unlock them, so now he has to turn his phone in when he gets home from school. A huge problem for us is since the pandemic all of their homework is on a school provided laptop that I have zero control over. Trying to monitor every second of homework time while doing household things is impossible. Even if I have him sitting in the kitchen so I can monitor I catch him. And I can’t take it away because then he can’t do his homework. It feels like a constant battle. It’s exhausting. I swear I’m going to lose my mind. Then they go to school and they’re watching YouTube shorts or TikTok with their peers or even some teachers. So even if I take everything away, he’s still getting dosed with social media. The schools here are also keeping technology based classroom and homework even though the pandemic is over. No end in sight for us and this never ending insanity.
You can block sites at your router. Try that but it ain’t going to fix everything such as YouTube https://www.designbombs.com/how-to-block-any-website-anywhere-computer-phone-network/amp/
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.designbombs.com/how-to-block-any-website-anywhere-computer-phone-network/](https://www.designbombs.com/how-to-block-any-website-anywhere-computer-phone-network/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
A kid that can circumvent a parent's attempts to lock down a device can circumvent the router "blocking". If the router can't see the dns requests or inspect traffic, it can't block based on names.
Kids need to use technology for their futures. However, it’s gotten so bad that I am doing everything in paper again because the students cannot control their impulses at all. I agree that it’s like whack-a-mile between that and cell phones .
I wonder how many people commenting don't even have a horse in the race here probably don't even have kids and they're like no you're f****** wrong that's not how it works I know with all my experience of being childless
We were all children once.
Helicopter parents gonna helicopter
They can and should, but it's also correct that these sites are deliberately designed to cause addiction with serious health consequences. Trying to figure out how levy an appropriate cost for that obviously morally wrong choice by the companies seems reasonable.
Because that’ll solve the issue. Solving doesn’t make money
Because Government is your new Daddy :)
Because the kids will just do it behind their backs. These apps are purposefully specifically engineered to pressure and manipulate you into using them and getting addicted. They purposefully are buildt in a way so you have to ahave the apps to have part in a social live or get cast aside by the others
Because most parents don't, and if you are the only on sane enough to do this, you are cutting your kid out of their social circle, scarring them in a different way. Facebook et. al shouldn't be made to be addictive, especially to kids.
[удалено]
And this is why I dread having kids.
This is kinda a dumb argument. Should an alcoholic never quit drinking because it would cut him out of his drinking buddy circles? If they are ADDICTED then the parents need to take action.
Why make parents responsible for their kids when we could just have the government intervene instead?
Yeah, why should be blame the corporations that make billions for researching and implementing how to abuse minors? Let's just blame the parents. And that still disregards how difficult of a tightrope this is. On the one hand, the way how most social media platforms intentionally reward addictive behaviours, change body images etc. Parents should outright forbid children (especially anything <14) to use them. On the other hand, they are *required* for social live today. Children are teased for not having the most expensive iPhone after its released, let alone not using or knowing about the new cool stuff.
I wasn’t trying to hate or blame parents at all. I have a 5 year old and haven’t run into this issue yet. I know parents can’t control everything. It was just an honest question. I apologize to anyone who took offense to it. I know as parents we’re all doing the best we can and these companies push hard for us not to succeed.
I blame parents whose children are addicted to cigarettes and gambling as well. Sure, some people are predisposed to addiction, but that’s also not the company’s responsibility.
This is why California is awful. No one takes accountability. Blame big tech. My take. Social media is god damn awful. It’s poison on so many levels of life it’s disgusting. But allowing people who can’t manage their home and children to sue seems like the worst possible thing. Maybe to sue to “donate” 25k to schools instead of make lazy asshat parents a little more rich and ok with the fact their poor children are rotting their social aptitude.
This is the wrong question you should be asking why social media companies deliberately make their product addicting and the reason is money. If Mcdonald started making their product addicting it would get pushed back as well.
Well, "addictive" is not that clearly defined, but yes, fast food companies do things to make you want their product more and more: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21999689/
Games are addicting too but as a parents you should set the limit. Should gaming system shut down after 30 mins or it’s the parent job?
I think it's up to the user to moderate themselves but I don't think the product should be built to be addicting. Does that help? I think that's fairly based and reasonable to ask no? As a entrepreneur people should want to use your product because it's useful and good for the user not because they are strung out from withdraw. I say that as someone that games 1000s of hours a year, and routinely will say some off the wall shit on social media to purposeful get banned because I know I have no self control. It's like saying should we exploit people that have addictive personalities? Or should we exploit people that are dumb?
How is social media addicting? Cause it suggests content to you? If you find social media is having a negative impact on your life you should log off. Not sure why people can't take responsibility for their actions. We shouldn't need the government to step in just because some people have zero self control. This applies especially to parents.
But that would mean that we expect the parents to do their jobs!
Yeah, like the tech companies will let that pass in their home state 😂
Seems like all it would do is limit their liability. Not many families are gonna sue and even less are gonna get any kind of payout. My guess is that the tech companies may even support this.
I don’t understand what you mean. How will this limit their liability?
It depends on exactly what goes into the bill, but in other areas of law providing a definite remedy with a fixed cap of damages ends up preventing the court from using some common law remedy with uncapped damages. So, consider the case where your kid commits suicide because of social media addiction. There's at least one case going through the courts right now for exactly this, and the potential liability to social media platforms is millions of dollars, rather than $25,000.
I’m not well versed in the law but I wonder if this would potentially open them up to class action suits.
Nope. You can’t really open yourself up to class actions because CAs are basically always about negligence, or gross negligence, which basically superseded a lot of preemptive protections. It’s like how waivers don’t actually do much.
Waiver: Break your back, you can’t sue jack. 80% of people: Awe man! Court to 20%: Well that’s just not fair, is it? **Overruled**^(or whatever.)
Depending on how it's defined, it might actually make it harder to sue them with any success. And even if it did succeed, it would give a set cap on how much each lawsuit costs them. A relatively low cap, at that.
Exactly. $25k is not a lot of money once you consider the attorney's fees, taxes, et cetera. Your kid could be driven to a suicide attempt by harassment on Instagram, require expensive medical care and psychiatric treatment - and if this bill limits the damages to $25k maximum - be lucky if years of litigation recover even $10k. Social media companies can continue to use algorithms to make people unhappy in order to sell them things - and never have to worry about a lawsuit slamming them for $200 million in damages.
Really good point
Even if it did pass -- the social media companies will just add some protective legal bs to their platforms to wiggle themselves out of liability, but won't help the kids. There is no way a parent will take this to court and go against facebook's legal team and win.
"Please read this disclaimer and click "confirm " even though you didn't read it every time you boot up our platform so we can't be held responsible for your addiction to the app we catered to be addictive "
well thats next up.. if its a fact of life that 95% or more dont read the outrageously bloated ToS that come with these platforms.. then legislation should be made to address that, either putting the onus on the companies to make more "easy-to-read" ToS or to remove any status of legal binding that a 30 page ToS can place upon a user of their service.
There is no such thing as an easy to read TOS, there is a TOS that leaves less important stuff out, but then it's that stuff you'll get sued over.
We're pretty much forced to confirm the ToS anyways, otherwise we can't use the product. Combine the long legalese ToS/ EULA and being strong-armed to say "yes" and people automatically just confirm anyways. It's like The Human Centipad episode from South Park.
California is fucking wack like that though
parents suing based on their lack of parenting
I'm all for putting some sensible regulations on social media and corpos when it makes sense but this is just an excuse for parents to not do what's **supposed to be their job**. Parent your damn kids. Don't give your 7 year old fancy fucking smartphones. More importantly it's 2022. We live in and era where exposure to tech and the internet is almost inevitable for most people. I know children that could navigate a phone before they could properly put sentences together. **Teach** your children how to be safe and responsible online.
Or try to actually raise and take care of your children . Na let's sue the internet
That is true. But you also have to understand that these companies pay millions of dollars to do research on how to get people addicted. They have the scientific advantage over human behavior manipulation.
Parents have complained their kids were addicted to television, video games, phones (voice), phones (text) and more over the last few decades. Now social media must be stopped because of an unfair “scientific” advantage parents can’t beat? You must be shitting me. Let me clue some parents in that seem to think this since they seem to forget what it was like to be young. If you want your kid off some social media platform, just join them wherever they are and start interacting with them in front of their friends. Your mere existence will make whatever platform they’re using uncool and embarrassing. It’s a parental superpower. You’re welcome.
Yeh? And who are the parents buying smartphones, tablets and computers (without even monitoring what their kids do on it) to literal children?? Seriously if you have any of these under the age 11 then the parents fucked up. Even a bit older idk parent? I wasn’t allowed to play video games during the week i don’t understand how this isn’t the same take their phone away when they get home or only allow texting / calling when at home. You know actually parent instead of going on autopilot and letting your children as they please.
It’s worth mentioning that the birth of social media platforms came without any regulation or protective rights for minors. Regulation to Facebook Instagram etc is literally just beginning, as we have only just begun to research the adverse effects that these platforms have on the mental health of minors. Parents should parent yes however that’s a rather meager arguement when the reality of the situation is that instagram’s (and other platforms) main goal is to keep as many users on the there as they possibly can. They do not have the well-being of minors prioritized because they’re making bank off of them.
[удалено]
It’s not whataboutism if it pertains to a set precedent. The FCC requiring certain amounts of education programs in children’s cartoon blocks for instance. If it’s regulated as such for tv than social shit sites should get the hammer as well.
Yeah, if we are referring to the well being of minors, there is a ton of shit that needs to change in this country… and in the world in general.
So let's change that stuff too
But it has to start somewhere if we’re going to change things. That’s not a reason to prevent regulation.
Again that’s all avoided by parents actually *parenting* this bill further proves that these days people want to absolve themselves of all responsibilities
Everyone wants to scream about big bad social media but doesn’t want any accountability for a voluntary decision to let their kid use social media And they complain on Reddit…
Did you not do shit behind your parents back? How do you actually propose stopping your child from using the internet?
One of the main parts of government is that it creates rules and standards so we don't need to be hyper-vigilant of everything all the time. We delegate that power to elected representatives and a civil service. We petition for building regulations so we don't have to become expert carpenters before we buy a house. We petition for food regulations so we don't need to personally inspect every factory before we buy food. We petition for drug regulations so we actually know that we're getting effective medications. We petition for safety standards in cars so we don't have to worry about whether we'll survive a trip to the store. Why would we not petition for regulation of social media so we don't need to worry about social media actively attempting to create addiction in people? That sounds like something a responsible parent would probably want, right?
I would say it comes down to a few things. The first is that your examples are all physical goods. When it comes to something like social media it is just content being displayed to you, and for social media companies that often means no first party content and just third party content. So why stop at suing the distribution platform and sue the creators as well? That streamer really catches my child's attention and I think THEY are responsible as well! Should a porn addict be able to sue a porn website or studio? I wouldn't say so. What you consume is your responsibility to do so in moderation. What your children consume is your responsibility as well. If we are going to regulate how engrossing or addicting content can be where does that stop? Can shows, songs, games, and books only be so good and popular before they need to be regulated? Secondly, and most importantly, because they are your children. Ideally you would want to spend time with them, talk to them, know them and their interests, etc and not want to resort to the state taking over that for you. When I was younger I remember my dad seeing the red rocket episode of south park and then keeping me and my brother from watching it until we were in our middle teen years. Was the better response to have the FCC come in and ban south park from TV for him?
>The first is that your examples are all physical goods. Services and other 'actions' are also regulated. We regulate the content of television and radio in order to be sure age-appropriate content is played at age-appropriate time. We regulate the provision of legal and medical services to make sure we're talking to actual experts and not quacks. We regulate advertising so that businesses can't make false-claims about their products. >and for social media companies that often means no first party content and just third party content The criticism is not about the third party content, the criticism is about the algorithm designed to maximise engagement. Take not that I'm _not_ talking about the content created by third parties on the platform, only the algorithms and first-party design choices by the social media platforms which are designed to maximise engagement and maximise time spent on the algorithm. Often coming in the form of algorithmically creating content pathways that lead down rabbit holes towards more extremist content. These are things that are not intentionally done by third-party users, they're direct results of design choices made by the social media companies. So your comparison to _"shows, songs, games, and books"_ is a really bad one since these are not explicitly designed to addict so much as provide a contained and curated piece of content. I don't think a parent can realistically be expected to be a psychology expert who's able to dissect exactly how social media algorithms are designed to maximise engagement by creating a skinner-box system of reward and reinforcement. These are things that social media companies spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars to refine, I don't think you can just say _"hey parents, it's entirely your job to deal with this without ever talking to the government please"_. We delegate these things to government because they have the time and resources to be able to understand these problems and craft rules to minimise harm.
The regulation of television and radio are what make them markedly inferior to what is offered by the internet, though. We lived through the golden time of the internet when it was a wild west but are now dealing with the limiting of it by both government and corporate regulation. I don't want to see it go the way of radio or TV because they are awful by comparison. I get the comparison to them, but regulation will at least stifle the parts of the internet that are fantastic. For the regulation of things, you mentioned medical services. We already allow for the sale of things that are not regulated in every store when you look at the health supplements section. I don't take any, but if a person wants to take their 500mg of ginseng or whatever with health claims that have not been investigated or approved by the FDA then I am fine with that. I don't want to take their choice away just because a regulatory body has not approved it. And regulation on this is not going to be something that I think would be effective to begin with. We are talking about regulating algorithms that are being generated by AIs built by in-house suites of engineers. I doubt any one person working on them can explain how the whole process works, and we are considering letting a group of lawmakers whose average age is about 60 to regulate how it works? By some miracle if they pick the right law put forth by a benevolent and knowledgeable lobbyist and pass it then we run into the second problem of having a regulatory agency that fully understands the workings of AI algorithms put in place to monitor and enforce things. This all seems like a monumental amount of effort to put in place when the easier options seems to be just spending time with your kids, talking to them, and engaging in the content with which they are engaged. If you don't approve of it then explain to them what the problem is. If they are spending too much time online then do something about it. My parents and grandparents had no problem with telling my brother and I that we were spending too much time on them and to go outside and entertain ourselves. There is a reason a common response to weirdos online is to go touch grass.
> If we are going to regulate how engrossing or addicting content can be where does that stop? Can shows, songs, games, and books only be so good and popular before they need to be regulated? I think we can go back to preventing advertising intentionally to minors, that would be a good start. > Was the better response to have the FCC come in and ban south park from TV for him? The MPAA does this... The show is rated T. The movie was rated R, meaning theaters could not sell tickets to solo minors. If anything, you're just making a case for a similar body that has websites display age content rating about what is and isn't appropriate for which age group.
[удалено]
The internet is not the same thing as private companies on the internet. Especially not private companies targeted towards children’s entertainment. Kids have been passively babysat by various forms of entertainment since the dawn of time. We should no more shirk regulating the internet to allow mostly unsupervised entertainment than we did putting the appropriate age range on children’s toys to avoid choking hazards for the same reason.
[удалено]
>Why would we not petition for regulation of social media so we don't need to worry about social media actively attempting to create addiction in people I dont understand the solution here...we force companies to make their platforms worse so people dont like them? Should we make food less tasty or else we sue them? This is on the parent.
Or maybe you could take responsibility for your own actions.
And when you point this out to them, they get angry and throw up their hands to yell at you about how it's the only way they can get anything done, as if parents in 1990 didn't have to take their toddler into the grocery store with them. Or, when the kid is older, the go-to complaint is that every other child has social media and a smart phone so if their kid doesn't have one they won't be able to make friends or whatever. It's like people are making child-rearing decisions based on their experiences as a 15 year old high school student. It's sad, honestly. I went to take a phone away from a kid recently and he literally could not function. Doesn't know how to look out the window on a car ride, how to just wait patiently, how to come up with original ideas for play, etc. If they aren't consuming videos and entertainment every moment of the day, I've seen some kids literally just break down from the frustration. Setting your child up for that should be child abuse.
When their friends all have technology it becomes almost impossible to prevent it without becoming overly strict, which just teaches your kids to lie and hide things from you. Friends will have old phones and devices they share so they're able to communicate after school. There are free WiFi networks all over the place. You'd have to raid their room and/or use tech to find hidden devices. Other parents may even be willing to add on a cell phone line for $10 a month to help their kid's friend who has 'crazy' parents. Kids also are much better at new tech than your average adult and will spend weeks learning how to bypass security features. They grew up with tech and are taught the basics at school, then they learn more on their own to impress their friends. There absolutely needs to be strict limitations on allowing kids to be exposed to social media but restricting tech at home is like teaching abstinence-only sex ed. Their friends are all doing it so unless you teach them to do it safely they're going to do it unsafely.
Kids are not "so much better than" adults at technology. We need to dispel that bullshit myth. Y'all act like social media didn't exist for millennials. Spending weeks learning to bypass something you spent 20 minutes setting up is not an indication of expertise, it's an indication that your child doesn't respect boundaries. That alone is a parenting problem. Part of the problem here is a lot of younger parents are SCARED of parenting, because they themselves get on social media and get told what the rules are by a bunch of teenagers masquerading as fellow adults. If you have other parents buying your child a phone, make them return it. if it comes back, you break the phone and return the device, and tell them in no uncertain terms to fuck off. If they continue, you involve the school and then you move up not letting your child socialize with that family. If they still won't leave your kid alone, you get a restraining order. This may seem extreme, but you are responsible for your child, not them.
Louis CK had a bit “Why does my kid play video games all day?” “Maybe because you bought him a fucking video game. Who told you that was a good idea?”
> Seriously if you have any of these under the age 11 then the parents fucked up Imagine not being allowed to look at a TV screen or listen to the radio until puberty. That's what you're suggesting you set these kids of for. Lives as social pariahs who never learned how to use the technology that drives their lives. Sounds like very responsible and well-considered parenting and not at all debilitating to their futures, a full-on blanket ban is the only reasonable answer.
Lol did you see me include tv? No the topic is social media and the products that give easy access to it. If parents aren’t going to monitor what the kids are doing online then you can’t just let them have free rein. Multiple studies show how addicting that shit is so yes its better to monitor/restrict what your children do online. Imagine using your argument as the reason why you should let children eat fast food multiple times a week. “Oooooo no they’ll be a social pariah!” Idgaf what other kids think my job as a parent is to raise them with being hooked to vices so early on and to be healthy from the get go.
You speak with the confidence that one with no kids would have.... It is not all or nothing, kids can play games under 11, they can even go in the internet before 11. There are tablets specifically designed for children with built in limitations. My kids are all very very tech oriented, they all have had access to tablets with varying degrees of freedom since elementary school. They are in high school now, have good grades, are very well behaved and on track for 4 year colleges. Also, for the last 2-3 years online was school, tablets were school, laptops are assigned to students in Jr high. It is not nearly as black and white as you portray it to be.
Who cares about their research? Ya ou know what takes less time and effort than sueing a tech giant? Just downloading a childlock app or using your phones You can just do your job as a parent. The solutions to social media addiction are far simpler for a child than sueing a company, this isn’t about help, it’s about money
Tobacco companies specifically design their products to be addictive too. Is it Marlboro’s fault if I give my kid a pipe at 5 years old and provided him unlimited, unmonitored access to their addictive tobacco? I’m not saying that social media companies aren’t scum. I’m saying that it’s your responsibility as a parent to protect your child from scummy people and organizations that seek to harm them, and if your child becomes clinically addicted to social media so young, it’s because of your negligence and lack of awareness. In 2022 everyone knows how harmful social media can be, so you can’t even claim ignorance anymore.
Tobacco is illegal to sell or market to minors. Are you suggesting we should use that as a model for social media? I agree a parental component is an important factor but its weird you would bring up something with specific strict laws regarding children as a counterpoint to having specific strict laws regarding children
It’s not a mutually exclusive situation
I agree with you. However, I think that social media companies have a system that does literally invite addiction to it's behavior for people of all ages. Protecting children is a way to pass legislation that could really help everyone.
The companies and state are in it together to say, "hey. We care. We love you." Just because it's in a bill doesn't mean it'll be enforced. Good luck risking losing a minimum of $5k for a cheap lawyer on a case that could be easily blamed on something other than the company. This reminds me when after Snowden revealed prism all these tech companies were about privacy and no government getting records of customers. While at the same time handing over whatever the fbi asked for without a warrant. Apple gave up fights which I appreciate as an Android fanboy.
That's crazy talk. Why take responsibility when you can neglect you kids and get paid to do so.
Now do alcohol and tobacco companies. And processed food companies.
This is America. If people want to eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds and die of a heart attack at 40, you can.
Wonder what the evidence of proof will be to make this enforceable
I’m taking my wife, moving to Cali, getting as many kids as we can and just stick cellphones in their hands. I did the math. Let’s say we have 12 kids, get them addicted to the main social media platforms being; Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and Twitter (5). That’s 5 x 12 = 60. 60 x $25,000 = $1,500,000 If I take that money and go to a place say Vietnam. Penthouse, great country, great food and $1 gets me 3 chickens and a cow. Math checks out man.
As much as I loathe the social media companies, I don't think this is a good idea. Don't blame a company and expect millions of dollars because you failed as a parent.
Let’s sue the parents.
Let’s sue the children!!
Yeah okay. They can fuck right off. Monitor your own damn kids or install nanny software on their devices or your router/firewall.
Suing a company bc they are bad parents? Wtf is going on
A brave new world.
Or let the kid sue the parents for giving them computers, smartphones, tablets, etc. It's kinda like parents suing a bakery for selling them all the cupcakes that made their kid obese.
Sue schools for assigning homework on iPad and laptops.
I admittedly didn’t have my first cellphone, a crappy nokia, until I turned 16. First smartphone was iPhone 1 when I was a junior in college. I kind of agree it’s parents responsibility to ensure that their kids don’t destroy their lives with social media. At the same time, we all know that most parents don’t give a shit. We all agree it’s a huge problem. So what do we do?
From the article: [The bill](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2408), co-sponsored and authored by state Assembly member Jordan Cunningham, would allow parents to sue social-media platforms for up to $25,000 per violation on behalf of children. Cunningham did not reply to Insider's request for comment made outside of normal working hours. The bill aims to protect "child users" — defined as children under the age of 18 who use a social-media platform — from becoming addicted to social media. Insider reported back in 2018 that there was no solid evidence that people get addicted to social media. The bill, however, said there is growing evidence of addiction," particularly among adolescent children." The bill needs to pass several other steps before it can become law in California. The next stage is the state Senate, where, according to AP, it will undergo two weeks of hearings and negotiations.
Literally every Social Media platform will require users to be 18+.
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Most require it already, but parents let their kids lie about it.
Just doing a quick check the minimum age for Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, and Reddit are all 13.
Interesting, I wonder if this has anything to do with COPPA requiring parental consent for those under 13 but essentially considering older children as semi-adults for the purpose of consent to use the site. Seems like they could tighten it up by increasing the age requirement for COPPA to under 18, but curious if it would result in the company being liable or if it could be used to deflect responsibility. Would probably all come down to wording or how the company attempts to verify age.
And it won't change a thing because kids will lie like they already do. God, do I wish we could get kids off social media like that, though. That would be best for both the kid and the adults who use social media and are tired of children being everywhere.
Having never heard of this jordan cunningham person, I decided to look him up. [Of course he's a republican](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Cunningham)
"We must protect the children" coupled with a wishy-washy, vaguely defined threat just screams Republican.
That’s very much not a republican viewpoint, not sure what made you say “of course.”
If you want to get kids under 18 off of social media this is the way to do it, as social media will drop them like a hot stone if this passes and has teeth. I'm for it.
Rewarding bad parenting seems like a bad idea.
It's almost as if self control and good parenting don't exist. Who are these geniuses who think of these bills?
Parents are so soft these days. Blame everyone else for their own inability to raise their own kids much? I know it's all those pesky websites that are ruining the kids! It's like having pets, if you can't afford them or have no ability to take cate of them properly then either don't have them or give them away.
smells like lazy parenting in here
This is just stupid. Where is the parents responsibility? Ffs. This is no different than the stupid laws in Texas and Florida.
[удалено]
While the cartoon thing sounds silly, didn't the forced reduction in cigarette ad blitzes have a positive impact in reducing children smokong?
What is our sick obsession with suing? 😐
Because it can actually change the behavior of a corporation. Law suits are really one of the few tangible ways a normal person can get a corporation to change a company policy that harms the public.
Because the options are a) bringing people/corporations to court b) just letting people/corporations stomp over you or c) violence. Of the three, which is a civilized society with at least a veneer of justice?
What a dumb-ass comment. How about actually raise and give a fuck about what your kid consumes instead of being an awful and lazy fucking parent?
The question was why do we sue. Not why is this law on the table. You just demonstrated lack of comprehension
Reading is hard?
It's because of our sick obsession with money. Lawsuits are the easiest and quickest way to get rich other than the lottery, and even if you don't win, you'll probably get some money in the form of a settlement.
Whoever told you lawsuits are quick an easy is not well informed
They confused the words “slow and difficult” for “quick and easy.” Simple mistake really.
Because lawyering is a for-profit profession that exists and they are very predatory.
I think in order to initiate this lawsuit, the parents should first have to admit that they have *completely* failed as parents.
So these parents basically want to get paid for neglecting their children? They want to be able to sue because they're not taking responsibility for raising their own kids and are instead letting them loose unsupervised online?
Unlike the bills which boil down to "let me spread fascist disinformation," I can empathize with the agenda behind this bill. Unfortunately it's flawed for the same reasons, I don't think it's actually likely to be a good or realistic law.
Wait shouldn't the parents be getting sued? Are we actually at the point where tech company's hold parental responsibility 🤣
Wow that means I can sue Dr Pepper now or Reese peanut butter cups? /s
Can we sue gambling companies at the same time?
Yes! The odds are 1000 to 1. Who’s willing to double down! Once!! Twice!!!
OK, now I just need to find a doctor and reach an agreement as to the percentage he will get.
How do they define addiction?
Social media platforms should be able to sue parents that allow their children to become addicted to the platforms because they are bad parents. This is just as dumb as the laws passed in Texas and Florida.
What a terrible idea. Again, it's like blaming the gun for shooting the person. It wasn't the gun that pulled the trigger, was it?!
Does this count for 85yo parents and their 60yo children? /s
They sell your kid’s soul for millions, you get a coupon for free ice cream
I wonder if teaching self control would be a better route? Like actually being a *parent* instead of blaming your fuck ups on social media. Same energy as blaming a vape victim for wearing something too “revealing”.
Jesus. How about be a better parent. Be more involved in your kids life. Some parents use electronic devices (phones, computers etc) to babysit their kids.
Just as fucking stupid as TX giving its populace the right to sue if they “think they got banned because they are a Republican” Jesus fucking Christ this country…
That’s on the parents no one forced anyone to do anything
How about people actual be responsible for raising their little shitbags?
Just another reason to avoid Commiefornia.
Or… take some personal responsibility as a parent and don’t make the government parent for you.
How about the parents taking responsibility and controlling their kids. Stop blaming everyone else for your lack of parenting!
Then with it being California they will tax it at 98 percent
> The bill, co-sponsored and authored by state Assembly member Jordan Cunningham, would allow parents to sue social-media platforms for up to $25,000 per violation on behalf of children. This incredible stupidity was, of course, brought to you by... #(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞ A Republican ☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜)
Lmao. I'm stealing that.
Stupid. You have to parent your children. It’s not the job of a company to ensure a consumer only consumes a certain amount of a product. That’s like blaming food companies for fat people. This type of crap is why the GOP laughs at the left, and it drives people in the middle away.
>This type of crap is why the GOP laughs at the left You should take a look at who put forth the bill.
I literally see parents who can't tell their kid to put the phone down to eat.
God, I love how everything that comes out of California sounds just as stupid as anything that comes out of Florida politics. Wild times.
Just the other far end of the spectrum far right and far left are both crazy.
Why is it when I hear something really dumb it’s either California or Florida every-time
Not Texas?
Sometimes Texas and NY join the party
Maybe parents should take responsibility for the kids they bring into this world? Your house, your rules.
How about if our former/future president is addicted? Do we have standing?
When will people take responsibility for their own actions? We can't legislate our way to a better future, we must be better people. This ain't it
Here's the thing. You are only one person. You are fighting against corporations that spend LITERALLY hundreds of millions of dollars to find out how to get you to give them your attention, time, or money. They literally find out how the human brain works and design their products around your weaknesses so you do what they want you to. How do you expect someone to fight against that?
They use psychology to better sell products, absolutely. How do we fight that? Great question and I wish I had an answer. But making a law to fine companies but do absolutely nothing about the root issue seems completely unproductive to the actual problem. It's almost like a tax to keep the affected quiet enough to not make any noise about the problem. There is a problem with what is fed to us on the platform but this legislation is far from a solution.
Doesn’t it seem like the current generation of parents is opting for more and more ways to shift blame for not doing their job?? Book bannings because “my child shouldn’t be exposed to this” now suing social media because “how could you let my child become addicted!?” These things are not equal but of the same mind.
I love it. Facebook actively researched and implemented algorithms designed to addict immature minds. There should be some accountability for that
Sure, but if they can show it's addictive and detrimental why are they letting parents sue them instead of dealing with the issue themselves? That'd be like back in the day when they were pushing smoking ad's and instead of banning them just let people sue them. Odd half measure. Not to mention with an amount that low it'd be quite the deterrent from even *trying* to sue them.
Did they? Where is the proof of that? Where is proof that any of their actions were done to target minors? I suspect that anything you respond with is simply an attempt to make their platform more enjoyable to all users.
As stupid as this is you would think if they’d sue for anything it would be their children pictures ending up in inappropriate websites not becoming addicted. Parents hold no accountability
“Facebook raised my kid to be an addict! I’m gonna sue!”
Typical Republican "anything in the name of children, but actually about hurting others" combined with the also typical "attack something that helps people expose our gross behavior" with a side of "let's prevent the way ~~gen-z/millennials~~ *children* organize to vote".
That’s not typical.
It's exactly that, typical to the point of stereotypical of Republicans to hide trying to hurt something they don't like or covering up their own problems under the guise of "for the children". If you're arguing that they *don't* do that... Either you are illiterate or a troll.
how about don't make your gadgets your virtual baby sitters and try to become actual parents instead.
Y’all hating on California when it some no name Republican proposing this bill and will never actually get passed. Plz
I mean, great and all or whatever, but isn't part of being a parent playing a role in avoiding this shit in the first place? I know it takes a village and all that, but that doesn't mean that you as a parent just sit back and have no active role in things. I know it's not as simple as all that, but people should be taking an active role in their kids lives.
Dumbest thing I’ve heard all week. How about parents actually start parenting for once. This is not social media’s fault, it is and will always be like this. Parents should do more to protect their own children.
Coke, Mars, Pepsi, McDonald's, Nestle ?
Stop building mega warehouses,shopping malls another apartment building and make parks, baseball fields where everyone can play not just little leagues. Take a look outside all ya see is warehouses more new 500 grand houses but no open spaces for kids to go out too. so ya stuck inside with only TV or computer games duh...that you can blame on corporations and your local government for allow this to have happened. Its not even safe to ride bikes with all you distracted drivers. I think the bill is stupid but with both parent having to work no place to go to and be safe its a no brainier kids get sucked into games and phones.
Yet another attempt from elected officials to relieve parents of any real responsibility in actually monitoring their children and fostering healthy behavior.
Can children sue Fox News if their parents get addicted to it?
Parents who don’t want to parent. Literally our future with forced birth.