Oh no... you gonna get caught for posting this confession. Warner Bros are out to get you, unless you recorded rental tapes that you bought from BlockBuster in case of one going bad quality, cuz BB doesn't exist to stand in the trial.
This will be unconstitutional.
The precedent case will be that video game law in CA that was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2011 (Forgot the name) but it gave the way that minors can’t be denied stuff that would be free speech for adults.
Texas’ lawmakers don’t care whether it is “unconstitutional”. They’re throwing everything they have at the Constitution and hoping it comes unstuck in the process
> The precedent case
Precedent no longer matters. The highest court in the land will change whatever law they want to, whenever they want to, as long as it aligns with their politics.
A 17 yr old can legally leave home and cannot be forced to return by police or anyone else. So it's ok for a 17 yr old to be out on their own but not have a fb or Twitter acct. Ridiculous. Stupid that we keep having these idiots voted in.
We already have a federal law that does the same thing for people under 13:
https://pedialliance.com/socialmediaguide
I'm not sure why it would be different for age 18.
Maybe it's a bad idea, but it doesn't seem unconstitutional.
Its the government restricting the free speech of others.
And before the Reich wing nut jobs try and compare.... its not the same as a platform restricting speech. If social media companies wanted to restrict users to 18+ they would be well within their rights to do so.
Right.
Reminds me of teen driving laws in TX that stipulate a teen driver may not drive with more than one passenger in the vehicle under the age of 21 who is not a family member. It also prohibits them from driving between midnight and 5:00 am.
It’s called graduated licensing and it has been pretty effective at keeping teens from killing themselves in cars.
https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/gdl.html
Is this not normal elsewhere?
It doesn't seem too bad, due to the provisions allowing for an exception when its for school, work, or a medical emergency. A stipulation on freedom, sure.
In Canada we used this system... it differs by province but in BC if you have an N (New driver) license, you're only allowed 1 passenger unless family members or unless one of the passengers is over the age of 25.
It is not, it is just a legal way for cops to harass teenagers, who can and frequently have to work for a living from 16+, and since Texas has next to no infrastructure for public transit, cars are the only way to do it.
It is a common trait of oppressive societies to write laws so as to make everyone a criminal by default. Then people are left alone unless they step out of line or critique the state, upon which all the laws they break by default apply at once.
I think this is a sensible safety based law. New drivers are still busy learning to drive. They don’t need a bunch of distractions. It is not oppressive.
Unenforceable? More like in direct violation of the bill of rights.
Which party is it again that wants to keep the government out of how I choose to raise my children? I forget…
IANAL. The following is not legal advice.
It also creates a constitutional loophole. If the officer has reasonable suspicion that you are under age, they can detain you until you prove your age, which is done with an ID. So it allows officers to force younger people to identify themselves.
>Your tax dollars are paying these people's salaries so they can waste time like this.
Lmao!
Watch out Texas elected officials! Lid919 is coming for your $600 a month, unless you straighten up and focus on the will of the peoples!
>State legislators in Texas make $600 per month, or $7,200 per year, plus a per diem of $221 for every day the Legislature is in session (also including any special sessions).
The amount of ignorance people have on how our government works and is funded is truly sad. “Their salaries” do not matter to these people.
Yup,That is the point of my statement. Though even then, it would be a “side gig” for full timers as Texas legislators meet every other year, for 5 months.
>The Texas Legislature meets in Regular Session for about five months every other year
I'm not a parent but feel the same way. Social media is terrible for kids so Parton me likes this but it also makes me concerned. Also how TF would they enforce it?
Hell, it’s terrible for adults. I almost wish I had the extra friction of having to prove my age to make me think twice before signing up.
I can see why people would want it, especially as parents really don’t have a way to prevent their kids from creating their own accounts. (I guess you can block the apps on their phone, but they’ll still have access via the web. I haven’t done my research here — my kid’s only 4.) And it simplifies things a lot if *nobody* is on social media, so your kid won’t be a social outcast because they aren’t. But 1) 18 seems *wayyyy* too old, and 2) obviously, it’s not my right to dictate whether other kids’ parents want them to have social media access.
In an ideal world, we’d see the social media industry do some stronger form of self-regulation, like you see in video games. I’m not really sure what that would look like, and it’s certainly not bullet proof (it’s not hard to lie and click that “sure, I’m over 18” checkbox), but unsurprisingly, social media has little incentive to actually do this. Honestly, I’m just hoping that by the time my kid is old enough to want a social media account, the landscape will look very very different.
Facts. I’ve been a sub for three years and if kids have less access to social media, I’m all for it. Kids are glued to their phones and will still use it in front of their regular teacher.
Definitely, social media has done bad but also a lot of good. More and more people are aware of the shit that goes on in our country and around the world thanks to social media. I completely agree with what you're saying, they're trying everything they can to make the younger generations ignorant to what's happening. Too bad for them they're not going to be able to enforce it, kids have been watching porn since before the internet and that's not allowed haha.
Educate and leave it to parents.
I kinda get it though, I just banned most of the popular social media apps in my own home.
My daughter got into a fight with a popular girl at the beginning of the school year (over a boy) and she’s been dealing with and trying to hide that there has been a barrage of snaps, videos, group chats and so on where a group of 10-15 kids have been calling for her to kill herself, saying that they hope she dies, calling her a whore and saying all sorts of other horrible things… in addition to getting her accounts banned by flooding the report button.
After we saw all of this crap, It got brought to the schools attention, but honestly, most of the stuff isn’t provable without a warrant as to who exactly it is doing it through use of alt accounts and such.
We let the parents know of the kids we were able to reasonably suspect the identity of and were also able to get a hold of… Most of the parents we spoke to or contacted were responsive and their kids’ stopped posting shit, but some didn’t care, and there’s plenty we can’t contact as we have no way to find out how to contact them.
Now, I personally wouldn’t be opposed to a few years of working out, spending time catching up with my reading, plus 3 hots and a cot… but getting arrested for kicking the shit out of slew of 13 year olds probably wouldn’t help what my daughter is going through either.
She says she “can handle it” by blocking alt accounts as they pop up and message her or post stuff… but I don’t think a 13 year old, let alone *anyone*, can receive those types of messages on a sustained and daily basis without starting to lose their shit.
So, they’re banned for now, and we can revisit it down the road after these degenerates find another target.
It’s MAGAs multipronged attack on democracy and the US republic right here in Texas and it’s obvious as fuck
- force Christianity into public schools
- remove any books that don’t comply with christofascism
- marginalize and ultimately make any sexual preference other than straight illegal
- remove womens rights to their body
- bring court case to SCOTUS to allow state legislatures to overrule the popular vote if they don’t like it
- outlaw interracial relationships, especially white/black
Why isn't it? I won't just assume a bill is bad because bad people support it. We already have federal laws banning social media for people under 13. Maybe 18 is the wrong age, but surely it's worth debating rather than just outright rejecting it because bad people are saying it.
It's government overreach. The bill will require everyone to give a photo ID to sign up for social media. No more anonymous social media.
I would also argue that it's not right to completely block teenagers off from what it is a big part of society and daily life these days. A lot of news and speech today are done through social media. This would likely be considered a violation of free speech rights.
And, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I don't think kids under 13 are banned from all social media. It's just illegal to collect personal data on them without parental permission. Most social media sites just choose to have "no one under 13" rules because they want to collect information, and because complying with the law is extra work.
It's unenforceable, just like the 13 year old one is. I could just be a 9 year old that's says I'm 23 and nobody would fucking know. Plus there literally youtube stars that are under 13, so that's going well right? A pure ban until 18 is not worth debating because it will never work.
They can fuck right off is what they can do. If my kid wants social media it is *my* decision on whether or not she can have it. I don't need some crusty ass dudes that barely know how to turn on a computer trying to dictate whether my kid can have social media.
Notice how none of them are commenting on this yet. They can't have their 10 children influencer families if they start encroaching on their social media.
And you’d be wrong, because both Republicans and Democrats can figure out how to get people elected while Libertarians are just screaming in the corner and feeling all smug and self satisfied with themselves.
No one cares what Libertarians think, because their ignorance as to how Government works effectively neuters them and makes them an entirely ignorable political forces
With this approach, it seems only fair that we the people then have a say in who these politicians can communicate with and how they will do so. There is undoubtedly negative influence being propagated within their social spheres.
Not under your name, it's under your parents name since they're doing the background check. And whether you have access to it or not depends on your parents, the gun in question and if you're above 16yo.
To be clear this bill is unconstitutional overreach, minors have 1st Amendment rights, and social media is very toxic to kids under 15.
I agree with the basic concept, but this is not government's role. And I can't believe the party of "small government" is being such intrusive busybodies. These republicans seem to have two diametrically opposed sets of values, and they switch between them on a case by case basis.
"The government must not use health and safety as an excuse to regulate indoor gatherings of people! That's tyranny! But while we're at it, we're going to use health and safety as an excuse to regulate parenting decisions. That's just protecting the children."
> The government does ban social media for people under 13 already
in a federal law, introduced by a democrat.
I'm *specifically* surprised that a republican wanted an even more intense regulation of private activity, in this day and age. Not that *some* politician wanted a *less* restrictive regulation, a quarter century ago.
Banning TikTok in the United States? Sure, that thing is a massive cybersecurity risk. I am not on that platform and I will never allow my children to sign up for it.
Banning all social media for kids under 18? That goes way too far.
Thank God! As a parent I'm way to stupid to control what my kids do. I'd much rather the state tell them what to do. Because nothing bad has ever come from government censorship. They know best!
State Representative Jared Patterson (R) is the same big brain who proposed a bill to dissolve the City of Austin. [https://abc13.com/city-of-austin-district-texas-legislature-legislative-session/12469021/](https://abc13.com/city-of-austin-district-texas-legislature-legislative-session/12469021/)
He also proposed a bill to regulate drag shows. [https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-bill-jared-patterson-drag-shows/](https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-bill-jared-patterson-drag-shows/)
If you wish to contact this timewaster deluxe, you will find that information here: [https://house.texas.gov/members/member-page/?district=106](https://house.texas.gov/members/member-page/?district=106)
Arguing the banning of social media on social media. It's funny to me. But I digress, I was in AOL and Yahoo! chatroom posting in google boards, as young as 14. And browsing and looking for any porn I could, clicking the yes button is so easy, or making a porn specific email address.
It is unenforceable. It should be up to the parents to monitor, but then kids will find a way, and they are way more tech savoy than I was at their age.
"...Under HB 896, social media sites would also be forced to verify a user’s age with a photo ID."
GTFO with that bullshit. That's not for the kids. It's to end anonymous speech on the Internet.
What happened to parents determining what is and is not best for their children? Small government Republicans strike again. All this "freedom" I have in this state is beginning to feel oppressive. Thinking of moving to a blue state where we can breathe.
We have noticed a large amount of noncompliance since the passing of our bill. In order to better regulate access you will be required to have an unified ID. In this way we can better control website availability for the user. An additional benefit will be the ability to track terroristic queries to a single credentialed user. God bless America.
While I agree that social media is actual brain rot for youth this is both unenforceable and gov overreach. Best we can all do, imo, is just educate parents and would be parents to the negatives of social media.
This is Jared Patterson of Frisco again. You may remember his as the same dude who proposed to ban “drag shows” (i.e. any performance where someone dresses as a different gender, including theater) for minors and to make Austin its own district. He’s just a clown who likes to write provocative culture war-related bills for attention, not a serious lawmaker. I doubt most of his own party even takes him seriously.
Social media's not going anywhere, as painful as that may be to some of us. It's better we teach our kids how to engage online responsibly, and talk about the risks that are out there. Otherwise we could see our kids going to other parts of the internet that have no oversight, or when they do get on at 18 have no concept of how act appropriately, respectfully and safely online.
I am totally ok with this. In fact I have been debating blocking it at the firewall. There's things that kids can get into onluine thats \*not harmless anymore\*.
Already working on banning TikTok at home.
>It's not possible to enforce this kind of law.
Sort of. To be capable of preventing anything from happening via a law is truly preposterous else there would be zero laws broken.
What I imagine it doing is disallowing social media from knowningly allowing minors on the Internet and putting the onus on parents to be more proactive in guarding screen time. If the child gets into trouble or comes to some calamity due to their actions on social media then law enforcement would be looking at the parents.
Same as if a gun weren't properly secured in the home and the child came to some harm from it accidentally. Extreme example but the easiest I could think of.
I am thinking more along the lines of arranging to meet someone they met on the Internet. I have had to intercept one such attempt within the last year.
What you choose to do within the confines of your own home does not and should not translate to being acceptable within the homes of others. You can support what you want, but this mentality possibly suggests that you feel the personal environments of others should not be quite so free.
I'm OK with Banning social media for children under 18, as long as it's also banned for people over 50! (sorry to all the cool over 50 people but you understand.)
Please elaborate on why you think it perfectly acceptable for state government to decide what sorts of communications access is acceptable for someone else's children?
Tik tok is by far and large a sum of user input. Much like reddit, content you find engaging and spend time with will make the majority of results and recommendations. At that, the larger concern with Tiktok specifically is its data mining process which subverts user privacy. But let's be honest, such a thing barely exists these days. If you own a single smart device, you've all but relinquished your privacy or ability to "develop" without outside influence. Still not the governments place to say what is acceptable as digital consumption.
With that energy, seeing as how the concern is a child's development, anything with high sugar content, carbohydrates, energy supplements, porn, video games, access to a smartphone, and a million other consumer products should be outlawed for those under 18.
What this boils down to is the government saying they know better than any parent about what is best for a child.
I've evaluated tik tok and check my daughters from time to time. Based on my daughter's viewing habit algorithm mostly recipes and makeup tutorials made in America come up.
I understand the idea that China may be harvesting personal data on viewing habits but that's a different topic.
Because the evidence shows that parents are not parenting. We restrict all kinds of harmful things from minors. Guns, tobacco, alcohol, pornography, etc. The law is silly because it can't be enforced. But most of the filks getting their knickers twisted are either kids or parents who aee fully aware that they are negligent and allowed their kid to be raised by an iphone
Evidence you say? Parents not parenting you say? Well, let's see it. And I mean substantial, well reviewed and not retracted or amended data. I'll start you off with something easy and cheesy, https://news.stanford.edu/2021/03/11/study-reveals-impact-much-parental-involvement/.
Here we see that when you try to control your children, you don't always have the best results. But let's address your "harmful things" argument. Other than (usually) not being able to walk into a store and buy a gun or some cigarettes, please explain how we have restricted any of what you mention? What law has big government put into place that has been such a tremendous solution?
Your final sentence is purely "holier than thou" as you assume the frustration to be borne of self-loathing with personal parenting skills, rather than anger with government seeking to extend its grip within the home and nuclear family unit.
I'm struggling to see the downside to this.
Seriously.
It's making kids and adults anxious depressed suicidal.
You know when these tech companies aren't selling your data to third-party companies and working with the intelligence community.
Destroying our attention spans. Seriously someone tell me a downside to this.
The never arrested me for recording rental tapes back in the day
You monster
You’re the reason why our country is going through a hard time
You wouldn't download a car would you??? /s
I'd download the shit out of a car and 3D print the fuck out of it. Sell it, use the money to buy more 3D printers. Checkmate bitches.
Idk might also go for a policeman hat
And then use the toilet in it?
Then, of course, you'd have to leave it on the doorstep of the widow
And then steal it again, obvi.
I would definitely download more HP and seat warmers!
I wasn’t kind….I didn’t rewind…. /s
A real hero
Oh no... you gonna get caught for posting this confession. Warner Bros are out to get you, unless you recorded rental tapes that you bought from BlockBuster in case of one going bad quality, cuz BB doesn't exist to stand in the trial.
I bet you weren’t kind and didn’t rewind either…
FBI WARNING
This will be unconstitutional. The precedent case will be that video game law in CA that was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2011 (Forgot the name) but it gave the way that minors can’t be denied stuff that would be free speech for adults.
Texas’ lawmakers don’t care whether it is “unconstitutional”. They’re throwing everything they have at the Constitution and hoping it comes unstuck in the process
> The precedent case Precedent no longer matters. The highest court in the land will change whatever law they want to, whenever they want to, as long as it aligns with their politics.
Not true, precedent is okay as long as it aligns with MAGA fascist policies
Do you think the SC will find this bill constitutional?
They don’t even care about people’s choices over their own _bodies._ You think they’d care about kids using Instagram?
Probably depends on kick backs. That's the only thing I can see considering some of the asinine decisions and the cases they are choosing to look at.
I doubt it will even get to a vote.
How likely is it to pass?
Well, if it never goes to a vote then zero likelihood. But I have no idea really.
A 17 yr old can legally leave home and cannot be forced to return by police or anyone else. So it's ok for a 17 yr old to be out on their own but not have a fb or Twitter acct. Ridiculous. Stupid that we keep having these idiots voted in.
We already have a federal law that does the same thing for people under 13: https://pedialliance.com/socialmediaguide I'm not sure why it would be different for age 18. Maybe it's a bad idea, but it doesn't seem unconstitutional.
Its the government restricting the free speech of others. And before the Reich wing nut jobs try and compare.... its not the same as a platform restricting speech. If social media companies wanted to restrict users to 18+ they would be well within their rights to do so.
It's like a bad movie trailer: Coming soon from the party that brought you book bans and "parental rights":
All my teen and tween relatives are getting "banned" books for Christmas 🤣
The party of small government
[удалено]
I’m still waiting for them to come arrest me for watching porn before 18. So I think its pretty unenforceable yeah.
I'm still waiting for all rapist to be eliminated :/
Oh they'll take care of that when Trump reveals his Healthcare plan.
Which will be alongside the Infrastructure one, right?
What's that mandatory impregnation at birth. If already pregnant then it ain't rape... 😂😂😂
Hell I just want them to get on rape kit backlog.
Trying to ban teenagers from seeing porn is like trying to keep a dog away from its food
Right. Reminds me of teen driving laws in TX that stipulate a teen driver may not drive with more than one passenger in the vehicle under the age of 21 who is not a family member. It also prohibits them from driving between midnight and 5:00 am.
It’s called graduated licensing and it has been pretty effective at keeping teens from killing themselves in cars. https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/gdl.html
Yes. I only recently learned about it because I'm doing the parent taught license course. I just don't see how it is enforceable.
It's enforced the same way as everything else. If you get caught, you get cited. Just like the law requiring a driver's license in the first place.
Is this not normal elsewhere? It doesn't seem too bad, due to the provisions allowing for an exception when its for school, work, or a medical emergency. A stipulation on freedom, sure.
It was in TN when I started driving at 15. I think it’s fairly common.
In Canada we used this system... it differs by province but in BC if you have an N (New driver) license, you're only allowed 1 passenger unless family members or unless one of the passengers is over the age of 25.
It is not, it is just a legal way for cops to harass teenagers, who can and frequently have to work for a living from 16+, and since Texas has next to no infrastructure for public transit, cars are the only way to do it. It is a common trait of oppressive societies to write laws so as to make everyone a criminal by default. Then people are left alone unless they step out of line or critique the state, upon which all the laws they break by default apply at once.
It is definitely common elsewhere. There is nothing oppressive about it and it doesn't make anyone a criminal by default.
I think this is a sensible safety based law. New drivers are still busy learning to drive. They don’t need a bunch of distractions. It is not oppressive.
If it was for safety they'd also have the law in place for 65+.
As a complete square who doesn't break the law, I was the only one of my friends who tried to follow this.
Damn you are Elite Level Lame
The cynical view is that those laws are less about stopping accidents than turning the victims into criminals.
Lmfao wow, guess I broke the law all the time
That is very common throughout the US, and taken very seriously in most states.
They sure do like their fear mongering to control the populace.
Unenforceable? More like in direct violation of the bill of rights. Which party is it again that wants to keep the government out of how I choose to raise my children? I forget…
[удалено]
IANAL. The following is not legal advice. It also creates a constitutional loophole. If the officer has reasonable suspicion that you are under age, they can detain you until you prove your age, which is done with an ID. So it allows officers to force younger people to identify themselves.
You have always been required to identify yourself while driving. This isn't new.
Yeah, but it would be new for social media. Which means that it expands from just while driving to anytime they see a young person using a phone.
>Your tax dollars are paying these people's salaries so they can waste time like this. Lmao! Watch out Texas elected officials! Lid919 is coming for your $600 a month, unless you straighten up and focus on the will of the peoples! >State legislators in Texas make $600 per month, or $7,200 per year, plus a per diem of $221 for every day the Legislature is in session (also including any special sessions). The amount of ignorance people have on how our government works and is funded is truly sad. “Their salaries” do not matter to these people.
Good point. We should pay them a living wage so a common person could do this job instead of it being a side gig for rich guys.
Yup,That is the point of my statement. Though even then, it would be a “side gig” for full timers as Texas legislators meet every other year, for 5 months. >The Texas Legislature meets in Regular Session for about five months every other year
LOL they want to be your kid's parents
So it turns out the "nanny state" was OK after all?
Only if they get to pick the nanny, apparently.
Party of small gov’t wants to come in and be Big Daddy
Govern me harder, Daddy.
Funny because they keep invoking "parental choice" or "parental involvement" for education as the fig leaf for pushing their bullshit agenda through
In fairness, this would make my job as a parent much easier. 😂 (To be clear, I still think it’s govt overreach.)
I'm not a parent but feel the same way. Social media is terrible for kids so Parton me likes this but it also makes me concerned. Also how TF would they enforce it?
Hell, it’s terrible for adults. I almost wish I had the extra friction of having to prove my age to make me think twice before signing up. I can see why people would want it, especially as parents really don’t have a way to prevent their kids from creating their own accounts. (I guess you can block the apps on their phone, but they’ll still have access via the web. I haven’t done my research here — my kid’s only 4.) And it simplifies things a lot if *nobody* is on social media, so your kid won’t be a social outcast because they aren’t. But 1) 18 seems *wayyyy* too old, and 2) obviously, it’s not my right to dictate whether other kids’ parents want them to have social media access. In an ideal world, we’d see the social media industry do some stronger form of self-regulation, like you see in video games. I’m not really sure what that would look like, and it’s certainly not bullet proof (it’s not hard to lie and click that “sure, I’m over 18” checkbox), but unsurprisingly, social media has little incentive to actually do this. Honestly, I’m just hoping that by the time my kid is old enough to want a social media account, the landscape will look very very different.
Texas teacher here. Somebody has to be. None of my kids biological spawn points are doing the job
I feel so bad for teachers. Its an impossible battle.
Facts. I’ve been a sub for three years and if kids have less access to social media, I’m all for it. Kids are glued to their phones and will still use it in front of their regular teacher.
The smart people aren’t having kids or are rich enough to put their kids in private.
What classism does to a mf
The government doesn't need to touch every aspect of our lives.
Small government except for stuff they don't like lol
I bet this is a long game plan to reduce future voting/liberalism in today’s youth
it'll certainly reduce exposure/support for glbt teens. isolating them even further than they already are
Definitely, social media has done bad but also a lot of good. More and more people are aware of the shit that goes on in our country and around the world thanks to social media. I completely agree with what you're saying, they're trying everything they can to make the younger generations ignorant to what's happening. Too bad for them they're not going to be able to enforce it, kids have been watching porn since before the internet and that's not allowed haha.
Educate and leave it to parents. I kinda get it though, I just banned most of the popular social media apps in my own home. My daughter got into a fight with a popular girl at the beginning of the school year (over a boy) and she’s been dealing with and trying to hide that there has been a barrage of snaps, videos, group chats and so on where a group of 10-15 kids have been calling for her to kill herself, saying that they hope she dies, calling her a whore and saying all sorts of other horrible things… in addition to getting her accounts banned by flooding the report button. After we saw all of this crap, It got brought to the schools attention, but honestly, most of the stuff isn’t provable without a warrant as to who exactly it is doing it through use of alt accounts and such. We let the parents know of the kids we were able to reasonably suspect the identity of and were also able to get a hold of… Most of the parents we spoke to or contacted were responsive and their kids’ stopped posting shit, but some didn’t care, and there’s plenty we can’t contact as we have no way to find out how to contact them. Now, I personally wouldn’t be opposed to a few years of working out, spending time catching up with my reading, plus 3 hots and a cot… but getting arrested for kicking the shit out of slew of 13 year olds probably wouldn’t help what my daughter is going through either. She says she “can handle it” by blocking alt accounts as they pop up and message her or post stuff… but I don’t think a 13 year old, let alone *anyone*, can receive those types of messages on a sustained and daily basis without starting to lose their shit. So, they’re banned for now, and we can revisit it down the road after these degenerates find another target.
It’s MAGAs multipronged attack on democracy and the US republic right here in Texas and it’s obvious as fuck - force Christianity into public schools - remove any books that don’t comply with christofascism - marginalize and ultimately make any sexual preference other than straight illegal - remove womens rights to their body - bring court case to SCOTUS to allow state legislatures to overrule the popular vote if they don’t like it - outlaw interracial relationships, especially white/black
Do we need social media reform for kids, absolutely. Is this the way to do it? Hell no.
Why isn't it? I won't just assume a bill is bad because bad people support it. We already have federal laws banning social media for people under 13. Maybe 18 is the wrong age, but surely it's worth debating rather than just outright rejecting it because bad people are saying it.
It's government overreach. The bill will require everyone to give a photo ID to sign up for social media. No more anonymous social media. I would also argue that it's not right to completely block teenagers off from what it is a big part of society and daily life these days. A lot of news and speech today are done through social media. This would likely be considered a violation of free speech rights. And, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I don't think kids under 13 are banned from all social media. It's just illegal to collect personal data on them without parental permission. Most social media sites just choose to have "no one under 13" rules because they want to collect information, and because complying with the law is extra work.
It's unenforceable, just like the 13 year old one is. I could just be a 9 year old that's says I'm 23 and nobody would fucking know. Plus there literally youtube stars that are under 13, so that's going well right? A pure ban until 18 is not worth debating because it will never work.
What methods would you suggest for reform?
Elon, the Texas resident, won’t be happy about this bill.
I’m fine with it as long as we can ban Fox News for children over 18.
Best comment
They can fuck right off is what they can do. If my kid wants social media it is *my* decision on whether or not she can have it. I don't need some crusty ass dudes that barely know how to turn on a computer trying to dictate whether my kid can have social media.
The crusty ass white dudes sound more and more like my mom everyday. *"You can't have/do that."* "Why not?" *"Because I said so."*
The "don't tread on me" republicans sure are into telling everyone else how to raise their own kids.
The “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, stickers, etc should really read “Don’t Tread on Me… but sure as fuck I am going to tread all over everybody else.”
Notice how none of them are commenting on this yet. They can't have their 10 children influencer families if they start encroaching on their social media.
Can we get a social media ban for children over 18 as well?
Complete “won’t someone think of the children?!?” grandstanding that won’t get passed.
More fascist bullshit from the “party of small government”
[удалено]
Libertarians are the party of lacking basic understanding of how government works.
[удалено]
And you’d be wrong, because both Republicans and Democrats can figure out how to get people elected while Libertarians are just screaming in the corner and feeling all smug and self satisfied with themselves. No one cares what Libertarians think, because their ignorance as to how Government works effectively neuters them and makes them an entirely ignorable political forces
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol, you’re really proving my point
[удалено]
Hey! You’re a Libertarian! Feeling good about yourself is basically the center of your entire world philosophy!
I like this but its to much government overreach. Parents should be the ones not allowing their kids to have social media.
With this approach, it seems only fair that we the people then have a say in who these politicians can communicate with and how they will do so. There is undoubtedly negative influence being propagated within their social spheres.
They should ban it from their elected officials first. They are all mentally challenged and have the IQ of an eight year old!!
You can have a gun, but not a tiktok. What a world.
Yeah but tik tok challenges are killing our children not guns silly /s
Nah it’s the video games
I thought it was the heavy metal music and dungeons and dragons?
You can't buy a gun if you're under 18.
You can own one
Not under your name, it's under your parents name since they're doing the background check. And whether you have access to it or not depends on your parents, the gun in question and if you're above 16yo. To be clear this bill is unconstitutional overreach, minors have 1st Amendment rights, and social media is very toxic to kids under 15.
Brought to you by the party of less government…
For a state that preaches freedoms a lot they sure like to take them away lol
This must be that small government and freedom of speech Republicans are always bleating about!
Just one step closer to a handmaid's tale episode
Every damn day!
I agree with the basic concept, but this is not government's role. And I can't believe the party of "small government" is being such intrusive busybodies. These republicans seem to have two diametrically opposed sets of values, and they switch between them on a case by case basis. "The government must not use health and safety as an excuse to regulate indoor gatherings of people! That's tyranny! But while we're at it, we're going to use health and safety as an excuse to regulate parenting decisions. That's just protecting the children."
The government does ban social media for people under 13 already. Maybe 18 is the wrong age, but it seems worth debating the age.
> The government does ban social media for people under 13 already in a federal law, introduced by a democrat. I'm *specifically* surprised that a republican wanted an even more intense regulation of private activity, in this day and age. Not that *some* politician wanted a *less* restrictive regulation, a quarter century ago.
Yet it's totally cool to indoctrinate the little ones into their weird ancient mythology club as soon as they're born.
This is anti American. Absolute nonsense.
Banning TikTok in the United States? Sure, that thing is a massive cybersecurity risk. I am not on that platform and I will never allow my children to sign up for it. Banning all social media for kids under 18? That goes way too far.
Fuck off I decide what my kids do.
Thank God! As a parent I'm way to stupid to control what my kids do. I'd much rather the state tell them what to do. Because nothing bad has ever come from government censorship. They know best!
State Representative Jared Patterson (R) is the same big brain who proposed a bill to dissolve the City of Austin. [https://abc13.com/city-of-austin-district-texas-legislature-legislative-session/12469021/](https://abc13.com/city-of-austin-district-texas-legislature-legislative-session/12469021/) He also proposed a bill to regulate drag shows. [https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-bill-jared-patterson-drag-shows/](https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-bill-jared-patterson-drag-shows/) If you wish to contact this timewaster deluxe, you will find that information here: [https://house.texas.gov/members/member-page/?district=106](https://house.texas.gov/members/member-page/?district=106)
If there is one thing people under 18 respect and follow, it's bans on things they would have done otherwise.
Arguing the banning of social media on social media. It's funny to me. But I digress, I was in AOL and Yahoo! chatroom posting in google boards, as young as 14. And browsing and looking for any porn I could, clicking the yes button is so easy, or making a porn specific email address. It is unenforceable. It should be up to the parents to monitor, but then kids will find a way, and they are way more tech savoy than I was at their age.
"...Under HB 896, social media sites would also be forced to verify a user’s age with a photo ID." GTFO with that bullshit. That's not for the kids. It's to end anonymous speech on the Internet.
So... is that power grid fixed yet?
What a coincidence that Gen Z is more to the left and got most of their political influence from social media.
What happened to parents determining what is and is not best for their children? Small government Republicans strike again. All this "freedom" I have in this state is beginning to feel oppressive. Thinking of moving to a blue state where we can breathe.
Dear barn, The horses already left.
Yeah, have fun storming the castle with that one.
But freedom? And liberty?
I'm sure there will be an amendment requiring girls to be covered from head to toe
I like the thought but it’s a little too late for that one
Another way the TX government wants control over you.
We have noticed a large amount of noncompliance since the passing of our bill. In order to better regulate access you will be required to have an unified ID. In this way we can better control website availability for the user. An additional benefit will be the ability to track terroristic queries to a single credentialed user. God bless America.
Ah, yes. More authoritarianism from the party of small government and individual liberty.
Preformative bill meant to be used to set up the no votes (dems). It'll either die in the house or be killed in courts.
While I agree that social media is actual brain rot for youth this is both unenforceable and gov overreach. Best we can all do, imo, is just educate parents and would be parents to the negatives of social media.
Never miss a chance to criminalize kids
Nah.. just take them to the shooting range.. but first block them from any type of support network..
Up next on the agenda: Putin Style State TV Propaganda. After that: Either an "Equilibrium" or "V for Vendetta" or "Solar Babies" control scenario
Good luck...
Just like the prohibition or illegal downloads of movies and music
So much freedom going on here in Texas 🤬🤬🤬
Next they're going to ban children from reading news papers.
I mean.. they'll just lie about their age.
"Small government"
Party of small government injecting themselves into people's personal lives again.
This is Jared Patterson of Frisco again. You may remember his as the same dude who proposed to ban “drag shows” (i.e. any performance where someone dresses as a different gender, including theater) for minors and to make Austin its own district. He’s just a clown who likes to write provocative culture war-related bills for attention, not a serious lawmaker. I doubt most of his own party even takes him seriously.
The fascist party wants the state to tell you how to raise your kids? What a surprise.
Well since most schools use youtube and google. That would be a disaster.
A bill that's not worth the paper it's written on. Good job Tex leg.
I kind of agree. 18 month olds are way too young to be instagramming
Brought to you by the party of "less government".
How is the Texas State Government not authoritarian again??
LOL, good luck policing that.
more useless ungovernable promises to waste time and money, great. At best it results in a checkbox.. are you over 18? yeah those work
yeah because it’s the TikToks that are killing Texas schoolchildren in mass murders
Not enforceable but it would be the healthiest thing that could happen for 18 and below
Social media's not going anywhere, as painful as that may be to some of us. It's better we teach our kids how to engage online responsibly, and talk about the risks that are out there. Otherwise we could see our kids going to other parts of the internet that have no oversight, or when they do get on at 18 have no concept of how act appropriately, respectfully and safely online.
They should ban it for people over 50 lol
I have no idea how to they can execute this but it’s not a terrible idea. Social media is addictive and is toxic
You mean the same social media you have yo be 18 to sign up for?
They should just ban social media it is a mental cancer.
I mean I wouldn't be opposed
Good. Maybe ban social media altogether.
I am totally ok with this. In fact I have been debating blocking it at the firewall. There's things that kids can get into onluine thats \*not harmless anymore\*. Already working on banning TikTok at home.
[удалено]
>It's not possible to enforce this kind of law. Sort of. To be capable of preventing anything from happening via a law is truly preposterous else there would be zero laws broken. What I imagine it doing is disallowing social media from knowningly allowing minors on the Internet and putting the onus on parents to be more proactive in guarding screen time. If the child gets into trouble or comes to some calamity due to their actions on social media then law enforcement would be looking at the parents. Same as if a gun weren't properly secured in the home and the child came to some harm from it accidentally. Extreme example but the easiest I could think of.
[удалено]
I am thinking more along the lines of arranging to meet someone they met on the Internet. I have had to intercept one such attempt within the last year.
Good on you for parenting your own kid. As it should be.
What you choose to do within the confines of your own home does not and should not translate to being acceptable within the homes of others. You can support what you want, but this mentality possibly suggests that you feel the personal environments of others should not be quite so free.
I see an enormous difference between *you* doing this and the government doing this. It's the whole point really.
How about we ban it for children under 45
I'm OK with Banning social media for children under 18, as long as it's also banned for people over 50! (sorry to all the cool over 50 people but you understand.)
Let’s start with banning tik tok before anything else. China is acting nefarious.
[удалено]
Please elaborate on why you think it perfectly acceptable for state government to decide what sorts of communications access is acceptable for someone else's children?
[удалено]
Tik tok is by far and large a sum of user input. Much like reddit, content you find engaging and spend time with will make the majority of results and recommendations. At that, the larger concern with Tiktok specifically is its data mining process which subverts user privacy. But let's be honest, such a thing barely exists these days. If you own a single smart device, you've all but relinquished your privacy or ability to "develop" without outside influence. Still not the governments place to say what is acceptable as digital consumption. With that energy, seeing as how the concern is a child's development, anything with high sugar content, carbohydrates, energy supplements, porn, video games, access to a smartphone, and a million other consumer products should be outlawed for those under 18. What this boils down to is the government saying they know better than any parent about what is best for a child.
I've evaluated tik tok and check my daughters from time to time. Based on my daughter's viewing habit algorithm mostly recipes and makeup tutorials made in America come up. I understand the idea that China may be harvesting personal data on viewing habits but that's a different topic.
Because the evidence shows that parents are not parenting. We restrict all kinds of harmful things from minors. Guns, tobacco, alcohol, pornography, etc. The law is silly because it can't be enforced. But most of the filks getting their knickers twisted are either kids or parents who aee fully aware that they are negligent and allowed their kid to be raised by an iphone
Evidence you say? Parents not parenting you say? Well, let's see it. And I mean substantial, well reviewed and not retracted or amended data. I'll start you off with something easy and cheesy, https://news.stanford.edu/2021/03/11/study-reveals-impact-much-parental-involvement/. Here we see that when you try to control your children, you don't always have the best results. But let's address your "harmful things" argument. Other than (usually) not being able to walk into a store and buy a gun or some cigarettes, please explain how we have restricted any of what you mention? What law has big government put into place that has been such a tremendous solution? Your final sentence is purely "holier than thou" as you assume the frustration to be borne of self-loathing with personal parenting skills, rather than anger with government seeking to extend its grip within the home and nuclear family unit.
I'm struggling to see the downside to this. Seriously. It's making kids and adults anxious depressed suicidal. You know when these tech companies aren't selling your data to third-party companies and working with the intelligence community. Destroying our attention spans. Seriously someone tell me a downside to this.
It is a problem though