this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
358 points (97.6% liked)

News

23296 readers
3472 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Florida is on the verge of passing one of the nation's most restrictive bans on minors' use of social media after the state Senate passed a bill Thursday that would keep children under the age of 16 off popular platforms regardless of parental approval.

The measure now goes back to the state House, where the speaker has made the issue his top priority during the legislative session that ends March 8. Still, critics have pointed to similar efforts in other states that have been blocked by courts.

The bill targets any social media site that tracks user activity, allows children to upload material and interact with others, and uses addictive features designed to cause excessive or compulsive use. Supporters point to rising suicide rates among children, cyberbullying and predators using social media to prey on kids.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] oxjox@lemmy.ml 80 points 8 months ago (11 children)

I can't get over how this "limited government" party has gone from supporting parental rights and promoting family values to becoming fascists.

To be clear, there's a ton of good to be said about preventing kids from using social media. Still, this should be up to the parents and, imo, all parents should limit or restrict it.

Isn't this same as the cigarette and alcohol ban for minors, I hear you ask? No. Alcohol and cigarettes can be purchased from a shop. The government isn't explicitly telling parents the kids can't consume them, it's banning the sale to minors. Social media and cell phones aren't really something a 14 year old can get at a store or happen upon at a party. So, if smoking was legal and the parent restricted their 14 year old from smoking, it wouldn't be too difficult for the kid to get a pack of their own. Social media is different. And shouldn't involve government restrictions. Because, how the F is the government going to oversee and reprimand this?

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 34 points 8 months ago (11 children)

how the F is the government going to oversee and reprimand this?

By requiring the platforms to verify the age of their users with identity checks and government ID. I'd bet the 16 cutoff age is because that's the age when teens get either driver's licenses or state ID cards.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with protecting kids. It's entire aim is to tie online accounts to real life users.

[–] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The thing is online access can happen anywhere and because hardware is firmly in the hands of the user, the user controls the dissemination of the data. There's plenty of AI out there that can generate valid driver licenses with complete PDF417 barcodes related to the state in question.

There's no way Florida is going to commit the required funds it would take to police every single aspect. And social media sure as shit isn't going to bend over and have that policing thrown onto to them freely. At some point Florida will require telephone carriers and ISP to play ball to some degree and then POOF, you're now in Federal territory.

That's why all this state level law making is so bunk. It's not a problem that can be solved by just saying "Oh, well <16 yo cannot get on." Unless the State has some really deep pockets to invest in their own technology, Good Luck playing wack-a-mole.

Additionally, there's zero ways I would be scanning a driver's license into some random website. Not with how every other day they leak massive amounts of information. So a lot of these states start getting what pornhub and what not are doing, "Oh you're from Utah? Okay, well I guess you're paying for a VPN for your porn." And that's ultimately what happens. Everyone just starts using a VPN because the State wanted to pass some "token" law to look like they were doing something.

It's all people ignorant of how technology works attempting to legislate technology. They are never going to be successful in any of this, but I guess whatever plays well for your base.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Then they can very easily create a registry of whatever they want. Someone put pronouns in their bio that don't match their ID? On a list. Someone signed up for a dating app with their government ID and they're looking for same-sex partners? On a list. It doesn't even have to stop there, though that's definitely where it's starting. Say on social media that you're am atheist? On a list. Use your social media presence to criticize the government? You guessed it, on a list.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] orbit@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Simple, it's not really about the kids, it's about control of the internet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] natecox@programming.dev 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I fundamentally agree that this would best be served by parents enforcing limits.

However, my experience is that this kind of parenting is much much harder than people seem to understand.

If you’re one of a small number of parents who choose to limit social media, in a sea of parents who don’t limit at all, your children end up socially excluded. They get made fun of and ostracized from the rest of the kids. Your parenting decision makes their daily life much, much harder than it should be.

In practice, it means that as a parent there is no winning option. Or even really acceptable option.

For maybe the first time in my life, I feel myself siding with the government restrictions option.

[–] Tremble@sh.itjust.works 16 points 8 months ago (8 children)

Do you have any idea how easy it is to bypass a law like this?

Anytime the government says they are doing something to help the children, it is most likely an extreme infringement on the rights of non children.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

imo, all parents should limit or restrict it.

In general, perhaps—but in this case, restricting kids from social media will just increase their level of exposure to Florida.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 58 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This is a plot by Christian groomers to isolate their victims

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 48 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It also cuts kids off from voices of reason that might contradict their religious and conservative indoctrination.

[–] ashok36@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

And prevent adults from criticising elected officials anonymously. That's the real play.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Anise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 51 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Old internet was absolute anarchy and it was better for it. There was a lot of fucked up shit out there but there werent algorithms manipulating you, sites tracking you, and purposely trying to sow discord for engagement. It was a more like a marketplace with a seedy section that you could visit if you were brave/stupid but you could happily just chill on your niche RC airplane forum if you wanted. The modern internet is more like a pushy used car salesman following you around telling you where to look and a cop following you around too.

Rather than banning social media for kids, we should be banning sites from implementing algorithms on them and tracking them. Frabkly, I'd like to see that for everyone, but its an easier political sell to protect kids from the predatory practices.

I remember the old internet as a refuge from the real world where I could be a sensitive nerd and I wouldn't get bullied for it. Cutting off access to outside ideas and communities for youth is a mistake. It also breaks any semblance of anonimity on the internet; how do you do age verification without having to upload an ID?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Old internet was absolute anarchy and it was better for it.

The old internet still exists. DIY websites and usenet groups and people with shitty opinion blogs continue to populate the space. https://slashdot.org/ still exists. Fucking 4chan.org still exists. I think you can even find goats.ex if its not entirely blacklisted by everyone by now.

But finding them is increasingly difficult simply because so much of the modern OS and native search environment are stuffed with hyper-advertised heavy hitters and spam.

Rather than banning social media for kids, we should be banning sites from implementing algorithms on them and tracking them.

The EU has had some mixed success with this approach, but largely because so much of the tech sector (and its attendant lobbying power) is concentrated in the US rather than Brussels. As soon as folks start getting paid off, the regulatory environment evaporates.

I remember the old internet as a refuge from the real world where I could be a sensitive nerd and I wouldn’t get bullied for it.

The smaller social hubs on Discord and Mastadon (and Hexbear and Lemmy) still absolutely let you do that. Hell, you can find it on the niche communities and groups of Reddit and Facebook, if that's still your jam. Bluesky is also very small and niche right now, so you can have a good time over there for at least the moment.

But a lot of that is building a relationship with a handful of other consistent users. The sheer volume of people and content on the bigger sites (combined with the endless bot swarms and marketing goons) makes everyone a faceless voice in the fog.

That leads us to John Gabrield's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory

[–] random9@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That leads us to John Gabrield’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory

I don't have comments on the rest of your post, but I absolutely hate how that cartoon has been used by people to justify that they are otherwise "good" people who are simply assholes on the internet.

The rebuttal is this: This person, in real life, chose to go on the internet and be a "total fuckwad". It's not that adding anonymity changed something about them, they were the fuckwads to begin with, but with a much lower chance of having to be held accountable, they are free to express it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 47 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Just thought I'd point out that a queer kid with religious parents has an opportunity to find other queer kids and allies via social media.

Should social media do more to ensure child safety? Sure. Is that the reason for Florida doing this? Florida caring about child welfare? What do you think?

[–] uis@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago

I think it is age discrimination and about collecting more data. If they really cared children, they could ban collecting everyone's data.

[–] walter_wiggles@lemmy.nz 43 points 8 months ago (3 children)

They don't want their kids to be able to figure out how fucked Florida is.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] notannpc@lemmy.world 28 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I love the party of “small government” fighting to control what websites your children can visit. You know it’s the same people that spent all of 2020 and 2021 screaming about how they shouldn’t be forced to wear a mask or get a vaccine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago (3 children)

My immediate reaction was.. hmm, fuck it, protect the kids, I can get onboard.... And then I remembered the lonely parts of my childhood being better because of irc, BBSs, icq, aol warez groups, etc. "but it's a different world now"... Is it though? Now we have browser history and more forensics. Old Internet was really fucked up. For God's sake, we could get Faces of Death in the video store before we were 12, and kids had playboy on the bus. The bullying thing is worse for sure. Online was a place for the kids who got bullied to get away. Now it's a bullhorn. Actually conflicted on this.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The old Internet was somewhat anonymous. The pervasive tracking and enragement algorithms made it so that nearly every platform is someone's real identity. I'd argue that's what's a mistake for children...having them on Internet platforms attaching their real name and identity to online bullshit.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 21 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Then they'll create a state-funded youth social media platform moderated by Matt Gaetz

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 20 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"Florida gets closer to becoming a top market for VPNs"

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Honestly VPNs are getting pretty shitty lately. Some sites have done complete bans on them.

[–] GluWu@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I just don't use those sites. They have nothing I actually need. I'll find out somewhere else or just forget it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BlackPenguins@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

And I'm sure this won't be like those "click here if you are over 18" buttons that I definitely never clicked when I was underage. Nope. We all know kids aren't rebellious.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

And they definitely wouldn't lie about their birth date to make an account

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Can't believe I'm gonna say this but...good job Florida?

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 6 points 8 months ago

Yeah, I'm not used to this emotion either.

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

This will require a driver license for every social media account. Adios anonymous political discourse.

Probably just a side effect no doubt.

[–] Xariphon@kbin.social 17 points 8 months ago

Because that's what young people need, more ways to be excluded from society and isolated.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Exceedingly rare Florida W

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I think they underestimate how capable kids are of making their own damn platforms. With blackjack and hookers.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 11 points 8 months ago (3 children)

This is Gen Alpha we are talking about. They have displayed less IT/programming/computer literacy awareness than even Gen Z. There will have to be a new computer Renaissance era to pop up, otherwise they are going to have to ask their Gen Y/X family to do it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 12 points 8 months ago

Florida or not, it's a good idea. You can't stop the internet and you can't ask international websites to do this (how would you stop federated websites doing this anyway that are in other countries? You can't)

Put it on the parents, teach your kids, monitor what they are doing, show some responsibility. Actually, don't give kids a phone at all until they're at least 14 or so

[–] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And just how do they intend to enforce this?

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Facebook is already requiring photo ID verification in order to unlock your account when it thinks you're a bot. They could just do this for all users and then it's at least a pain in the ass

[–] FeelThePower@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

it's so, so sad what's happened to Florida in the last 4 years.

[–] fsr1967@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

it's so, so ~~sad~~ infuriating what's happened to Florida in the last 4 years.

FTFY

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Supporters point to rising suicide rates among children, cyberbullying and predators using social media to prey on kids.

That isn't the reason for this.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago

I dont want the government to ban things, but parents should not be giving their kids social media and smart phones at such young ages. Its overwhelmingly common, but a really bad idea.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Get off my Facebook lawn kids reeeee

load more comments
view more: next ›