Perhaps you'd like to explain your reasoning? While social media can certainly amplify harmful voices and give growing minds access to information they may not be ready to process fully - why is this the government's job?
Please be sure to include the age verification and other forms of data collection that similar politicians are passing as part of your argument.
For the same reason drugs and gambling have policies - the government is (supposed to be) the collective will of the people and enough people deem it harmful to society as a whole.
There are levels of government that regulate even things like heights of fences in neighborhoods (you could pick something more serious, like occupancy limits to buildings), is it wild to think we wouldn't apply some level of policy to highly addictive and demonstrably detrimental surveillance capitalism?
Alcohol is restricted to those 21 and up, so it seems theres precedent for such a thing, even though the implementation differs (because it has to, sure to the nature of the thing).
Why do we have public schools? Why might that be the government's responsibility? The answer might clue you into why the government would want to do such a thing.
There is plenty of established precedent for gating certain public health hazards behind age requirements, I'm guessing it gets tangled in the courts for awhile but ultimately survives in some form.
What is a social media site? Any site where anybody has to register to make a comment or just to read comments will require validation. It means that every adult to access any webpage, such as HN, will require to provide government proof of ID. No anonymity anymore. The internet will die as a social medium.
> What is a social media site? Any site where anybody has to register to make a comment or just to read comments will require validation.
Per the article, "HB 3 applies to platforms that have 'addictive features' such as infinite scrolling and push alerts — and in which at least 10% of users are kids under 16 who spend at least two hours per day on the platform."
Not saying it's a good idea but it sounds like the law is more targeted than that.
the internet as you remember it died a long time ago.
they're already tracking you, and the likelihood they can identify you, specifically, is pretty high. yeah yeah it's HN so I'm sure someone will pop out of the woodwork and talk about how they de-Google'd 3 years ago and have a rooted phone and bla bla bla -- sure. the tiny minority of you beat that game, but at this point most of you are already ID'd.
let's just call the spade a spade, and then find a way to mitigate some of the most negative, pernicious influence of social media.
"applies to platforms that have “addictive features” such as infinite scrolling and push alerts — and in which at least 10% of users are kids under 16 who spend at least two hours per day on the platform."
That seems like it's got loopholes large enough to drive a coach full of lawyers through.
> "applies to platforms that have “addictive features” such as infinite scrolling and push alerts — and in which at least 10% of users are kids under 16 who spend at least two hours per day on the platform."
Sounds like a good thing to ban for adults as well...Although I would suggest that adults addicted to such media are still children mentally...just not legally.
13 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 37.4 ms ] threadPlease be sure to include the age verification and other forms of data collection that similar politicians are passing as part of your argument.
There are levels of government that regulate even things like heights of fences in neighborhoods (you could pick something more serious, like occupancy limits to buildings), is it wild to think we wouldn't apply some level of policy to highly addictive and demonstrably detrimental surveillance capitalism?
Why do we have public schools? Why might that be the government's responsibility? The answer might clue you into why the government would want to do such a thing.
Per the article, "HB 3 applies to platforms that have 'addictive features' such as infinite scrolling and push alerts — and in which at least 10% of users are kids under 16 who spend at least two hours per day on the platform."
Not saying it's a good idea but it sounds like the law is more targeted than that.
they're already tracking you, and the likelihood they can identify you, specifically, is pretty high. yeah yeah it's HN so I'm sure someone will pop out of the woodwork and talk about how they de-Google'd 3 years ago and have a rooted phone and bla bla bla -- sure. the tiny minority of you beat that game, but at this point most of you are already ID'd.
let's just call the spade a spade, and then find a way to mitigate some of the most negative, pernicious influence of social media.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3
"applies to platforms that have “addictive features” such as infinite scrolling and push alerts — and in which at least 10% of users are kids under 16 who spend at least two hours per day on the platform."
That seems like it's got loopholes large enough to drive a coach full of lawyers through.
And push alerts - so, pretty much every app?
Sounds like a good thing to ban for adults as well...Although I would suggest that adults addicted to such media are still children mentally...just not legally.