Florida Passes Law Banning Social Media for Minors Under 14

https://www.wsj.com/politics/florida-passes-law-banning-social-media-for-minors-under-14-abae4ce3

by ra7 • 2 years ago

50 37 2 years ago

wsj.com

sleepingreset• 2 years ago

how enforceable is this?

irjustin• 2 years ago

It would basically be like under 18 no porn allowed. So.... not really.

tempnow9874• 2 years ago

It's weak - but could easily be modified to a strong parental rights type law - companies have to verify in person parental approval for little kids to have social media, parent is then admin on account, and time limits must be settable by the parents for online account activity. And no vanishing text (snapchat etc).

The effect would likely be the same, but rules to protect kids have stood up pretty well.

harimau7772• 2 years ago

How could a company realistically verify that a person has parental approval?

5kg• 2 years ago

Political theatre? Courts will most likely strike it down for violating the First Amendment.

whatshisface10• 2 years ago

That could prove to be an empty hope, considering the fact that kids already don't have second amendment rights. There is also a long precedent of allowing bans on the medium (spraypaint, public parks and megaphones) that do not mention anything about the specific message.

tandr• 2 years ago

Random uneducated thoughts:

1. Government overriding parental rights in a state that is so proud of all possible "my rights"? I suspect some challenge in court for this law will happen sooner or later.

2. Closed circuit networks with some "private" server to chat between friends might get popular soon. There are enough quite capable 13y/o kids able to do so. Or 14yo, creating one for their little brother.

3. Not having a personal account might not prevent anything, as using parents' account is still possible.

4. Whole class on the same Signal chat room -- is it a "social media"?

5. Somehow parallels of Twitter getting banned during Arab Spring events come to mind.

tempnow9874• 2 years ago

Your claim that parents have clicked yes to authorize all the kids accounts and activities is a total joke.

When you say "parental rights" - the issue is that parents DON'T have admin rights to their kids social media stuff.

Most of these companies do some kind of checkbox the 13 year old checks that confirms that if they are under 13 their parents have approved. The idea this is "parental rights" has to be a sick sick joke.

NONE of these companies send anyone anywhere to actually check that the parents OK'ed going on omegle etc.

Tweak the law so that the companies have to actually verify parental approval. Ie, something in person with parent and the kid. And that parents then are the admins on the account and get both see all activity and also control minutes / week of activity on the platform.

whatshisface10• 2 years ago

NONE of these companies send anyone anywhere to actually check that the parents OK'ed going on omegle etc.

Why don't we instead ask how many parents actually check? Instead of requesting Apple/Google/Microsoft to help parents see their kid's browsing history from the get-go, we seem to be working towards internet based controls that will also impact the privacy and freedom of adults.

Valgrim• 2 years ago

About point 2: in my neighborhood there's half a dozen kids, all aged 5-8, all communicating constantly during weekends using cheap, loud FRS walkie talkies some parent bought in a 10-pack off Amazon.

My point being that even without internet, or even without knowing how to type and barely able to read, social networks just pop into existence.

Kye• 2 years ago

Soon: frantic op-eds about kids having key signing parties.

pyuser5836• 2 years ago

Kids internet access is a real problem. This is not the solution. Most restrictive laws are not the solution.

“The Solution” is to set parents up as universal admins.

This obviously isn’t it. But this issue can’t be dismissed, and we can’t wait until a perfect law either.

tenebrisalietum2• 2 years ago

Liability should be 100% on the parents. They are the ones who decided to have a child, and are the ones that are liable for any other type of neglect, such as not providing food or shelter, or letting them roam unsupervised. I don't know why it's different just because it's on a computer.

tempnow9874• 2 years ago

I hope you are not on a jury trying a child rapist and blaming the parents as 100% at fault.

Liability is obviously not always 100% on the parents. Sometimes you have to send your kid to school. If they are beaten bloody every day that's not necessarily 100% the parents fault - others can exercise some responsibility with respect to kids in our society.

The takes here on HN are frankly scary as a parent.

pyuser5836• 2 years ago

Our daughter goes to public school.

She is required to have a laptop, she is required to have a Google account, and must have internet during school hours.

We cannot attend class with her - this is illegal.

The amount of sh*t a kid can get into using only *.google.com domains is nuts.

And there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

MattPalmer1086• 2 years ago

Not sure you have had kids?

You generally can't supervise them 100% of the time, and that would also be harmful to their development.

It's almost impossible to control what your kid can do or see or who they interact with once they get on the internet. I had long conversations with my son about the dangers, and thankfully he seems to have absorbed them, but not all do.

I wish there had been safe, non toxic areas, equivalent to playing in the back yard, for kids.

For the record, I don't think banning social media for under 14s will work particularly well. It's more about providing safer places than banning existing ones IMHO.

ninjanomnom• 2 years ago

Ignoring the entire discussion of whether young children should use social media for the moment, this is hilariously unenforceable, which in an odd way makes me in favor of it. Telling children they "can't" do something, and then not doing anything to stop them from doing it is a great way to ensure they learn how to get around these kinds of barriers.

whatshisface10• 2 years ago

Laws that make everyone (or in this case, every social media company) guilty aren't unenforceable, they're super-enforcable and result in a constructive ban.

0xcde4c3db• 2 years ago

Florida Passes Law Banning Cringey Utterances on Web Forums and IRC Channels

And just like that, a million angsty '90s kids vanished in a puff of legislative logic.

(It me. I'm the cringey '90s kid.)

whatshisface10• 2 years ago

This is either going to result in the total end of libertarians, or a wave of libertarianism in about twenty years like the US has never before imagined. ;)

unquietwiki• 2 years ago

My friends and I think this might technically ban Steam; unless Steam makes changes to not auto-play videos, allow "infinite scrolling", etc.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/BillText/er/PDF

ChrisArchitect• 2 years ago

Some earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39817525

Florida Passes Law Banning Social Media for Minors Under 14

Related Stories