Whether this is a reasonable law or not, my big problem with it is that it puts the burden of enforcement on tech platforms rather than the kids' parents. There is no way for any company to check for something like this without also affecting every other user of the site, whether they are in Utah or not and whether they are a teen or not. What do they do exactly, start collecting government IDs from us before every visit?
I live in Utah. If that's what happens, that would be awesome! "Sorry kids, no fb/tiktok/insta and there's nothing I can do about it. None of them work where we live"
Would be a huge win for all parents. No social media, and we don't have to be the bad guys taking it away.
From other comments, it seems the definition is not "what you assume is a social media app" but "any service with over 5 million users that facilitates chat via posts". I am 99% certain this includes Hacker News, Steam, probably also bugs.chromium.org and bugzilla.mozilla.org, and maybe even any website that allows user comments if they happen to have over 5 million users.
> From other comments, it seems the definition is not "what you assume is a social media app" but "any service with over 5 million users that facilitates chat via posts".
It's baffling to read all the HN comments encouraging draconian restrictions and forced PII collection on websites, all with the assumption that it will only apply to websites I don't like.
Laws like this, if enforced, would make a lot of the sites you use on a daily basis require strict ID verification. Are you really ready to be doing the ID verification dance with GitHub, Reddit, Hacker News and every other big site on the internet just to post?
Of course not. You're going to sign up for a VPN and use it, just like all of the 17 year old kids who just want to use the internet like normal people.
The sponsors of this bill are likely less worried about the 17yr olds who can hack around the restrictions. They're more worried about 12 and 13yr olds who are attempting suicide and experiencing mental health crises at a rate that far exceeds any previous time.
The problem is the loss of privacy for all users. They will be forced to verify the identity of every user to do business in Utah, so you can either expect third parties like Stripe (with their Identity product) to get richer or an increase in leaks and hacks containing tons of driver's licenses.
I welcome it. Breaking the way the internet is used these days would be a huge win for society as a whole no matter how painful it might look at first.
I don’t think that’s where this goes. I think this leads to less internet use in general. Just like when Apple broke Facebook’s mobile tracking the ad dollars dried up and forced Facebook to scramble to find a new tracking mechanism which most agree is subpar and thus that revenue hasn’t returned. I’m hopeful that people spend less time in anonymized spaces that aren’t conducive to healthy discussion and relationships and instead seek out each other in real life.
There are benefits to reducing anonymity: accountability, trust, relationships, etc. It's why humans evolved to recognize faces so well. We decide who to trust based on experience. It doesn't matter who controls the identification process, so long as its done fairly. And if corporations or government misuse identification for self-serving purposes, we should certainly push back.
- Chilling effect on political discussions. Good luck campaigning to overturn these laws if you can't do so without fear of reprisal from government officials or your local community.
- Limiting the ability for marginalized groups to seek support; LGBTQ youth, ex-mormons, etc., would be directly harmed by this.
Political discussions should be open and transparent. If there is reprisal for well-intentioned statements, proportional action should be taken to stop the reprisal.
Though it is nice to allow various beliefs, it is more important to have a cohesive community, even if it means sacrificing some personal beliefs. Personal values should line up with community values. If they are in contradiction, an open discussion should be had to realign them.
It doesn't necessarily have to be these laws, it could be anything, but to answer your question - they might paint me as somehow being "against the children", having bought in to the angle that these laws make children safer.
Just curious is the any different from what happens right now, when someone campaigns against something you disagree with? If someone online, pseudo-anonymously posts something that is perceived to be against trans rights or pro-life, there is already a mob of people working to de-anonymize and punish them for their wrong-think. How is it any different or better to have the current system?
> Just curious is the any different from what happens right now
Because right now you can be anonymous/pseudonymous? Of course people will try to unmask you, but I'm contrasting it in a world where you can't even attempt it.
It’s a narrow win. If people can’t post to their sites, they’re going to start thinking about going to Colorado rather than Utah for their skiing. The so-called “Silicon slopes” are going to thin out as large companies question what the legislature is going to arbitrarily decide to screw with next. Tourism dollars and high tech jobs are a hefty price.
As an aside, I lived in Utah for many years and I generally thought people preferred to not have the government dictating what was allowed and not allowed.
Willing to bet most of the Utahns you lived around are more worried about the impact of these services on their kids than on government overreach. They can't figure out a non-governmental way to fix the issue.
Hopefully this is hyperbole. Seems a bit extreme to hope the government legislates away industries because you don't want to handle the parenting yourself.
I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong.
> legislates away industries because you don't want to handle the parenting yourself.
What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation? What are your thoughts on making it illegal to advertise unhealthy food to kids? How do you feel about the idea of product placement in children's TV shows? How do you feel about letting pharmaceutical companies directly market to children?
You look at parenting as black and white. Good parents would prevent their kids from doing bad things. Bad parents can't prevent their kids from doing bad things. "If a kid does something bad then it is because they have bad parents."
The reality is that parents are just one element of the childs environment and that their choice to do bad things can be fit to a bell curve based on the complete set of environmental factors for which parenting is one element.
Holding parenting ability constant, the government could make changes that would improve outcomes for some set of children.
> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation?
The USA government already makes the incorrect decision regarding these substances by criminalizing them, banning them, and throwing users in prison. Evidence shows that legalizing these substances and providing addiction care and universal healthcare, as well as tackling homelessness with empathetic solutions (literally just give them housing, it's that simple), is the so far most effective method to reduce usage of these substances.
Thus the highly retributive, reactionary USA government, or its local manifestations, can't be trusted to make these kinds of laws well.
Great, it banned tik tok for the kids. It passed a morality law. You know, fox news isn't really news, and some have suggested to that it provides a direct path to radicalization that leads to political violence. We should probably ban that, too. Don't worry, if you want to watch it, you can unlock it by applying at the local Office of Moral Wellbeing, just provide a photocopy of your photo ID and proof of address for them to file. That way if Fox changes channel registration, they have a list of all the people that watch it, so they can send someone to let you know the channel number changed.
TikTok is a national security issue and a reciprocity issue and for that reason it was a bad choice of example.
You can look at other social media as a morality problem. I could see why someone would think of it that way, but we are literally quite governed by our neurotransmitters, and these companies literally have "engagement" (read: addiction) engineers. There are literally addiction engineers working on creating the state of addiction. Engineers working on figuring out how to get people to spend the maximum amount of time possible on the apps.
At some point it becomes a health issue. Stimulus is stimulus. Dopamine dysfunction is real.
What's the difference between scrolling an infinite feed for 10 hours and feeling good on an opium den couch for 10 hours? I am not saying that's a perfect comparison, but I don't think it's as simple as morality. These social media apps cause real biological response and there are engineers literally working on manipulating those responses.
I agree with you that social media is a social toxin. Kind of like alcohol or heroin.
The solution for all three I think is the same. Don't allow the government to pass laws criminalizing these things, because that has bad outcomes. It's a lot easier to say "the government isn't allowed to restrict bodily autonomy" than it is to for example try to write into law the 800 different specific exact scenarios where society thinks abortion is ok. In this case, "the government isn't allowed to pass laws restricting access to information" or something along those lines.
Certainly we should allow our government to offer alternatives, information on the negative effects of a toxin, treatments, and use our governments to ensure good social safety nets that prevent people falling into toxin abuse as their only escape.
I'm talking about the problems of using the State to enforce whatever given values or ideals. The State is at best completely imperfect, at worst, it's fascist and trying to kill you and people like you. Don't let it get to that point, don't let it ban what it today defines as "social media."
There are better ways to protect society from these harmful things. Mostly I think solutions around good public education.
I don't think criminalizing is the right approach. I think taxing them for usage that exceeds a reasonable amount of time might be a reasonable policy. I think it would be ok to 100% tax any advertising profit gained after 1 hour of use. I suppose that creates a conflict of interest because then the government directly benefits from over-use which is its own hazard. I think the most American approach would be to codify that Facebook (or other social media) is directly liable for medical treatment related to social media use creating a feedback mechanism that disincentivizes bad behavior.
I don't know what to do, but I do think social media is becoming a cancer, and I do think we need treatment. I don't now what the treatment is.
I think you're saying the treatment can be worse than the disease, and I agree.
> I'm talking about the problems of using the State to enforce whatever given values or ideals.
I think we probably agree on a lot politically, but this is where I think I take a hard turn.
Somewhere bad faith behavior must be discouraged. Education is one place that happens, the legal system is another place. Education is only a first line defense against bad faith.
In the game theory of daily life, defectors and defection cannot be a winning strategy otherwise society will turn from a high trust society into a low trust society. Consensus will be abandoned in favor of dominance. To be honest, I think we are already to that point.
Human rights are an example of an ideal that the state must enforce. Contractual obligations are an ideal a state must enforce. Rule of law is an ideal that a state must enforce. Property rights are an ideal states must enforce.
Where it becomes less clear is the Fox News case you stated because Fox News is actively trying to destroy the idea of rule of law.
I don't know how to deal with that.
Do you think that's a problem? Should nothing be done?
> I think you're saying the treatment can be worse than the disease, and I agree.
Basically yes.
> Where it becomes less clear is the Fox News case you stated because Fox News is actively trying to destroy the idea of rule of law.
I only use the Fox news example as a wake up call to conservatives cackling gleefully as the government of Ohio shutting down access to a social media platform.
Actually the core of my fear revolves around that: the American government at all levels, in any state, is highly reactionary, and I'm afraid of it using its newly discovered power to get away with this sort of thing to start banning communication among leftists. Or, something I think it will try in the next two years, banning communication among LGBT people.
Well, I guess this is where I wish communities had more power to organize their own protections and arrangements. Imagine if one town wanted to ban fox news for example, the USA government would probably step in and enforce a lawsuit against them. It seems the power dynamics are out of wack.
> I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong.
Sorry, I don't know what this means.
> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation? What are your thoughts on making it illegal to advertise unhealthy food to kids? How do you feel about the idea of product placement in children's TV shows? How do you feel about letting pharmaceutical companies directly market to children?
The comment this chain is replying to was about tech companies not offering their services at all in Utah. I'd think, for the most part, I'd be against most regulations that basically say "to protect the children, we will ban X for everyone". I'm sure there are exceptions though.
> ...rest of the comment
I agree, the government can act to improve the outcomes for children and I didn't state anything to the contrary. Rather, I believe that gleefully accepting or cheering on a ban of all technology, for both adults and children, that the government might believe causes harm to children is quite unfortunate.
You called something hyperbole. You said you had a hard time imagining someone in good faith wishing that the government would legislate away an industry so that they don't have to "parent."
So I asked:
What do you think the person you are responding too's position is?
What do you think is the best defense for that position?
What do you think that position is wrong despite what you see as its best defense?
I think the tobacco industry is an obvious industry to make reference to. I think now days most people who don't smoke would be happy to see it regulated away and I think it would be an extremely fringe position to think the tobacco industry should be able to advertise to kids today.
> I'd be against most regulations that basically say "to protect the children, we will ban X for everyone". I'm sure there are exceptions though.
Just because we don't know the full extent of how bad Facebook is now, doesn't mean it isn't bad.
How bad do you think we thought smoking, opiates, or other problems were before we decided they were bad?
We saw the correlation with harm of tobacco, investigated more deeply, then regulated their wide spread use particularly use by children.
Facebook is modern day tobacco.
I am much less black and white about this than you might expect, because I am generally pro letting people do what they want with their bodies. After the age of 25 (when a person's prefrontal cortex is fully developed) there are few good arguments for preventing a net tax payer from doing what they want to their bodies or time. If someone can be told they are old enough to die (or kill) for their country, that's another factor that makes limiting their freedom to make bad decisions a hard argument.
> that the government might believe causes harm to children is quite unfortunate.
When you say "the government" that is entirely jaded. There is more nuance than us (the oppressed) and them (the government). Replace the government with "my fellow neighbors," and I think it harms the anti-government righteousness a bit.
The context of the original conversation was clearly not about banning Facebook, but about not being sad if they went away. Telling facebook it can't do business in utah if it serves children and Facebook deciding to not do any business in Utah as a result is not banning Facebook.
> I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong.
Ok, this would be opposite: I want absolute access to my 17 years old kids account. I want read all their messages with their friends and I do not want them to have any privacy, because I want to fully control them.
Second part of the opposite: I dont want to talk with my kids about social dynamic in their peer group. I do not want to talk with them about beauty standards, realistic or not. I do not want to help them navigate peer relationships and I do not care about my kids thoughts. My idea of solving these issues is to cut their access to communication methods.
I am not about to defend either.
> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation?
I am actually fine with whole bunch of regulations and law. Really, this dichotomy where if you dont like one law you need to hate all of them is ridiculous. It
You can ban social media as a parent today and damage your child's social life.
If it's banned for every child equally, they will have to meet up irl or call each other like in the 80s or whatever. Whatever the alternative, it shifts the dynamic and doesn't isolate your child.
Regulations for kids is not simply about bad parenting but can be about prisoner's dilemma-like situations where everyone needs to work together for a good outcome and, unless a decent percentage gets on board at more or less the same time, it's counterproductive for individuals.
We should also enforce strict school dress codes so students don't have to see other students wearing new shoes and feel pressured to update their wardrobe right? Kids shouldn't be able to talk about family vacations because it might make other students jealous and hurt their mental health. We need to ban these books because it might make kids feel bad about themselves. Where do these ridiculous steps end?
I hope that corporations more frequently put less relevant jurisdictions in their place and remind representatives that they are in competition with other jurisdictions and this overrides their public service ideas.
So I’m more of a fan of seeing that. Not the actual outcome.
Would make more people choose more collaborative solutions faster.
I'm always very unimpressed by this kind of argumentation. There's a clear difference in kind between Hackernews, Reddit, Instagram, and TikTok. Sure, they all feature user-submitted content, but to pretend that there is any meaningful similarity beyond that seems silly.
I'm always very unimpressed by people who believe that politicians have the intellectual capacity to differentiate between HN and Reddit.
They don't, especially when they're throwing their weight around after screaming about internet boogeymen for years.
Go watch the Tiktok hearings. They were losing their minds because filters could track your eyes and your cell phone could use the internal wifi network in order to access the internet.
Is there? Is there to your 80 year old senator and their constituents that think the internet is a series of tubes. You know, the constituents that actually vote?
Does it matter how well you explain it anyway? Modern political language lacks definition by design. Do street interviews and ask Americans what socialism is. Then ask them what they'd call the government giving banks money. Then ask them how many times in the last 20 years the government has given banks money.
My argument is that we should just not let the governments pass these kinds of laws because it opens the door to using these laws to arbitrarily block whatever website they can vaguely hand wave as "social media" or whatever they pick.
Another Utahn here and I feel the same. I don’t really see how this could work and think it will probably go away quietly, but I’d kind of love it if these platforms (and the social pressure our kids feel to be on them) just went away.
Also, no Reddit, no Discord, no forums and no Hacker News.
Paradoxically, TikTok and Instagram could pass in a limited form. What is targeted is communication between people, mindless consumption is fine by that law.
> Utah has become the first US state to require social media firms get parental consent for children to use their apps and verify users are at least 18.
> The bills also impose a social media curfew that blocks children's access between 22:30 and 06:30, unless adjusted by their parents.
So there would very much be something you could do about it, and your kids would find out.
You're still the quote-unquote bad guys. You still have to, gasp, parent.
You realize these companies will quiet-fire all employees residing in Utah and never hire there again? That this will place massive negative pressure on all software salaries in Utah? Possibly on all software salaries outside of deep blue states?
Honestly this seems like the best idea. You can’t get accused of letting a kid access outside approved hours if you don’t allow people in Utah on.
What about adults? They may be lying kids. So either no access (safer) or strict age checks involving checking licenses and stuff. But that’s expensive. No Utah is easier.
How do you know they’re in Utah? IP addresses. Blocks people outside Utah? Sorry, our lawyers made us do this. Complain to your reps that Utah is messing with your state’s citizens. VPNs? Maybe gotta block that too.
Utah is not a big state. The social networks could easily use this to try to “teach a lesson”. Just say you’ll let Utahans back in when their government makes a foolproof age verification system.
And wait.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the intent of the law, it just seems unenforceable/unimplementable, as usual. No benefit to the social networks but huge legal downsides.
Lmao imagine Utah becoming the most mentally healthy region on earth, suicide rates plummeting, productivity up 300%, people spending time with parents and grandparents again? record sign ups in sports clubs, record birth rates etc.
If the state has total control over every aspect of their citizens' lives they can model the population into any perfect utopia they desire. I'd still not like to live in that world.
Isn't this the opposite though? They're not telling people how to live their lives. They're taking away the power Facebook has over many people's lives so people might enjoy their lives in more social and healthy ways again.
They’re also taking away the support some marginalized people may get from social networks (eg LGBT, uncommon religions for the area) that their local community doesn’t provide/discriminates against/their parents hate.
Social networks, for all their faults, are not pure evil. They can be beneficial for some people.
Do you think one would have to be on a network with at least 5 million users to get this sort of support as opposed to a smaller one, perhaps specifically oriented towards this sort of stuff? The latter is as legal as before I think.
I said "perhaps". Just join a social network with less than 5m users without "gay" in its name then. This attitude of trying to help a monopoly and pretend it's good just baffles me.
"any legislation restricting behavior actually frees people to do what they always wanted (the government knows best what that is) but just couldn't because of all these other possibilities misguiding them"
"there should be no laws against tobacco, alcohol, drug abuse, gambling because people can't possibly be misguided by powerful corporate interests for profit or otherwise"
That's not what I said. There is a balance to be found. I only objected to "this restriction actually makes everyone free (to do what I think they should)" being used as an argument. If enough people agree, sure, you can ban social media. The reasoning should be a cost benefit analysis though, not "my laws shall make you free".
Not offline, just not using social networks. Same way kids can drink juice, water and pop but not alcohol. Should kids be allowed to drink alcohol or smoke? Again, if I see this as a public health measure I think it makes sense.
Are you referring to China or USSR by chance? Hardly utopias.
It's not about every aspect of life but a few key norms. I see this predatory social media like gambling if not worse, and gambling is regulated in most places
I’m sure you’re writing all of this in a “yeah, that’ll teach em” voice, but this all sounds amazing. Please, let social media block everyone, become irrelevant, then bring back the old internet.
While you may not like the current method of communication and congregation, you must understand _why_ we have the first amendment, right? Congregating together and discussing ideas of (nearly) any sort is an absolutely vital part of democracy and a free society
They're excited about the idea of those sites blocking users in general. It's not really a first amendment thing. That comment isn't focused on the broader context.
I’m sure someone else will cook up a new way to talk to people online after we’ve all decided the current one needs to go; nature hates a vacuum. The current manifestation is not helping anyone though.
I expect if it were to happen there would be a very large outcry (in Utah at a minimum) and the law would be changed/repealed quickly.
It would be a VERY interesting natural experiment if it stayed in effect. People would find ways back on, but not everyone would be willing to go through the hoops. What would that do in even a month or two?
I suspect it would improve things drastically in Utah. That’s what I’d bet on, anyway. I’m a libertarianish person, so I don’t love this legislation, but… I’m not gonna lie. It half makes me want to move to Utah.
The solution is actually simpler than that. Just shut down any company operations in Utah, refuse to accept any payments from users with Utah addresses and require all of your employees that are located in Utah to relocate. But people in Utah can continue using the service.
It's also quite possible that this law gets thrown out as unconstitutional by the federal courts since it seems similar to the California video game censorship law from Brown v. EMA.
It's not surprising at all for Utah. That is a highly Mormon run state that has strong stances on how you should live your life. Even if you are a "goi" (I use the word loosely to illustrate the cultural metaphor in a us v them mentality) to them.
What is amazing is that they have this strong stance on how to restrictively govern the people inside their borders, but yet expect to have a western lifestyle support them. More organizations should stand up and say "I'll pass" in a blanket ban on them.
> That is a highly Mormon run state that has strong stances on how you should live your life. Even if you are a "goi" (I use the word loosely to illustrate the cultural metaphor in a us v them mentality) to them.
I think you're crossing a line here. You are accusing the Mormons in Utah of having a us-versus-them mentality. But your own comment tries to turn readers against Mormons.
Never forget: The Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the Mormon Extermination Order, was issued on October 27, 1838, by Governor Lilburn Boggs. The order authorized the expulsion of Mormons from the state and is sometimes referred to as the "Mormon Kill Law". However, the order was rescinded by Governor Christopher S. "Kit" Bond in 1976.
I think we should all be more charitable to Mormons after what they've been through.
That was 185 years ago, how charitable have Utah mormons been this year to the LGBT community? The unspoken intentions of this bill given the state's recent legislative priorities are absolutely horrifying and far more deserving of criticism and deep skepticism than charity.
I would say that anonymity on social media currently has a serious, real-world price to pay. Teen girls and Instagram don’t mix - the numbers reporting depression and suicidal thoughts since it took off is heartbreaking.
They made us wear masks due to a threat to our physical health. Social media is currently having extremely acute effects on the mental health of a generation. It may have reached the point that losing anonymity and requiring ID is better than suicides and depression. At this point, if you look at the numbers, it’s like claiming the government is infringing your rights to buy alcohol anonymously. We should stop pretending that mental health damage is of lower priority than physical health.
(And don’t get me started about the parents - outside of SV, only a few percent even know parental controls exist, let alone how to use them effectively without loopholes.)
> Teen girls and Instagram don’t mix - the numbers reporting depression and suicidal thoughts since it took off is heartbreaking.
Funny how people care about youth suicide only when it is about making controlling laws they want.
Somehow, there is zero interest in teen girls as persons - all I see on HN is tons of contempt towards them, again and again. Somehow, boys suicides dont matter at all despite being higher. Somehow, boys mental health issues matter only when you can use it as talking point against feminists (boys are depressed? must be because girls are allowed to refuse the sex).
> I would say that anonymity on social media currently has a serious, real-world price to pay. Teen girls and Instagram don’t mix - the numbers reporting depression and suicidal thoughts since it took off is heartbreaking.
I wouldn't say that anonymity is the problem here, but rather that social media sites are crafted to abuse the psychology of their users for attention, engagement, ad impressions etc.
It isn't a given that social media has to make teens depressed. If the psychologists and researchers that are hired by these companies to hone in on engagement were instead were paid to make their platforms less psychologically harmful, we could see better results. Hell, platforms have the potential to improve people's lives if they were optimized for those outcomes. Civil and criminal liability could be introduced to social media operators to ensure that their products aren't causing harm, as well.
Incentives to achieve those results can come from legislation and the judicial system.
In my reply the poster, I did directly point out that we're using a mostly anonymous platform to discuss this issue. However, I agree with you.. it's about how the platform encourages or ignores bad outcomes.
Is anonymity the key issue for your example of Instagram and teen girls? I'd guess that a lot of the pressures come from their peers and professional users who are quite openly using their own identity.
I would suggest that those cases are a minor issue and the major negative pressure comes from general interaction with peers (whose names they know) or comparing themselves and their lives to professional social media users (almost always openly using their name).
> Teen girls and Instagram don’t mix - the numbers reporting depression and suicidal thoughts since it took off is heartbreaking.
This has been a claim for a long time. Esp with self esteem and teen mags or the beauty industry. Unfortunately, social media is the greatest prison people created for themself.
> losing anonymity and requiring ID is better than suicides and depression
Mr gjsman-1000, is this a reasonable claim? SM that advocates free discussion in a mostly anonymous forum [HN].. is that causing the issue that we're discussing? [My stance is engagement oriented industries are causing this at the benefit of profit]
> outside of SV, only a few percent even know parental controls exist, let alone how to use them effectively without loopholes.
This sounds like a great acknowledgement of a problem that can be fixed.
Why not require an ID to own a smart phone? Seems far more realistic to set up regulation around smart phone ownership than to require businesses outside of your state to check IDs.
Those have been solved by requiring ID. Personally, I find online storage of my ID to be a lot less acceptable than a bored teenager giving it a 2 second glance while I'm picking up beer.
> it puts the burden of enforcement on tech platforms rather than the kids' parents
What else do you expect? When tech companies make phones secure enough for the NSA, every app has passwords, and most apps have disappearing messages, how exactly do you expect parents to monitor what their kids are doing?
All the "parental monitoring" apps do is check how much time kids are using the phone. They give zero info on what the kids are actually doing.
So tell me, you want to put the onus on the parents? OK, then require any app used by kids to make all messages available to parents, and forbid disappearing messages.
You don't want to do that? Well, then don't say: "parents you watch them".
You can't simultaneously make something someone else's responsibility, and also make it impossible for them to do it.
I’m not really sure if I disagree with you, but in the past we’re parents really able to see everything their children were doing? Like telephones did not record conversations, they were effectively “disappearing messages”.
I guess the argument would be technology enables children to do secret stuff without any of the obvious signs, like sneaking out in the middle of the night?
Telephones did not record, but they did have a log of incoming and outgoing numbers. So it was possible to check if a child was suddenly talking to someone new.
> I guess the argument would be technology enables children to do secret stuff without any of the obvious signs, like sneaking out in the middle of the night?
Yes, it was rather obvious when a teen was behaving secretive, or there were middle of the night calls.
Privacy is important, but if your teen was suddenly displaying secretive behavior you could tell.
Of course they were not able to see everything kids do. They were not able to track kids movements via app either. Parents have huge amount of control that was impossible in the past now.
They also lost some control, if you lived in ideologically segregated community, kids had no way to learn about ideas from outside. That was destroyed by internet. Your Utah Mormon kid can read pre LBGT materials now.
We got our six year old daughter an Apple Watch with cell service. I think that’s allowed her a lot of freedom since she can walk to her friends house without crazy people calling CPS on us (totally happened before). She just met another girl with the same watch and now they are best friends.
This, I think it would far more realistic to ban the type of devices a child can purchase or own then push this burden to "social media companies" on the internet.
Utah's political system, and by virtue, judiciary, is run by LDS. Don't consider anything rational will necessarily prevail when powered by magical thinking.
Just use BankID/GovID/whatever verified OAuth service and request a single age/date of birth data point once. No need to authenticate or store anything.
That is precisely the solution. Tech platforms are far more culpable than parents in this matter. If that means your startup idea no longer scales - good riddance.
> If that means your startup idea no longer scales - good riddance.
And if that means no startup can possibly compete against the existing players in the industry that have the bandwidth and resources to implement the regulation?
After reading this thread I realized that's exactly what people (in this thread) want.
They want "the old internet" back, whatever it means. Of course it means no more startup. Startups change things and we don't want that! We want the exact internet from 1998.
I don't know why they want the "old internet" in a thread talking about protecting children lol.
When I was 13 I was playing CS 1.6 on dedicated servers with a small number of strangers that were like 30, I was also on I don't even know how many random forums with small numbers of users.
It's like a 13 year old hanging out at some random adult's house vs walking around a mall.
I can't see how a bill limiting access to websites with more than 5M users is going to reduce paedophilia.
> And if that means no startup can possibly compete against the existing players in the industry that have the bandwidth and resources to implement the regulation?
I think starting a tech startup under a VC model is a high-risk, high-reward setup and that your idea should be strong enough to withstand regulations such as this, yeah. There has been a lot of false innovation lately and it has soured my view on the model.
I think it also hurts the incumbents, even though they get a moat of sorts. But only a moat around "tracking teenagers for advertising data".