Texas wants to ban minors from social media, enforce government ID checks

[Kisai]

5 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Haven't heard anyone say "Wikipedia" yet though... that's almost funny!

 

one is a microblogging website with minimal moderation etc, the other is a message board with usually clearly defined subjects and typically  a more strict moderation,  where mods are also directly involved in conversations (which makes a *huge* difference) 

 

Twitter users have nothing on Wikipedia editor bullying. Maybe that comparison is apt.

 

At any rate, a "social media network" involves the users being on equal footing, which Wikipedia is certainly not. Most forums qualify as "social media" because they are used as such (unless the forum can not be read without logging in, then it's a private club.) If a site is aggressively moderated like wikipedia, or cbc.ca then it's not, because the site actively impedes users from having any constructive arguments, it simply removes what it doesn't like before anyone can see it.

 

Does the LTT forum count as SNS? Yes, it has all the features of Twitter except uploading videos. People argue on it unimpeded. If a rule is broken the moderators generally wait to see where it goes rather than deleting everything like wikipedia and cbc.ca does.

 

Wikipedia, actively purges content it doesn't want, for reasons ranging from "not important" and "cruft" , to "wikipedia is not a vanity site", there are editors on Wikipedia that have fancier vanity pages than some articles. CBC, actively shuts down comments on pages after only a few hours. No productive discussion can take place on either site. So neither are social media sites.

 

And yes, CBC's site is moderated in a way that it's pointless commenting on the site, they should just remove the commenting function.  It likely only exists as engagement bait for ads.

 

[DANK_AS_gay]

15 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

*blinks in user pages and article talk pages*

If you remove those, Wikipedia still exists. If you remove those aspects from many other websites, they cease to exist. In that regard, and given that Wikipedia's focus is more on information rather than social interaction, I would argue that it isn't a social media website.

[Takumidesh]

What are all of these made up definitions of social media? equal footing? moderation? who decided that these are required.

here is an actual definition (Merriam-Webster)

forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as videos)

wikipedia falls under this and so does this forum, so does whatsapp and telegram.

 

Besides it doesn't matter what any one person decides is social media, it matters what the government decides, since they are the enforcers.

[Mark Kaine]

49 minutes ago, Kisai said:

"social media network"

you can scratch the media though,  for most forms of online interaction that isn't really crucial or an requirement,  traditionally. 

 

the problem with saying everything is "social media" is it omits the vast differences between different forms of online user interactions,  which i think i have outlined sufficiently. 

 

In fact i put the " on purpose,  "social media" as in fb, etc, shouldn't be called that to begin with,  more like microblogging website or bot network with minimal user interaction,  in some cases,  would be more apt. 

As said, a forum is something almost entirely different,  so is an actual blog, it functions differently,  serves a different purpose,  so it shouldn't go under the same more or less misleading name.

 

"Social media" is basically a product of the media/press/news networks and should be treated as such. 

[Kisai]

22 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

you can scratch the media though,  for most forms of online interaction that isn't really crucial or an requirement,  traditionally. 

 

the problem with saying everything is "social media" is it omits the vast differences between different forms of online user interactions,  which i think i have outlined sufficiently. 

 

Social media networks have user-organized hierarchies. Blogs and Wiki's do not. Someone "owns" the blog or wiki, and controls/owns/is responsible the every message on it.

 

A typical public forum, eg LTT is open to anyone to post to. That puts it closer to twitter than discord.

 

[suicidalfranco]

After seeing what it has turned a generation into, a generation born and grown up with sn, this might be a necessary evil to save the next one

[rcmaehl]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

After seeing what it has turned a generation into, a generation born and grown up with sn, this might be a necessary evil to save the next one

As a Zennial, What, you don't like our memes or something?

[suicidalfranco]

5 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

As a Zennial, What, you don't like our memes or something?

Not a single thing to like from the last decade

[Mark Kaine]

15 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Social media networks have user-organized hierarchies.

So that disqualifies twitter, and facebook, because that is exactly what i was saying. 

[Takumidesh]

14 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Social media networks have user-organized hierarchies. Blogs and Wiki's do not. Someone "owns" the blog or wiki, and controls/owns/is responsible the every message on it.

says who? all of these limitations on the what makes something a social media network are completely down to each persons belief. There is no specific definition of a social media site or network that gives a list of qualifiers.

 

39 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

so it shouldn't go under the same more or less misleading name.

and you expect the government to understand nuances in what fit your definition of a social network?

 

What makes these definitions more valid than other definitions other than an individuals perception?

 

historically governments have used vague and nebulous ideas to allow themselves the ability to expand definitions as they seem fit.

[Mark Kaine]

 

9 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

As a Zennial,

a what now?!

 

whatever it is, I've seen worse, yours  are at least "ok" (hint: millennials who pretend to not have any memes, and boomers, who just don't get it, have the worst memes : D)

[Mark Kaine]

@Takumideshhonestly your whole thing just reads like you cant / don't want to decide for yourself and doesn't appear like you're arguing in good faith, at all.

 

So tell me *your* definition (without copying it from somewhere else) then I'll answer your question(s).

otherwise,  i will not.

[Takumidesh]

5 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

@Takumideshhonestly your whole thing just reads like you cant / want to decide for yourself and doesn't appear like you're arguing in good faith, at all.

 

So tell me *your* definition (without copying it from somewhere else) then I'll answer your question(s).

otherwise,  i will not.

What? my point is that it is not easily defined, and therefore open for exploitation.

 

to add: *my* definition or *your* definition doesn't matter at all, what matters is the enforcers definition.

people can argue all day about what makes something social media, but if the gov decides that a or b website constitutes social media, then there you go, all of these requirements become imposed.

 

to add again, I already gave my definition earlier in the thread:

Quote

Anything where people communicate with each other is social media (or can be interpreted that way in a court) 

 

[Sauron]

I don't think this would really do anything for kids when they can still just visit other sites which are equally (potentially) harmful but wouldn't be classified under "social media", plus most social media can be browsed without having a user account. You'd also likely end up as with the UK's "porn pass" where 18 year olds sell accounts to minors... and on the flip side this completely denies you any semblance of anonymity. I don't use my real name on sites like this one (shocking, I know) and having to send the staff my ID would completely deanonymize me.

 

If they want to improve the environment for kids they'd have to mandate better moderation and hold sites accountable for untimely action against hate speech and abuse, but then they couldn't cry about "muh freeze peach" when nazis get banned.

[Kisai]

21 minutes ago, Takumidesh said:

says who? all of these limitations on the what makes something a social media network are completely down to each persons belief. There is no specific definition of a social media site or network that gives a list of qualifiers.

 

"Can you create an account without belonging to the company who owns the site?" 

"Can you post to the site without approval?"

"Can you reply to other users posts?"

"Can you upload photos, or video?"

If you can do all of those it's a social media site. Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube have more in common with the LTT forum than they do Wikipedia and cbc.ca.

 

All user-generated content sites can do all of the four points. All SNS are UGC(user generated content) sites, but not all UGC's are SNS's. Wikipedia is not a SNS, but it is a UGC. CBC.ca is neither a SNS or a UGC, as users can not create posts, and "editorial" posts are things filtered by employees, like traditional newspapers.

 

[Takumidesh]

14 minutes ago, Kisai said:

"Can you create an account without belonging to the company who owns the site?" 

"Can you post to the site without approval?"

"Can you reply to other users posts?"

"Can you upload photos, or video?"

You can do every single one of those things on wikipedia.

 

I still don't understand the source of these definitions.
the proposed bill just says 'social media platform'

I didn't see where in the bill it specifies what defines a social media platform, or exclusions to the list or any other qualifiers.

 

 

EDIT: if generally savvy internet users on forums can't agree which sites should be defined, why would we assume that aging politicians would make the correct decision.

[rcmaehl]

VSauce, Michael here.

 

What IS Social Media? If you are interacting with someone in a room, are you socializing? And if media is to be shared by interactions between two people, is all media social media? 

[Mark Kaine]

14 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

And if media is to be shared by interactions between two people, is all media social media

this is a good definition actually as it includes things like tv, the real meaning of the word "social media" plus it excludes things like twitter,  forums,  etc, because sharing "media" is not a requirement at all for those.

 

next up: someone claiming "letters are also media!" ... OOF

 

tldr: the term simply makes no sense, because *all* media is social in a way.

 

 

brb , asking my p0rn stash for their opinions...!

 

 

[Poinkachu]

3 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

Uh, yes. 

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-lifespandevelopment/chapter/brain-development-during-adolescence/

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I get that brain needs time to develop.
But age check is not equal of Sanity level check, IQ level check, and Common Sense level check.

a.k.a : Showing ID that one is 30y old doesn't mean that one is smart enough to not simply believe whatever they see in social media, nor it proves that s/he isn't a psychopath

Plus, i've seen kids who are far more responsible than some adults.
And i've seen adults who are childish as heck.

[Mark Kaine]

4 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

But age check is not equal of Sanity level, IQ level, and Common Sense level.

ok, but honestly,  do you really want Elon Musk to rate your sanity, iq and common sense level?

 

Or the creepy fb guy?

[Poinkachu]

9 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

ok, but honestly,  do you really want Elon Musk to rate your sanity, iq and common sense level?

 

Or the creepy fb guy?

Naww, the one checking needs to be from outside of said company.
Maybe an AI? Who knows, it might really turn into SkyNet after assessing a lot of humans.

[Mark Kaine]

5 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

Naww, the one checking needs to be from outside of said company.

well, i was just asking to show you the feasibility of the idea (which isn't inherently a bad idea to be clear)

 

how this would end is, musk, etc simply "approving" anyone...

you have to understand this age check proposal stems from governments not wanting to take any responsibility (understandable since they have no idea about "gouverning" such a thing)

 

So your idea, while sounding better,  wouldn't really change anything (99.9% certainty) 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

Maybe an AI?

ok that *is* a bad idea.

[Poinkachu]

5 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

well, i was just asking to show you the feasibility of the idea (which isn't inherently a bad idea to be clear)

 

how this would end is, musk, etc simply "approving" anyone...

you have to understand this age check proposal stems from governments not wanting to take any responsibility (understandable since they have no idea about "gouverning" such a thing)

 

So your idea, while sounding better,  wouldn't really change anything (99.9% certainty) 

 

 

ok that *is* a bad idea.

I know it's a pipedream . Just grabbing that tiny sliver of hope.

 

And basically just saying if they want to spend time on figuring out how to filter one who can access something on internet, may as well spend it to figure out how to filter the real crazies.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Takumidesh said:

You can do every single one of those things on wikipedia.

 

You've clearly not used wikipedia then. Let me demonstrate:

The front page has, no UGC.

The "english" page does not contain user editorials or comments.

 

The only time you see comments are on when you look at the edit pages. They are not comment pages, you can't reply to users here. No, you have to reply to their "user" page.

 

The entire process is convoluted, and no user of the site uses it like they would twitter or a conventional forum. Wiki's are closer to a whiteboard, where people can vandalize and edit other people's contributions. You can not do that with a forum unless you're a moderator. You also can not edit other people's tweets on twitter or facebook posts on facebook.

[JimmyJJones]

7 hours ago, bmx6454 said:

While I agree that social media is more or less poison(probably unpopular opinion as usual), I don’t believe it’s the governments place or right to take the place of what should be a parents choice/responsibility.

Nothing about this bill prevents a parent from creating an account their child can use.