FOR THE CHILDREN!!! Utah Gov. signs laws requiring age verification on Social Media

[SimplyChunk]

Warning to parents really.  Paraphrasing but..."If you don't get a hold and parent your kids.  WE bloody well will"

[Donut417]

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Basically all the government is doing is limiting their use to what? 3

Doesn't mater. The only thing that matters if what the constitution says, its the supreme law of the land. If social media platforms can convince the courts that this is government overstep then the law will be struck down. 

 

34 minutes ago, mr moose said:

n the meantime, these kids might actually survive the first part of their mental development years and grow to be reasonable people who see the world for what it is, rather than what social media brainwashes people to think it is.

 Dont get me wrong, I agree. Personally I don't think anyone under the age of 18 should be allowed even on to a social media platform. But the only way to enforce such a stance would be for these companies to do it voluntary. Unfortunately these companies want the data associated with these accounts, so they wont do that. 

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, StDragon said:

The 1st amendment doesn't grant the right to any platform. You can't just walk right into a congressional session just because you have a right to speak your mind.

 

A LOT of people seem to think otherwise lol

[SimplyChunk]

26 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

A LOT of people seem to think otherwise lol

Ain't that the God damned truth lmao

[TetraSky]

Honestly... I'm somewhat "ok" with this. Social media for kids is a massive issue. From bullying, body shaming, to outright being the reason they decide to unalive themselves.
BUT. How are they going to verify the age? What's stopping the kids from saying they are 18? Are they going to be dumb and say "verify your age using your SSN" ? I sure hope not. That's just opening a whole other can of worm concerning ID theft. Same with "send us a picture of your ID".
Unless they implement a way that works in parallel with SSN, our unique gov ID, with IDs that can be easily revoked if they leak (unlike SSN) for these services, it will not be an easy to use implementation.
Kind of like what some places did with Covid vaccine proofs apps, where the only info available to be read a yes/no value (except better implemented without leaking a bunch of info).

 

Because they also specify this:

Quote

The bill specifies that platforms cannot rely solely on government-issued IDs to verify age, and it remains unclear how companies will be required to do that.

Which makes the whole thing even harder to determine the age of someone. Typical politician signing things into laws without ZERO clue or plan on how it would work.

[Quackers101]

so this will require you to give personal ID to the platforms too? cause we know how that goes, just like what google and others did when they added that for everyone.

[12345678]

On 3/24/2023 at 1:53 AM, The_Tuba_Titan said:

Totally not speaking from experience, kids will figure a way to bypass it lol

I wonder if the usual concerned parents do forget that, or are they just in a power tripping phase

[ExperiencersInternational]

On 3/24/2023 at 12:06 AM, The_Tuba_Titan said:

Summary

Utah's Govenor Cox has signed 2 bills (HB311, SB152) that require all social media platforms to verify the age of any Utah resident and add restrictions to anyone under the age of 18. There is a requirement that anyone under the age of 18 will not be allowed to view social media during the hours of 10:30 PM and 6:30 PM. This is progression in the current debate of Social Media's role in society.

 

Quotes

My thoughts

As a resident of Utah, I feel that this is an invasion of my privacy and encroaching into our personal lives. I understand the issue of mental health in children but there are better ways in addressing it than outright banning it.

 

Sources

NBC News

KSL News

This is stupid. Really stupid.

 

A lot of people don't have identity information, especially if you don't drive or travel abroad.

 

It's already bad enough as a UK citizen with Google treating me as under 18 not being able to have location history on, or being a Google Play Points member.

[Brooksie359]

7 hours ago, ExperiencersInternational said:

This is stupid. Really stupid.

 

A lot of people don't have identity information, especially if you don't drive or travel abroad.

 

It's already bad enough as a UK citizen with Google treating me as under 18 not being able to have location history on, or being a Google Play Points member.

It's Utah so I doubt many won't have a driver's license. Usually places where people don't have drivers licenses are in cities with public transportation. In Utah I can't imagine getting by without a car like you could in say New York or Chicago. 

[NotAlex]

What scares me the most is that regardless of how old you are, this will give a backdoor for the government to censor content based on who you are. We aren't that far away from becoming the CCP who will arrest you for mentioning Tiananmen Square. Speaking of the CCP, that's literally what the Chinese government does, they make you associate your IRL identity with your online accounts. Regardless on your stance of children using social media, it's a fact that forums, online or not, are pretty much the last bastion for free speech, and even giving the government the slightest ability to infringe that should make you scared.

[starsmine]

2 hours ago, NotAlex said:

What scares me the most is that regardless of how old you are, this will give a backdoor for the government to censor content based on who you are. We aren't that far away from becoming the CCP who will arrest you for mentioning Tiananmen Square. Speaking of the CCP, that's literally what the Chinese government does, they make you associate your IRL identity with your online accounts. Regardless on your stance of children using social media, it's a fact that forums, online or not, are pretty much the last bastion for free speech, and even giving the government the slightest ability to infringe that should make you scared.

Lmao what? it does nothing of the sort. 

[Uttamattamakin]

On 3/24/2023 at 4:12 PM, Mark Kaine said:

yeah so which point does it violate exactly?  freedom of speech? that's still allowed *after age verification* (imo) but im curious what you think violates it exactly and why, im not sure how or why that would violate anything  

 

 

ps: actually isn't there already a law regarding children posting on forums and such ? (minimum 13y afaik)

In the US of A.  I don't think there is a federal law on the books setting an age limit for social media.    Let me double check with Bing. 
 

Quote

There is currently no federal age limit for social media or forum posting in the US. However, there have been recent efforts by lawmakers to raise the minimum age for social media to 16 years old¹. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is a law that governs the disclosure of online data for children under the age of 13². Would you like more information on this topic?

Received message. There is currently no federal age limit for social media or forum posting in the US. However, there have been recent efforts by lawmakers to raise the minimum age for social media to 16 years old. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is a law that governs the disclosure of online data for children under the age of 13. Would you like more information on this topic?

Learn more:

1. foxnews.com2. findlaw.com3. mtsu.edu4. abcnews.go.com

Then I asked it if any US states set such an age limit.  Since these things vary wildly from one state to another. 

Quote

I’m sorry, but I couldn’t find any information about specific US states setting an age limit for social media or forum posting. Would you like me to search for something else?

I'll take that as a no.  There is some precedent for keeping an age limit in place say for access to adult websites. 

 

Congress shall make no law ....

 

23 hours ago, StDragon said:

The 1st amendment doesn't grant the right to any platform. You can't just walk right into a congressional session just because you have a right to speak your mind.

 That depends on the platform, where it is based, and what laws govern it.    There has been an argument made that Twitter, for one, has become so large and so dominant that it is the public square.  That it is a like a government Trust or a utility and that 1A does apply to it.  The same would be true of say Facebook. 

Then there is the issue of the government ("Congress" in 1A's text has been interpreted as applying to the whole government") for a state asking a platform to block someone.   That can violate the first amendment rights of the platform and of the individual. Furthermore, elected officials cannot even block people according to the law.  There are already US federal court rulings on this.  

When does Twitter blocking violate the First Amendment? - Podcast | Constitution Center 

Quote

President Trump can no longer block people on Twitter, following a ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The court held that because President Trump controls access to his @realdonaldtrump Twitter account and uses it for official government purposes, it is a public forum and, under the First Amendment, he cannot block people solely based on their viewpoints. Katie Fallow – one of the lead attorneys who represented the blocked Twitter users in the case – and David French, senior writer at National Review and former First Amendment litigator, debate the merits of the decision as well as its potential impact on future cases. They also explore a similar lawsuit recently filed against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by people claiming that she unconstitutionally blocked them on Twitter. And, they explain how the Second Circuit’s decision may impact government attempts to regulate social media. 

Some legal scholars argue that this may apply to the whole of Twitter and other large platforms too. 

 

A real question is how would Utah impose this on all the forums not based on Utah?  Is California going to enforce a mandate from Utah?  I know my  Illinois won't go along with it.  Any such law would need to be federal to make an impact that is if it would even stand up in court.  Then there are all the other countries in the world that won't go along with this either.   Not if it's just a law of a single state in the US. 

In a purely technological sense perhaps face recognition can be used to tell if someone is an adult or a child.  Though close to the line between 13 and 14 it likely would not be reliable.   A forum like this one can probably cook up a ID verification system but what about the numerous small ones out there? I don't see how it can be done reasonably. 

 

On 3/24/2023 at 4:38 PM, starsmine said:

Generally, no they dont. 

As pointed out, we Coppa exists already, 

True

On 3/24/2023 at 5:22 PM, The_Tuba_Titan said:

Technically, Coppa does allow consent from parents. YouTuber, Legal Eagle, did a video on the topic and he explains it in depth. (for those that need a refresher)

 

Which raises an issue with verifying ages.  To verify age one has to gather information on the person in question.  To verify someone is younger than 13 and exclude them from a forum or social media is also gathering information.  Depending on how that is done compliance with this law could lead to a violation of COPPA.  Since federal laws take precedence over state laws trying to comply with that Utah law would lead to possible exposure to a federal violation.  

In which case the most economical solution would be to block Utah residents from accessing their services.  While they can get around it with a VPN that might not shield the service from legal liability.  

[NotAlex]

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

Lmao what? it does nothing of the sort. 

By requiring an ID to be tagged to an account, you are deanonymizing your account. And just because right now they only plan to restrict access to minors during certain times, that doesn't mean that this won't leave a foot in the door for more restrictive and authoritarian policies to be implemented. Rome wasn't built in one day.

[Uttamattamakin]

3 hours ago, NotAlex said:

What scares me the most is that regardless of how old you are, this will give a backdoor for the government to censor content based on who you are. We aren't that far away from becoming the CCP who will arrest you for mentioning Tiananmen Square. 

We are a few steps away from that if the government can force services to ID everyone on them.  If the government knows an online service has the ID's of everyone who uses them; then the government can get a warrant to get that information.   

I don't think we'll ever be like the "Social Credit System" they have in some parts of the PRC.   Not anytime soon.  (just saw your reply.)

13 minutes ago, NotAlex said:

By requiring an ID to be tagged to an account, you are deanonymizing your account. And just because right now they only plan to restrict access to minors during certain times, that doesn't mean that this won't leave a foot in the door for more restrictive and authoritarian policies to be implemented. Rome wasn't built in one day.

Exactly.  @starsmine is not wrong that this particular law does not get us there but it could be a start.  

The question is do we trust the judiciary to:
A ) Know technology well enough to know what is and is not necessary for a given investigation.  Typically a warrant will call for siezure of a whole computer when an image of the hard drives would suffice.  So they don't need to hand over the whole ID database. 

B) Know how to say no to a overreaching request for that information? 

 

They may surprise us quite a few judges as part of their profession had to get good at using a computer back when computers were far less user-friendly than they are now.  I don't see them thinking this is a good law that should stand based on past precedents. 

This is from the late 90's but this is funny to those of us who remember it because it is so true.  Imagine this frustration if you were a lawyer on a deadline and your printer won't just effing print.  25 years ago every judge you see had to get to know tech when knowing tech was hard.  So, I have faith in them. 

 

[Uttamattamakin]

4 minutes ago, TechlessBro said:

Merica Duck Yeah

 

Merica COPPA says platforms must not gather information on minors.

Merica shut up and take users offical government issued ID 

 There I fixed it for you.   It's even worse. lol. 

[Uttamattamakin]

3 minutes ago, TechlessBro said:

It’s always worse when its political

COPPA is under 13 and ID issue is 18, plus TikTok shit show yesterday hence the post.

 

Merica is missing the point on TikTok China isn’t the problem with it.

Yes exactly.  The proposal actually enacted law that will go into force next year, unless challenged in court, is that anyone 13 or under cannot access forums or social media.  So how are they going to do that?  

By having them submit their ID, or a photo, or some sort of info that will verify name and age.  They'd have to check everybody for this purpose.  That would deanonymize all forums and social media.

Kids in Utah will need parents’ OK to access social media | AP News

Quote

Outside of Utah, lawmakers in red states including Arkansas, Texas, Ohio and Louisiana and blue states including New Jersey are advancing similar proposals. California, meanwhile, enacted a law last year requiring tech companies to put kids’ safety first by barring them from profiling children or using personal information in ways that could harm children physically or mentally.

I said up thread my own state would not go along with this but.  We have a law on a related issue.  Supposedly this is for the children to protect their mental health and so on. 

Schools Demand Students' Social Media Passwords (Motherboard via publicschoolreview.com)

Quote

The Illinois Law

 

In an attempt to curb cyberbullying behaviors, the Illinois General Assembly passed a law, enacted January 1st of this year, that allows public school districts to demand access to students’ personal social media accounts if the student is suspected of violating school rules.

As usual I am ok with my own states law relating to the supposed problem.  Carding everyone who just wants to post on a forum seems excessive, overreaching, and human rights (as defined by the US constitution) violating.   Government needing a reason to go for the information of a specific individual is much more reasonable.  

[NotAlex]

1 minute ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I don't think we'll ever be like the "Social Credit System" they have in some parts of the PRC.   Not anytime soon.  (just saw your reply.)

%100, maybe the hyperbole was a little too hyperbole-y. 

13 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

The question is do we trust the judiciary to:
A ) Know technology well enough to know what is and is not necessary for a given investigation.  Typically a warrant will call for siezure of a whole computer when an image of the hard drives would suffice.  So they don't need to hand over the whole ID database. 

B) Know how to say no to a overreaching request for that information?

The question is what is "well enough"? Another major problem is that it has been proven that companies will hand over information without warrants. Take for example how amazon near blindly cooperates with police and gives full unadulterated access to user information, and that's just what was made public. Judges can't say no to warrants if they never get asked for one.

 

23 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

They may surprise us quite a few judges as part of their profession had to get good at using a computer back when computers were far less user friendly than they are now.

Getting surprised isn't a good enough bet when free speech is potentially at stake. Baby steps are still steps.

32 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

I don't see them thinking this is a good law that should stand based on past precedents. 

At the end of the day, you're probably right. Just like it's probably right, to talk about our sponsor! In all seriousness, even though I know in reality that bills like these will go nowhere, I can't help but worry.

 

(This next bit is deviating slightly from the track so try to not think too hard about this the following rant connects super well)

 

Children nowadays are way more politically active than previous generations were at their age, and I can't help think that beyond the thinly veiled "for the kids" cover, that their ultimate goal is to make it harder for the youth to learn and coordinate with each other. This is definitely some conspiracy type bs so take what I said with a grain of salt, but this wouldn't be the first time a government has done something similar, let alone the U.S. government.

 

 

[Uttamattamakin]

24 minutes ago, NotAlex said:

Getting surprised isn't a good enough bet when free speech is potentially at stake. Baby steps are still steps.

True.  IJS people tend to assume anyone over 50 is clueless about tech.  All the while forgetting someone age 50-80 was learning about and using computers in the 70's -90's right now.  You know when getting a computer to do anything was a challenge. 

 

24 minutes ago, NotAlex said:

Children nowadays are way more politically active than previous generations were at their age, and I can't help think that beyond the thinly veiled "for the kids" cover, that their ultimate goal is to make it harder for the youth to learn and coordinate with each other.

Thankfully the tech savvy youth will know of the many ways around that via various messaging apps if that is the goal.  My God how would the possibly force Telegram or Signal to do that.  Certainly these laws would apply to messaging apps too.  

This could also be legislation that would torpedo any idea of having distributed, decentralized, social media like say Mastodon or there is another one that does not even need servers, not even a Linode.  The name escapes me.  I can see this law either making those really big or making them impossible to use. 

[suicidalfranco]

19 hours ago, Donut417 said:

There is a huge difference when a corporation bans you from their platform vs the government. Firstly the government is bound to the rules of the United States Constitution, as this is a state government they are bound to their own constitution as well. Corporations are not bound to the constitution and can make rules of how their platform can be used. 

And yet people had no problem when the gov requested to social media to ban or shadow ban specific people who had a different opinion from the mainstream ideologues

[starsmine]

<Comment removed by staff>

As for ID requirement, I do agree that is beyond sketch, HOWEVER the bill allows for other methods with the wording "may not be limited to a valid ID", whatever that means in terms of other methods. 
 

Quote

   (b) establish acceptable forms or methods of identification, which may not be limited
     to a valid identification card issued by a government entity;

A simple age gate imo is enough, site dependent, as the bill allows leeway when working with specific companies.

Quote

 (a) establish processes or means by which a social media company may meet the age
  verification requirements of this chapter;

Teenagers are stupid(not really, but specifically in this context) and will explicitly/implicitly out themselves generally by just talking about middleschool/highschool shit and get themselves nuked off the site once social media company is made aware. The same way a bunch of people on Neopets get banned when they make it clear they are under 13 back in the day. 

It basically will teach them better habits of not spreading a bunch of personal information about themselves so they don't get caught. 

Edited March 28, 2023 by leadeater
Removed personal attack comment

[mr moose]

21 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Doesn't mater. The only thing that matters if what the constitution says, its the supreme law of the land. If social media platforms can convince the courts that this is government overstep then the law will be struck down. 

So how do the states fair up on the 14th amendment?  Last I saw there were lots of trials that were unfair, did not follow due process and etc etc etc.  It's all very good and well to have a supreme law of the land, but when it regularly gets ignored it's hardly a trump card for a grey area in state law.  And I say grey area because it's not a complete ban, just a partial one as the actual ability to deny freedom of speech is not borne out in reality.

 

21 hours ago, Donut417 said:

 Dont get me wrong, I agree. Personally I don't think anyone under the age of 18 should be allowed even on to a social media platform. But the only way to enforce such a stance would be for these companies to do it voluntary. Unfortunately these companies want the data associated with these accounts, so they wont do that. 

 

So we need to find a way to corrupt this data, this data is what makes facebook, twitter, tiktok, google etc evil.  it is what gives an oligopoly the power.  Time for all you programing boffins to write a virus/bot that does little more than create fake profiles and seed/manipulate cookies, corrupt or seed false GPS data for false people.  Only when the data is useless they will stop fucking us for it.

 

 

[Brooksie359]

7 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

In the US of A.  I don't think there is a federal law on the books setting an age limit for social media.    Let me double check with Bing. 
 

Then I asked it if any US states set such an age limit.  Since these things vary wildly from one state to another. 

I'll take that as a no.  There is some precedent for keeping an age limit in place say for access to adult websites. 

 

Congress shall make no law ....

 

 That depends on the platform, where it is based, and what laws govern it.    There has been an argument made that Twitter, for one, has become so large and so dominant that it is the public square.  That it is a like a government Trust or a utility and that 1A does apply to it.  The same would be true of say Facebook. 

Then there is the issue of the government ("Congress" in 1A's text has been interpreted as applying to the whole government") for a state asking a platform to block someone.   That can violate the first amendment rights of the platform and of the individual. Furthermore, elected officials cannot even block people according to the law.  There are already US federal court rulings on this.  

When does Twitter blocking violate the First Amendment? - Podcast | Constitution Center 

Some legal scholars argue that this may apply to the whole of Twitter and other large platforms too. 

 

A real question is how would Utah impose this on all the forums not based on Utah?  Is California going to enforce a mandate from Utah?  I know my  Illinois won't go along with it.  Any such law would need to be federal to make an impact that is if it would even stand up in court.  Then there are all the other countries in the world that won't go along with this either.   Not if it's just a law of a single state in the US. 

In a purely technological sense perhaps face recognition can be used to tell if someone is an adult or a child.  Though close to the line between 13 and 14 it likely would not be reliable.   A forum like this one can probably cook up a ID verification system but what about the numerous small ones out there? I don't see how it can be done reasonably. 

 

True

Which raises an issue with verifying ages.  To verify age one has to gather information on the person in question.  To verify someone is younger than 13 and exclude them from a forum or social media is also gathering information.  Depending on how that is done compliance with this law could lead to a violation of COPPA.  Since federal laws take precedence over state laws trying to comply with that Utah law would lead to possible exposure to a federal violation.  

In which case the most economical solution would be to block Utah residents from accessing their services.  While they can get around it with a VPN that might not shield the service from legal liability.  

It doesn't matter what legal scholars argue because there are already laws on the book that allows Twitter and Facebook to censor speech on its platform that would typically fall under freedom of speech so to argue that the first amendment applies to social media sites would be directly contradictory to laws on the book. 

[ravenshrike]

22 hours ago, TetraSky said:

How are they going to verify the age? What's stopping the kids from saying they are 18?

They're going to do their damndest. Because the private cause for action part of the law means that if a kid attempts suicide and the parents can in any way connect it to content they came across on social media that's a several million dollar payout. They might end up blanket IP banning Utah because of this, which works for now, right up until a state with a much greater population does the same thing.

[Uttamattamakin]

5 hours ago, starsmine said:

As for ID requirement, I do agree that is beyond sketch, HOWEVER the bill allows for other methods with the wording "may not be limited to a valid ID", whatever that

Age verification usually means something more than just a drop down asking birth year. The other way this has been done is via a credit or debit card transaction ... but these days anyone can have a credit card or debit card.  

 

This all sounds like a bit much but you have to consider the intent of this legislation (US courts will, therefore, so must people in IT who will be liable for enforcing this.)   As absurd as it is, these are people who see being on social media as something that is harmful to and corrupting of the children.  That's basically what the sources on this say.  They blame social media, forums for all the mental health issues of teenagers.   They will want all social media and forums to verify age with the same seriousness as actual adult websites.  Especially onece other states get into the act.  They tend to become more extreme as one state passes a law to do X another state will then have to pass an even more onerous law.   Which is already happening in the other states where this is being considered.   

 

Strict Age verification, as these laws call for and clearly intend often means sending in a photo of yourself with your photo ID card held up next to you.  Then a real human being has to look at it and verify that you are who you say you are and the age you say you are.  An AI could do that part, but they are really bad at verifying age (UN and WHO), and tend to mis classify and misidentify minorities (Harvard).  Plus, I don't think AI's are typically trained on data from minors due to very good laws protecting them and their data. AI's don't really "make decisions" they find patterns that exist, then they recognize those patterns or mimic those patterns.   So, they would not be able to recognize the difference between a 13 year old and a 14 year old.  A very specific AI would have to bee used developed by a team that made an effort to get the permission to gather the data on a great number of children's faces so the AI can know a child when it sees one. 

 

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

It doesn't matter what legal scholars argue because there are already laws on the book that allows Twitter and Facebook to censor speech on its platform that would typically fall under freedom of speech so to argue that the first amendment applies to social media sites would be directly contradictory to laws on the book. 

If those legal scholars are federal judges then it matters.   Social Media | The First Amendment Encyclopedia (mtsu.edu) That is adjacent to the point.

 

Remeber this issue isn't about the platform owner making choices.  This isn't about does person X get to say thing Y on platform Z. This is sovereign government telling platform owners make certain everyone on your social media, forum, etc is over 13, or they go to jail. 

 

1 hour ago, ravenshrike said:

They're going to do their damndest. Because the private cause for action part of the law means that if a kid attempts suicide and the parents can in any way connect it to content they came across on social media that's a several million dollar payout. They might end up blanket IP banning Utah because of this, which works for now, right up until a state with a much greater population does the same thing.

This is the newest trick in many restrictive laws in the US.  Basically, farming enforcement, in whole or in part, out to private actors and civil courts.  So in addition to (not instead of) jail someone can get sued.  This is done because lawmakers know that private actions in a law are more likely to be left in place when/if the law itself is challenged in appeals court. 

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

So we need to find a way to corrupt this data, this data is what makes facebook, twitter, tiktok, google etc evil.  it is what gives an oligopoly the power.  Time for all you programing boffins to write a virus/bot that does little more than create fake profiles and seed/manipulate cookies, corrupt or seed false GPS data for false people.  Only when the data is useless they will stop fucking us for it.

Oh sweet summer child you think this is about data.  LOL.  No this is to the people who passed this law about the "mental health" of the youth.  

If you want to know what this is about look at the comments under this tweet.  Like you don't even have to go far.

 

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

This is the newest trick in many restrictive laws in the US.  Basically, farming enforcement, in whole or in part, out to private actors and civil courts.  So in addition to (not instead of) jail someone can get sued.  This is done because lawmakers know that private actions in a law are more likely to be left in place when/if the law itself is challenged in appeals court. 

Less newest trick and more reversion to historical means of lawsuit. Also, no jail time is implicated in these laws, just fines and injunctions.

 

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

As absurd as it is, these are people who see being on social media as something that is harmful to and corrupting of the children.

Which according to multiple studies it very much is, ESPECIALLY for females.