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

[Uttamattamakin]

22 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

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

Ok that's great.  At least for now.  As I said these laws tend to up the ante as one state sets a precedent passing a law the next state has to demonstrate they care more by making it even more draconian.   Although if you can't/ don't pay the fine you'll have to do the time.  Right?  I've seen this happen to other people who have excessive unpaid fines. 

 

For the big players and well capitalized smaller players not a big deal.  For so many smaller operations that have forums this could be fatal. 

 

22 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

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

Well yeah on immature minds it can be.  The thing is at what point is harm reduction harming peoples fundamental rights?  If a set of parents want to keep tight control of their under 13's social media use they can just deny them a smart phone or computer.  Filter out or time gate various websites and services on their home wifi and so on.  Those parents can and should take control.  Having the government impose fines and injunctions then also lawsuits from private parties (Which if you do not comply with court orders will result in jail) is too much.  Call me too full of state pride but I think IL's solution of going after the cyberbullying directly, rather than blaketing everyone, is the most a government should do. 

Just imagine it's March 1 2024 and 10-15 states covering over 100 million US Americans have a law that would mean this forum, every forum, would need to do an ID check to remain on it.  (Yes it's just Utah for now but as sources cited up thread say other states are considering such laws).   That feels like a huge overreach to me.  As I am sure you'll note it doesn't need to be explicitly in the law for this to be a headache.  All that's needed is for a lawyer to file suit in  CofeeFree City UT, arguing that a forum is a form of social media, and for a judge there to allow it to proceed.   

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

this forum

Does LTT have more than 5 million members?

[StDragon]

IMHO, the bigger issue at hand is lack of communication to parents about the tools already available to restrict content, screen time limits, and location. Examples below.

• Microsoft Family Safety
• Apple Families
• Google Family Link

Schools districts will manage their own, but parents should know by now that social media sites like TikTok and Facebook are predatory for their attention and offer very little to nothing in return for their time spent on these platforms.

And yes, children and teens will find ways around these restrictions, but that's a bigger issue for the parents and schools to reprimand and punish via measured responses.

[Uttamattamakin]

2 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

Does LTT have more than 5 million members?

  Where do you get the numebr 5 million from.  https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0311.html  doesn't say it. Neither does this. https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/SB0152.html

I gladly hope that they were reasonable enough to not require this of even a tiny forum, some php bb forum that's been around. I hope that you are right but I see no proof of that in those text.  I may have missed it can you quote it? 

 

Also  the UT law isn't the only law that either exist or is in process right? The Texas law is much shorter, much more blunt, and not nuanced at all. 

https://www.govtech.com/policy/texas-lawmaker-introduces-bill-to-ban-kids-from-social-media

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB00896I.htm

 

The Texas bill Even bans anyone under 18.  So anyone between 13 and 18.  Like I said, these laws tend to up the ante as each state passes one. 

 

Quote

An individual between 13 and 18 years of age may not use a social media platform.

Furthermore 

Quote

A social media platform shall verify the age of the account holder by requiring the account holder to provide a copy of the account holder's driver's license along with a second photo showing both the account holder and the driver's license in a manner that allows the social media company to verify the identity of the account holder.

Like one article I've read about this, since finding this thread, companies tend to comply with whichever law is the most strict since that will protect them from that law and all the other less strict laws. I wish this was all just false but if Texas passes that bill as it is by September 1st we could be needing ID age verification and only ID age verification to post on any forum that might serve people from Texas.  

From the Texas bill. 

Quote

(b)  A violation of this Subchapter shall be considered a deceptive trade practice under Chapter 17, Business and Commerce    Code, and subject to action by the consumer protection division under Sections 17.47, 17.58, 17.60, and 17.61, Business and    Commerce Code.

It provides for civil penalties, restraining orders, and injunctions etc... however don't pay the fine and you may do the time.  That's ultimately the  issue with fines for smaller operators.   Plus getting entangled with the legal system is itself expensive. 

Lets hope these other bills fail and we never have to provide REAL ID to use a forum. 

[Brooksie359]

15 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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.

 

That is not how that works. The laws on the book already define what type of speech social media companies can censor so it already the goverment making a law on what speech to be sensored with just an extra step. So again first amendment rights do not apply to social media platforms based on the laws on the books already. The amount of mental gymnastics people are doing trying to say this law is bad is crazy. Limiting children's use of social media is good and I don't think we should be up in arms about it as we have many laws on the books restricting children that one might consider crazy if it applies to adults. I mean children do not have the right to vote as well  

[mr moose]

20 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

 

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.  

 

The part of my post that you quoted has nothing to do with what you think it does.  Do you honestly think social media like facebook would be anything like it is today if personal data had no value?

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

The amount of mental gymnastics people are doing trying to say this law is bad is crazy. Limiting children's use of social media is good and I don't think we should be up in arms about it as we have many laws on the books restricting children that one might consider crazy if it applies to adults. I mean children do not have the right to vote as well  

Just classify Social Media as Adult Content and a Restricted Substance, boom 18+ legal requirement. Don't even need a new law, just add it to the list like other things get added.

[Uttamattamakin]

42 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Just classify Social Media as Adult Content and a Restricted Substance, boom 18+ legal requirement. Don't even need a new law, just add it to the list like other things get added.

That really feels like where they are headed.  Look at the text of the proposed law from Texas on this. They seem to want to ban anyone under eighteen from being on social media period.   Their law doesn't seem to make an exception for smaller forums or something.  Depending on how a court wants to interpret the law it could apply to any comments section on any website. Any place where you create an account and have a profile with a history of your postings.  Then demand that every such website keep some kind of record of that information for turnover to the government.  All you know... to protect the children.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

The part of my post that you quoted has nothing to do with what you think it does.  Do you honestly think social media like facebook would be anything like it is today if personal data had no value?

Of course the data on everyone has value but the lawmakers making this law don't actually care about that.  "Oh please won't you think of the children?" Is a line used to pass various restrictive laws forever.  It even has a wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children  that talks about how it's a logical fallacy.  We know this very well now in modern times. 

IT might be instructive to take a look back at when this happened before. 

 

Now that thought process has come once again to technology.   Remember how the weather was a big moral panic about the game mortal combat one when it came out? 

The marketing for it was like this.  in 1992

The fatalities were like this. 

Then the House and Senate of the United States of America had a whole entire hearings on this and considered outright banning of all such video games.  (NOTE: This is from 1993 ok.  Hopefully none of our friends think mentioning that the US has a lawmaking body is "political" especially in a instructive historical and tech related context.)

 

They blamed gaming for the violence in society in the 1990's (we now know the increased violence of the time was strongly (Brookings institute) correlated to the use of leaded gasoline (Forbes) ).  In the video you see Joe Lieberman blaming Mortal Kombat for violence against women, and crime, and every moral ill in society was because of video games.   Ultimately this resulted in the ratings system we have for video games now with the idea that parents would buy the games for their kids and so protect the children. 

This is exactly what they are doing with social media, forums, messaging apps, etc right now.   The "moral ills" are different but the playbook is the same.  "Oh won't you please think of the children."   Social media is making them depressed.  Social media is making them violent.  Social media is making them ..... insert other things here.  It's the second oldest play in the book.  To the extent there are "problems" now much like the leaded gasoline used into the 70's and 80's that lead to the higher crime of the 90's... this new technology is being blamed for things that it has little or nothing to do with.   

 

There were even scientific studies to cite back then based on the short term and relatively sparse data available that gave some support to the idea violent games resulted in violent acts in real life.   There were people who were very certain that games caused violence. 

However, now that we have more data we know that just isn't the issue. ( Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents' aggressive behaviour: evidence from a registered report Andrew K. Przybylski and Netta Weinstein Published:13 February 2019 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171474 ) To the extent there is an effect it is small. (Metaanalysis of the relationship between violent video game play and physical aggression over time
Anna T. Prescott, James D. Sargent, and Jay G. Hull https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611617114)

Speaking of video games.  DISCORD would certainly fall foul of these laws wouldn't it?   Even ones that limit these regulations to only the largest "social media".  Discord certainly would qualify.  How about say the social media internal to games like Grand Theft Auto V and online?  Any video game that has a chat function where you can friend people.  Gotta make sure to protect the children there too.  

[Skyblock]

WHAT THE CRAP IS THIS SO IF BIDEN BRINGS THIS EVERYWHERE I CAN’T GET MY TECH NEWS?!?!

 

[Uttamattamakin]

24 minutes ago, Skyblock said:

WHAT THE CRAP IS THIS SO IF BIDEN BRINGS THIS EVERYWHERE I CAN’T GET MY TECH NEWS?!?!

 

Hello new friend welcome.  Political issues need to be strongly related to technology and discussed in a sober manner here.  Remember this forum is owned and hosted in Canada where the 1A isn't a part of the fiber of the culture.  True it never really applies to forums, even US based ones in a legal sense ...but again it's a cultural thing for us in the US.  Not for those outside the US.  So don't do this    

 

Create light not heat like I am about to try to do. 

 

Anyway to answer your question so far federal legislation on this has not advanced and is not being raised by the president but from congress in both red and blue states.  This is why we need to take this seriously and plugging our ears in forums like this would be unwise.   When there is broad agreement to do a thing in the US it will be done. 

The federal bill to watch would be. H. R. 821

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/821/text/ih?overview=closed&format=xml 

 

While the rep who introduced this was from UT reading the text of the federal bill it looks a lot more like the one from Texas.   Very brief, very blunt and would ban anyone under 16 from all social media.  Which if you think about what counts as "social media" could mean any and all forms of electronic communication that are not email or perhaps text messaging.  Anything where you have a profile, post history, or account.  

Note how it is strategically vague too.  It has a section for definitions but never defines what a social media is.   Not enough to trigger the "vagueness doctrine" which a court could use to rule the law void.  It also establishes a private right of federal action and that violations of this would be violations of the Federal Trade Commission act.  

Just think of how many things we use in gaming can be called "social media" if it is not strictly defined.  Not just Facebook and Twitter but everything from a forum like this one to Discord, to in game chat... you name it. 

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Uttamattamakin
Create light not heat.

[Thaldor]

I would like to post "Eww... American problem" meme here but I save everyone from that.

 

Anyway this would be enforceable would mean that they would need to collect personal information, very intimate personal information, and oh boy, that would be awesome for EU which has this thing called GDPR which is written so it isn't about where the server or service provider is located but where the user is located. You wanna get my driver's license to prove that I am adult? Oh boy, am I gonna request you a ton of more. Also we don't like to give our driver's licenses because if you have that, you can easily impersonate us and that is kind of a big thing.

 

Also just as it touches LTT, what is Utah going to do about my forum? Drag my Finnish ass from cold northern Europe to there for a lawsuit? I may not be able to visit US after that but I don't really see myself visiting US anyway. They block my forum? That's on them, not really my problem. And if they manage to get something more binding like on federal level, I just put up a sign for US residents that we are not serving them.

[Notice: This is also how US sites act on EU legalities]

[starsmine]

1 minute ago, Thaldor said:

I would like to post "Eww... American problem" meme here but I save everyone from that.

 

Anyway this would be enforceable would mean that they would need to collect personal information, very intimate personal information, and oh boy, that would be awesome for EU which has this thing called GDPR which is written so it isn't about where the server or service provider is located but where the user is located. You wanna get my driver's license to prove that I am adult? Oh boy, am I gonna request you a ton of more. Also we don't like to give our driver's licenses because if you have that, you can easily impersonate us and that is kind of a big thing.

 

Also just as it touches LTT, what is Utah going to do about my forum? Drag my Finnish ass from cold northern Europe to there for a lawsuit? I may not be able to visit US after that but I don't really see myself visiting US anyway. They block my forum? That's on them, not really my problem. And if they manage to get something more binding like on federal level, I just put up a sign for US residents that we are not serving them.

[Notice: This is also how US sites act on EU legalities]

I mean, EU law is stricter then COPPA already, and goes up to 16.

[Thaldor]

24 minutes ago, starsmine said:

I mean, EU law is stricter then COPPA already, and goes up to 16.

GDPR isn't about restricting someones access to the site, it's all about collecting and storing data about people and the freedom to not have your data collected. The data collection and storing is a lot tighter when we talk about kids under 16 because they still under custody and so legally cannot sign their right to be forgotten away.

 

Edit: Most sites that blocked EU access after GDPR blocked the access because they don't want to deal with the data security and personal data access requests made by EU citizens and the fines that would become if they didn't honor those requests. Not because GDPR demanded them to block the access.

[Uttamattamakin]

40 minutes ago, starsmine said:

I mean, EU law is stricter then COPPA already, and goes up to 16.

COPPA is about data collection not access.   COPPA does not require entry of a real ID just to get access to a website. 

 

20 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

snip

 

Edit: Most sites that blocked EU access after GDPR blocked the access because they don't want to deal with the data security and personal data access requests made by EU citizens and the fines that would become if they didn't honor those requests. Not because GDPR demanded them to block the access.

Full agreement with this comment.  This would mean a sea change in how US websites function and many non US based websites just blocking the US. With how vague these proposals are as to what counts as "social media" anything web page with a comment section could be at legal risk.  You know, why test it?  Which website is going to volunteer to be the test case with all the hassle and expense of law?  

Social medias, forum owners, and webmasters will have to ask themselves is doing business with the US in this way worth it for them.  Many will just opt out.   I'd not be surprised if some games like GTA Online either cease to function, or cease to have a chat and voice function organic to the game itself.  At least on PC. 

 

 

[Donut417]

40 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

COPPA is about data collection not access.   COPPA does not require entry of a real ID just to get access to a website. 

 

Full agreement with this comment.  This would mean a sea change in how US websites function and many non US based websites just blocking the US. With how vague these proposals are as to what counts as "social media" anything web page with a comment section could be at legal risk.  You know, why test it?  Which website is going to volunteer to be the test case with all the hassle and expense of law?  

Social medias, forum owners, and webmasters will have to ask themselves is doing business with the US in this way worth it for them.  Many will just opt out.   I'd not be surprised if some games like GTA Online either cease to function, or cease to have a chat and voice function organic to the game itself.  At least on PC. 

 

 

Generally if a business does not have a physical presence in a state, laws like this can not really be enforced. 

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

That really feels like where they are headed.  Look at the text of the proposed law from Texas on this. They seem to want to ban anyone under eighteen from being on social media period.   Their law doesn't seem to make an exception for smaller forums or something.  Depending on how a court wants to interpret the law it could apply to any comments section on any website. Any place where you create an account and have a profile with a history of your postings.  Then demand that every such website keep some kind of record of that information for turnover to the government.  All you know... to protect the children.

 

Of course the data on everyone has value but the lawmakers making this law don't actually care about that.  "Oh please won't you think of the children?" Is a line used to pass various restrictive laws forever.  It even has a wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children  that talks about how it's a logical fallacy.  We know this very well now in modern times. 

IT might be instructive to take a look back at when this happened before. 

 

Now that thought process has come once again to technology.   Remember how the weather was a big moral panic about the game mortal combat one when it came out? 

The marketing for it was like this.  in 1992

The fatalities were like this. 

Then the House and Senate of the United States of America had a whole entire hearings on this and considered outright banning of all such video games.  (NOTE: This is from 1993 ok.  Hopefully none of our friends think mentioning that the US has a lawmaking body is "political" especially in a instructive historical and tech related context.)

 

They blamed gaming for the violence in society in the 1990's (we now know the increased violence of the time was strongly (Brookings institute) correlated to the use of leaded gasoline (Forbes) ).  In the video you see Joe Lieberman blaming Mortal Kombat for violence against women, and crime, and every moral ill in society was because of video games.   Ultimately this resulted in the ratings system we have for video games now with the idea that parents would buy the games for their kids and so protect the children. 

This is exactly what they are doing with social media, forums, messaging apps, etc right now.   The "moral ills" are different but the playbook is the same.  "Oh won't you please think of the children."   Social media is making them depressed.  Social media is making them violent.  Social media is making them ..... insert other things here.  It's the second oldest play in the book.  To the extent there are "problems" now much like the leaded gasoline used into the 70's and 80's that lead to the higher crime of the 90's... this new technology is being blamed for things that it has little or nothing to do with.   

 

There were even scientific studies to cite back then based on the short term and relatively sparse data available that gave some support to the idea violent games resulted in violent acts in real life.   There were people who were very certain that games caused violence. 

However, now that we have more data we know that just isn't the issue. ( Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents' aggressive behaviour: evidence from a registered report Andrew K. Przybylski and Netta Weinstein Published:13 February 2019 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171474 ) To the extent there is an effect it is small. (Metaanalysis of the relationship between violent video game play and physical aggression over time
Anna T. Prescott, James D. Sargent, and Jay G. Hull https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611617114)

Speaking of video games.  DISCORD would certainly fall foul of these laws wouldn't it?   Even ones that limit these regulations to only the largest "social media".  Discord certainly would qualify.  How about say the social media internal to games like Grand Theft Auto V and online?  Any video game that has a chat function where you can friend people.  Gotta make sure to protect the children there too.  

Comparing violence in video games and social media is crazy to me. There is plenty of evidence that social media is causing mental health issues for adolescents. It's actually frightening if you see the increase in suicide with social media use as children. Compare that to violence in video games which has little to no evidence to support it causing violence. I mean even if you looked at the people who play video games you could clearly tell that they aren't even the usual people who commit violence. They are to busy playing the latest video game lol. 

[Uttamattamakin]

51 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Comparing violence in video games and social media is crazy to me. There is plenty of evidence that social media is causing mental health issues for adolescents. 

In the 1990. There was plenty of evidence that video games are what made young people be violent.  Until we looked deeper and realized that the ills being blamed on video games where not video games fault.

 

There were even scientific studies that claimed that it was the entire cause.  ..Now that 1 study I cited from the proceedings of the national Academy of science.. Found the effect size is like one percent.  It's basically 0% As the UK's royal society put it. 

 

2 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Generally if a business does not have a physical presence in a state, laws like this can not really be enforced. 

Do you have assets in the United States?  A civil judgment made in one country against someone in another country can be enforced if that person ever makes money in or from that country.  

 

Then this gets to be an issue of decentralized finance. If you get any kind of money out of your interaction with the United States of America you have to comply with its laws the same with any country. 

[Brooksie359]

9 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

In the 1990. There was plenty of evidence that video games are what made young people be violent.  Until we looked deeper and realized that the ills being blamed on video games where not video games fault.

 

There were even scientific studies that claimed that it was the entire cause.  ..Now that 1 study I cited from the proceedings of the national Academy of science.. Found the effect size is like one percent.  It's basically 0% As the UK's royal society put it. 

 

Do you have assets in the United States?  A civil judgment made in one country against someone in another country can be enforced if that person ever makes money in or from that country.  

 

Then this gets to be an issue of decentralized finance. If you get any kind of money out of your interaction with the United States of America you have to comply with its laws the same with any country. 

I am not sure what evidence you are talking about but from what I remember most of the evidence back then was very shotty at best. Social media causing mental health issues isn't nearly the same. If you think Social media isn't detrimental to youths mental health at this point I am not sure we can ever agree on things like this. 

[Donut417]

27 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

In the 1990. There was plenty of evidence that video games are what made young people be violent.  Until we looked deeper and realized that the ills being blamed on video games where not video games fault.

 

There were even scientific studies that claimed that it was the entire cause.  ..Now that 1 study I cited from the proceedings of the national Academy of science.. Found the effect size is like one percent.  It's basically 0% As the UK's royal society put it. 

 

Do you have assets in the United States?  A civil judgment made in one country against someone in another country can be enforced if that person ever makes money in or from that country.  

 

Then this gets to be an issue of decentralized finance. If you get any kind of money out of your interaction with the United States of America you have to comply with its laws the same with any country. 

I’m a US Citizen. If Facebook does not have presence in Utah. Facebook can tell Utah courts to eat dick. Utah law enforcement can’t arrest Facebook employees if those employees are not in the state. Pretty simple. Utah or Facebook can take this to Federal Court, but all a federal court can do is rule if it’s constitutional or not. 

[ravenshrike]

23 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Where do you get the numebr 5 million from.  https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0311.html  doesn't say it. Neither does this. https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/SB0152.html

I gladly hope that they were reasonable enough to not require this of even a tiny forum, some php bb forum that's been around. I hope that you are right but I see no proof of that in those text.  I may have missed it can you quote it? 

Under the Definitions section in each bill.

 

Quote

 (9) "Social media company" means a person or entity that:
156          (a) provides a social media platform that has at least 5,000,000 account holders
157     worldwide; and
158          (b) is an interactive computer service.

159

 (10) (a) "Social media platform" means an online forum that a social media company
160     makes available for an account holder to:
161          (i) create a profile;
162          (ii) upload posts;

---

163          (iii) view the posts of other account holders; and
164          (iv) interact with other account holders or users.
165          (b) "Social media platform" does not include an online service, website, or application:
166          (i) where the predominant or exclusive function is:
167          (A) electronic mail;
168          (B) direct messaging consisting of text, photos, or videos that are sent between devices
169     by electronic means, where messages are:
170          (I) shared between the sender and the recipient;
171          (II) only visible to the sender and the recipient; and
172          (III) are not posted publicly;
173          (C) a streaming service that:
174          (I) provides only licensed media in a continuous flow from the service, website, or
175     application to the end user; and
176          (II) does not obtain a license to the media from a user or account holder by agreement
177     to its terms of service;
178          (D) news, sports, entertainment, or other content that is preselected by the provider and
179     not user generated, and any chat, comment, or interactive functionality that is provided
180     incidental to, directly related to, or dependent upon provision of the content;
181          (E) online shopping or e-commerce, if the interaction with other users or account
182     holders is generally limited to:
183          (I) the ability to upload a post and comment on reviews;
184          (II) the ability to display lists or collections of goods for sale or wish lists; and
185          (III) other functions that are focused on online shopping or e-commerce rather than
186     interaction between users or account holders;
187          (F) interactive gaming, virtual gaming, or an online service, that allows the creation
188     and uploading of content for the purpose of interactive gaming, edutainment, or associated
189     entertainment, and the communication related to that content;

 

---

190          (G) photo editing that has an associated photo hosting service, if the interaction with
191     other users or account holders is generally limited to liking or commenting;
192          (H) a professional creative network for showcasing and discovering artistic content, if
193     the content is required to be non-pornographic;
194          (I) single-purpose community groups for public safety if:
195          (I) the interaction with other users or account holders is generally limited to that single
196     purpose; and
197          (II) the community group has guidelines or policies against illegal content;
198          (J) providing career development opportunities, including professional networking, job
199     skills, learning certifications, and job posting and application services;
200          (K) business to business software;
201          (L) a teleconferencing or videoconferencing service that allows reception and
202     transmission of audio and video signals for real time communication;
203          (M) cloud storage;
204          (N) shared document collaboration;
205          (O) cloud computing services, which may include cloud storage and shared document
206     collaboration;
207          (P) providing access to or interacting with data visualization platforms, libraries, or
208     hubs;
209          (Q) to permit comments on a digital news website, if the news content is posted only
210     by the provider of the digital news website;
211          (R) providing or obtaining technical support for a platform, product, or service;
212          (S) academic or scholarly research; or
213          (T) genealogical research; or
214          (ii) where:
215          (A) the majority of the content that is posted or created is posted or created by the
216     provider of the online service, website, or application; and

 

---

217          (B) the ability to chat, comment, or interact with other users is directly related to the
218     provider's content;
219          (iii) that is a classified ad service that only permits the sale of goods and prohibits the
220     solicitation of personal services; or
221          (iv) that is used by and under the direction of an educational entity, including:
222          (A) a learning management system;
223          (B) a student engagement program; and
224          (C) a subject or skill-specific program.

 

[Uttamattamakin]

11 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Under the Definitions section in each bill.

Good at least the Utah bills aren't doing this vague "social media" thing where they don't define it at all. 

 

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

I am not sure what evidence you are talking about but from what I remember most of the evidence back then was very shotty at best. 

Exactly we know it is shotty NOW.  At the time it looked solid as a rock.  Social science not being as exact as say chemistry that can happen.  I do not know but I do suspect that social media is getting this treatment because certain people in power just don't get it. 

 

53 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

I’m a US Citizen. If Facebook does not have presence in Utah. Facebook can tell Utah courts to eat ****.

Actually no.  Judgements, indictmens, convictions etc etc in one state in the USA are given "Full faith and credit" in the courts of another state. Enforcing out of State Judgment | Domestication & Collection Lawyers | LegalMatch 

 

Quote

Can I Collect My Award if it is Issued Out of State?

 

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the federal Constitution requires that states honor the court judgments of other states. This clause is intended to achieve consistency and uniformity across state lines in regards to court rulings. In the previously mentioned example, the person living in California would still be responsible for damages ruled against them in an Oregon court. The state of California would help the state of Oregon enforce the judgment in order for the plaintiff to collect their award. Collecting judgments across state lines are typically facilitated using the UEFJA.

I wish you were right then I could stop paying my credit cards. All of which are from banks based in other states. 

53 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

 

Utah law enforcement can’t arrest Facebook employees if those employees are not in the state. Pretty simple. Utah or Facebook can take this to Federal Court, but all a federal court can do is rule if it’s constitutional or not. 

No no it does not work that way at all.   Out-of-State Arrest Warrants | Warrant in Another State | LegalMatch
 

Quote

Typically, a valid arrest warrant allows for an arrest to be made anywhere within the United States. 

While it is true there are some circumstances where one US state will refuse to extradite to another US state those are very VERY rare situations.    Extradition Between States: Law and Process - FindLaw  In addition to those there  states will sometimes pass an explicit law stating that they will not extradite to another state for doing something that is strictly protected in their state. I can think of current examples of such laws being passed but they go beyond the scope of discussion. 

My only point, the only point is web site owners won't want to deal with any of that.  They aren't going to en masse go to bat for human rights for minors to be on forums or Facebook.  They'll just comply in a way that protects them.  That means the strongest forms of ID being given to them.  That or they will decide it's not worth the trouble and block access in those states or stop serving the US.  

Who needs the headache? 

[Brooksie359]

13 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Good at least the Utah bills aren't doing this vague "social media" thing where they don't define it at all. 

 

Exactly we know it is shotty NOW.  At the time it looked solid as a rock.  Social science not being as exact as say chemistry that can happen.  I do not know but I do suspect that social media is getting this treatment because certain people in power just don't get it. 

 

Actually no.  Judgements, indictmens, convictions etc etc in one state in the USA are given "Full faith and credit" in the courts of another state. Enforcing out of State Judgment | Domestication & Collection Lawyers | LegalMatch 

 

I wish you were right then I could stop paying my credit cards. All of which are from banks based in other states. 

No no it does not work that way at all.   Out-of-State Arrest Warrants | Warrant in Another State | LegalMatch
 

While it is true there are some circumstances where one US state will refuse to extradite to another US state those are very VERY rare situations.    Extradition Between States: Law and Process - FindLaw  In addition to those there  states will sometimes pass an explicit law stating that they will not extradite to another state for doing something that is strictly protected in their state. I can think of current examples of such laws being passed but they go beyond the scope of discussion. 

My only point, the only point is web site owners won't want to deal with any of that.  They aren't going to en masse go to bat for human rights for minors to be on forums or Facebook.  They'll just comply in a way that protects them.  That means the strongest forms of ID being given to them.  That or they will decide it's not worth the trouble and block access in those states or stop serving the US.  

Who needs the headache? 

There is a direct correlation between depression and social media use and a strong one at that. I doubt there was evidence of violence being heavily correlated to video games back then. Also its not hard to imagine what Instagram and Facebook have done to young women and their self imagine. Combine that with cyberbulling which can be pretty easily stopped by just getting off the internet you can quickly see how this stuff has a big detrimental effect on young people. Also I can't think of a reason why we would want kids to use social media as much as they do. For video games it's much harder for me to think of how violent video games would make one violent but I can easily see how social media would make on depressed. Let me ask you this do you actually believe that social media doesn't have the potential to case depression? I mean just thinking about what it is and what using it can be like you really think that using social media wouldn't cause someone to be depressed? I can easily think of many ways that it could. First and foremost is for women and how unrealistic body image issues can arise from Instagram and looking at photos of other women who use photoshop and thinking that body image is obtainable or just simply making them feel bad about the way they look. Also fomo is pretty common when looking at social media and can easily make on feel sad. Also twitter causes brain damage from to much use imo. Anyways it's pretty clear that social media hasn't been good for young people and banning it is likely not a bad idea. 

[ravenshrike]

36 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

My only point, the only point is web site owners won't want to deal with any of that.  They aren't going to en masse go to bat for human rights for minors to be on forums or Facebook.  They'll just comply in a way that protects them.  That means the strongest forms of ID being given to them.  That or they will decide it's not worth the trouble and block access in those states or stop serving the US.  

My bet is all mid to large websites that come close to qualifying will shift their system so accounts not logged into for 6 months to a year will be "deleted" and require you to try and log in and then "reactivate" them through your email or phone. Which means that the only non-pornographic websites it will likely apply to are Facebook, Tiktok, Instagram, Youtube, Rumble, and Odysee.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, Uttamattamakin said:

ctually no.  Judgements, indictmens, convictions etc etc in one state in the USA are given "Full faith and credit" in the courts of another state. Enforcing out of State Judgment | Domestication & Collection Lawyers | LegalMatch 

Unless the law is unconstitutional. The thing about the internet and big tech, is data flows from state to state. Interstate commerce last I checked is under "Federal" authority, according to the interstate commerce clause in the US constitution. So the only way a judgment can happen is if the law applies. 

 

A great example of interstate commerce actually was here in Michigan. In the early 90s we had a law on the books that if the railroad with a stopped train blocked a crossing for more than like 15 minutes or so they could be ticketed, every 15 minutes. This law was struck down at the Federal Level because its impeded interstate commerce. 

 

Further more judgements can be appealed, that how rich people stop from paying lawsuits, is they appeal the decision and the other party eventual runs out of money. 

[Stahlmann]

Oh man i hope the rest of the world will follow. Imo social media should be accessible at 18 (or whatever the legal age is in each country) and not a day earlier. If age verification is what it takes, i'm all for it.

 

Kind of ironic, but because of social media young people don't learn how to socialise anymore. That's why literally any big enough platform is a toxic cesspool nowadays.