Under 14? No social media for you!

[Fnige]

15 hours ago, Godlygamer23 said:

How are websites going to "verify" age? The information is voluntary - if I really want to use a site that requires a certain age, I can just lie about it. 

Simple, just ask them a math question

[TatamiMatt]

14 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

So they should go out and play?

Everyone has hobbies, yes the outside world should 100% be experienced, but that doesnt take away from the fact that one of someones hobby might be gaming

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Fnige said:

Simple, just ask them a math question

Quiz's worked until the Internet was a thing.

 

[Brooksie359]

9 hours ago, Bitter said:

Rather than making everyone jump through hoops and ID themselves and the content they're viewing online, how about we fix the actual problem which is the purposefully harmful and addictive highly profit driven social media? Oh no we can't do that. We can pass laws that legislate what an individual can do but how dare we pass laws that might legislate what businesses can or can't do.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

These laws are never about protecting children, they're about matching up people to what they're doing so that marginalized and minority communities can be targeted as 'boogeymen' to rally the political masses against to distract them from the real problems. It's happened before, it's happening now, it'll happen again. Divisive politics, divide people into stereotyped faceless groups that are always the 'bad ones'. It's an age old tactic and one used in the 1940's to whip up nationalist sentiments and stoke fear and hate of 'the other'. Until one day suddenly YOU are 'the other'.

 

Banning the selling of a product is basically the same as banning people's right to buy the product. Anyways I will say that I would be on board for more regulation around social media but I think it would be pretty hard to do right and I am not sure I have much faith in lawmakers to do it correctly. I mean restrictions around what age can use a service is relatively easy to make a law about but a law targeting harmful tactics that social media uses doesn't seem nearly as easy. 

[Mark Kaine]

6 hours ago, TatamiMatt said:

Everyone has hobbies, yes the outside world should 100% be experienced, but that doesnt take away from the fact that one of someones hobby might be gaming

true. they don't need to be exposed to toxic media like twitch and twitter because of that though. 

 

you can game perfectly fine without posting about it on "social media" all the time. 

 

 

Spoiler

ironically forums are much better suited, you can post how you killed that one guy "in cod" but no one will really care, you aren't gonna get "famous" for it, but you can also ask for help, especially on specialized forums.

 

[Bitter]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Banning the selling of a product is basically the same as banning people's right to buy the product. Anyways I will say that I would be on board for more regulation around social media but I think it would be pretty hard to do right and I am not sure I have much faith in lawmakers to do it correctly. I mean restrictions around what age can use a service is relatively easy to make a law about but a law targeting harmful tactics that social media uses doesn't seem nearly as easy. 

Shifting legal repercussions onto individuals while still allowing the corporation to do "the things" is a backwards way to fix a problem. Fixing a problem at it's source is much more effective.

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, RasOls89 said:

One possible problems I can see is that children who manages to sneak onto social media and are subject to abuse will be too afraid to tell anyone about it if they are not supposed to be there.

I haven't looked into the punishment of it, but I'm assuming there really isn't a consequence towards the youth for creating a social media account.

 

There will be kids who still have social media, but what they risk is that it gets closed down or risk getting the account deleted [potentially when they are legal age].  It won't prevent everyone but it will change the social aspect of social media, where no longer will it be widespread usage within school.  Planning and communication on it should drop; and with the drop of usage you make it harder on the predators [or the predators will be easier to hopefully catch as kid accounts are spotted and deleted].

 

It's not a perfect solution, but it's still a partial solution that at least hopefully will make a dent in things.

[Sauron]

On 3/26/2024 at 3:50 PM, BrandonTech.05 said:

I think all of this new legislation has the right heart and people under 14 100% should NOT be on social media. There are so many scammers and child predators that are just waiting for kids like these to fall for their schemes. 

That said, I think the age verification is a TERRIBLE idea. Not because verifying age is bad in order to get on these websites, but it 100% could get hacked

Most if not all social media websites already have age limits around 13, so this law's only effect is adding the invasive age verification - meaning it's only bad.

[BrandonTech.05]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Most if not all social media websites already have age limits around 13, so this law's only effect is adding the invasive age verification - meaning it's only bad.

If you don't feel comfortable sharing your age it is your choice to not use social media though...

[Bitter]

27 minutes ago, BrandonTech.05 said:

If you don't feel comfortable sharing your age it is your choice to not use social media though...

Age is anonymous, what is required is personally identifiable information which can be used to pin who is doing what where online, which is bad because anonymity is very important to people who aren't currently in favor with certain other people who happen to be the ones who can arrest, charge, and prosecute them even if they haven't broken any laws. Being guilty of a crime isn't a prerequisite to being charged with a crime and there's very little recourse when wrongfully charged. The police can come, break in your door, take your children into custody, charge you with a crime, then drop the charges and you're left without a front door and your children are in custody, all because you were associated with searches about or spoke to others online associated with "the current bad thing".
 

Spoiler

This isn't feeling far off from the "pinko commie scare" during the "red scare" where gay individuals were outed during a political witch hunt for supposed communists. The preposterous idea was that those with something to hide (being gay) would be blackmailed into working for foreign communist governments. Instead the fear mongering now is that gay people are all sexual predators, the new Boogeyman instead of communists, but the same tactics, same ideas, same results, just a different decade and a different medium of outing. End result will be the same. People who are doing nothing wrong and have done nothing wrong will have their lives upended and ruined by being drug before the court of the public and presumed guilty. All under the guise of "but what about the children". Just look at how Muslim Americans or just brown looking people have been treated post 9/11 in the US. We gave the government carte blanche and it's been abused so bad it's made more enemies than it's caught.

 

[Mark Kaine]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

Most if not all social media websites already have age limits around 13, so this law's only effect is adding the invasive age verification - meaning it's only bad.

lol no? it means the law must be followed then instead of everyone (including websites) just ignoring it.

 

repeated violations should lead to closure of said websites obviously too. 

[Mark Kaine]

48 minutes ago, Bitter said:

Age is anonymous, what is required is personally identifiable information which can be used to pin who is doing what where online, which is bad because anonymity is very important to people who aren't currently in favor with certain other people who happen to be the ones who can arrest, charge, and prosecute them even if they haven't broken any laws. Being guilty of a crime isn't a prerequisite to being charged with a crime and there's very little recourse when wrongfully charged. The police can come, break in your door, take your children into custody, charge you with a crime, then drop the charges and you're left without a front door and your children are in custody, all because you were associated with searches about or spoke to others online associated with "the current bad thing".
 

  Reveal hidden contents

This isn't feeling far off from the "pinko commie scare" during the "red scare" where gay individuals were outed during a political witch hunt for supposed communists. The preposterous idea was that those with something to hide (being gay) would be blackmailed into working for foreign communist governments. Instead the fear mongering now is that gay people are all sexual predators, the new Boogeyman instead of communists, but the same tactics, same ideas, same results, just a different decade and a different medium of outing. End result will be the same. People who are doing nothing wrong and have done nothing wrong will have their lives upended and ruined by being drug before the court of the public and presumed guilty. All under the guise of "but what about the children". Just look at how Muslim Americans or just brown looking people have been treated post 9/11 in the US. We gave the government carte blanche and it's been abused so bad it's made more enemies than it's caught.

 

nope. anonymity is why social media is so toxic.  

[Kisai]

36 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

nope. anonymity is why social media is so toxic.  

Oh? Really? Is that why Facebook's real name policy does nothing to keep it from fostering the same problems that Twitter does?

 

Sorry no. Anonymity just makes people braver (or rather more cowardly) to try for targets that have the means to punch back. A facebook group of idiots will form even under real names, because they are under the mistaken belief that everyone is on their side. People on the fringe ends of the political spectrum make this mistake all the time and attach their real name to their idiotic conspiracy theories, and people just dismiss them as harmless until one of them shoots up a school or poisons the supermarket turkeys at around Christmas. Meanwhile the deranged people on the troll image boards will do the exact same thing and even stream their misdeeds live too.

 

I'm 100% for blocking access to troll sites, facebook, and twitter and anything that operates like it like TikTok and Youtube without supervision by someone mentally stable and mature enough to be able to tell when stuff is fiction or the ravings of someone that is alone in their ideas. Remember all those people who got recruited by ISIL? They were lured away, and they can't come back. That should a big warning against believing people at face value online. If someone wants you to leave your country for some big promise somewhere else, that's a danger flag.

 

And just because someone is 18, doesn't mean they are "well enough" to drive, drink, smoke, or use social media. There are plenty of people who should not be allowed to engage in "adult activities" because they are unable to recognize when they are putting themselves or others in danger. Just look at all the kids who are all too willing to tell some stranger on twitch they are under 13,  it's a "haha, I am stupid", and twitch bans people who go "I'm 12" even as a joke.

 

[Mark Kaine]

20 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Oh? Really? Is that why Facebook's real name policy does nothing to keep it from fostering the same problems that Twitter does?

 

Sorry no. Anonymity just makes people braver (or rather more cowardly) to try for targets that have the means to punch back. A facebook group of idiots will form even under real names, because they are under the mistaken belief that everyone is on their side. People on the fringe ends of the political spectrum make this mistake all the time and attach their real name to their idiotic conspiracy theories, and people just dismiss them as harmless until one of them shoots up a school or poisons the supermarket turkeys at around Christmas. Meanwhile the deranged people on the troll image boards will do the exact same thing and even stream their misdeeds live too.

 

I'm 100% for blocking access to troll sites, facebook, and twitter and anything that operates like it like TikTok and Youtube without supervision by someone mentally stable and mature enough to be able to tell when stuff is fiction or the ravings of someone that is alone in their ideas. Remember all those people who got recruited by ISIL? They were lured away, and they can't come back. That should a big warning against believing people at face value online. If someone wants you to leave your country for some big promise somewhere else, that's a danger flag.

 

And just because someone is 18, doesn't mean they are "well enough" to drive, drink, smoke, or use social media. There are plenty of people who should not be allowed to engage in "adult activities" because they are unable to recognize when they are putting themselves or others in danger. Just look at all the kids who are all too willing to tell some stranger on twitch they are under 13,  it's a "haha, I am stupid", and twitch bans people who go "I'm 12" even as a joke.

 

... on that note, how does "facebook" verify the integrity of its users?

 

 

only time i made a fb account i named myself after a Tekken character and they did not question it, so i question your whole statement due to my own experience. 

 

(i don't doubt this happens though,  but as you said anonymity makes people more "cowardly" or should we say vile?)

 

 

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, BrandonTech.05 said:

If you don't feel comfortable sharing your age it is your choice to not use social media though...

I can share my age, but maybe I'd rather not share other identifying information like, you know, my name and address. Like on this forum, for example. Just because you don't care about privacy (or maybe you do? I doubt BrandonTech is your full legal name...) doesn't mean others don't. Even if I AM willing to use my real name on a social media site I may not want to have to prove it's actually me. In some places (namely florida...) having certain statements tied back to you with absolute certainty may even have you retroactively prosecuted by the state, for things you did that weren't crimes at the time or place you did them.

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

lol no? it means the law must be followed then instead of everyone (including websites) just ignoring it.

 

repeated violations should lead to closure of said websites obviously too. 

Websites don't ignore it, they put the onus on you not to lie. If that's not enough for you, maybe you should put in some effort and actually parent your spawn... and if you are willing to accept them having a social media presence, why should the state of florida come in and stop them?

 

Kids don't want to be anonymous on social media anyway, which I'd argue is part of the problem with modern online interactions, certainly not the solution.

 

Anonymity protects you, especially as a child. It means you can just log off and stop engaging if you get harassed or bullied, without lasting real life consequences. It means you can't be as easily targeted by predators.

 

The result of laws like this (and we have a real life example in the UK trying to enforce personal identification to access porn sites) is that 18 year olds will just create and sell accounts to minors. It doesn't work and it's a detriment to people's privacy and security.

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

nope. anonymity is why social media is so toxic.  

This is demonstrably not true.

https://theconversation.com/online-anonymity-study-found-stable-pseudonyms-created-a-more-civil-environment-than-real-user-names-171374

 

Not that you couldn't just see that by the sheer number of buffoons spewing the most inane bullshit and dogpiling anything that moves, under their full name.

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

... on that note, how does "facebook" verify the integrity of its users?

Well, it knows what you look like. Your friends will tag you.

 

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

only time i made a fb account i named myself Lili Rochefort and they did not question it, so i question your whole statement on that experience. 

I don't use facebook, there are no photos of me on facebook.

 

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

(i don't doubt this happens though,  but as you said anonymity makes people more "cowardly" or should we say vile?)

 

 

 

It makes people more willing to attack targets that would have the means to defend or retaliate. Both Gamergate and MeToo involved a lot of outing of real people doing bad things, but certain targets were like "WTF? Who are you?" but dogpiled and dragged in the public because of some anonymous claim. Yet there were plenty of people who just shared their own experiences and got completely ignored.

 

People only care about cyberbullying/trolling being harmful when it's them, personally being bullied OR when their favorite e-celeb appears to be under attack from journalists, from tips from anonymous trolls.

 

Trolls waste peoples time defending baseless claims. 

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

35 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Kids don't want to be anonymous on social media anyway, which I'd argue is part of the problem with modern online interactions, certainly not the solution.

this isn't about anonymity tho, its about under age people accessing media that's not meant for them (per the law)

 

you cant just say "dont lie" problem solved lol. 

[Mark Kaine]

48 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I can share my age, but maybe I'd rather not share other identifying information

pretty easy solution  - you wont like either though i wager:

 

*everyone* gets a code at birth (an online pass if you will) highly encrypted,  cant be read by websites other than confirming certain information  - such as age.

all information the website would get is "yes, this person can/is allowed to access this media, etc."

 

sure that could be abused, but it would still be much better than what we have now (literally nothing) it would also make prosecution of cetain crimes much easier...

 

and also long-term i don't think this could be even abused much... its about the equivalent of parents buying high percentage alcohol for their kids, sure it happens,  but does it happen often? hell, nah. 

 

*very e a s y solution* to keep your "anonymity"

[dogwitch]

fl snuck this in... people are irk atm

[Sauron]

23 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

this isn't about anonymity tho, its about under age people accessing media that's not meant for them (per the law)

 

you cant just say "dont lie" problem solved lol. 

Yes I can, who says it needs to be law? Does the law prohibit you from showing age inappropriate movies to kids? There are warnings and labels, the rest falls under parenting. If you don't know your kids are on tiktok or whatever, you're a shit parent... but that's it.

16 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

*everyone* gets a code at birth (an online pass if you will) highly encrypted,  cant be read by websites other than confirming certain information  - such as age.

Except kids could just ask their parents, or their friends, for their code. If it's not tied to your online identity it just wouldn't work to do what this is trying to achieve. Just think of systems like PGP... you can just give away your key if you want to.

19 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

sure that could be abused, but it would still be much better than what we have now (literally nothing) it would also make prosecution of cetain crimes much easier...

What we have now is simply not giving your 10 yo a smartphone if you don't think they can use it responsibly. Much better success rate than anything involving ID.

 

Either way the system you propose is not the one being implemented, so that's neither here nor there.

20 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

and also long-term i don't think this could be even abused much... its about the equivalent of parents buying high percentage alcohol for their kids, sure it happens,  but does it happen often? hell, nah. 

Specifically for their children, no... but having it around the house where the kids can reach it, or having their older siblings sneak it in? All the time. In fact, forget alcohol, this is a known phenomenon with guns. I wonder what mr. DeSantis would say if someone proposed restrictions on gun ownership for families with children...

 

Not to mention a lot of people don't, and still wouldn't if it were made illegal, see social media as comparably dangerous to vodka (for kids).

[AllNateLong]

As an American, I really think that it is not the governments job to say who can and cannot use technology. A platform should be allowed to make rules but the parents and individuals should really have the only say that matters.

[thechinchinsong]

7 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

and also long-term i don't think this could be even abused much... its about the equivalent of parents buying high percentage alcohol for their kids, sure it happens,  but does it happen often? hell, nah.

Ah, yes this definitely more like parents buying alcohol for their kids and not parents buying r-rate movies/games for their kids. It definitely won't end up like in China where people just buy accounts from account sellers. If the crux of the matter relies on the parents not make accounts for the kids, why not just let the parents decide in the first place, without these laws that impact everyone else too.

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, thechinchinsong said:

If the crux of the matter relies on the parents not make accounts

no it doesn't. this is all easily traceable and the "pass" is highly encrypted (that's what this hinges on if anything)  if it turns out parents make "accounts" for their children then its a violation of the law and they'll need to pay up, maybe even get their internet rights revoked...

 

2 hours ago, thechinchinsong said:

without these laws that impact everyone else too.

no.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, thechinchinsong said:

Ah, yes this definitely more like parents buying alcohol for their kids and not parents buying r-rate movies/games for their kids. It definitely won't end up like in China where people just buy accounts from account sellers. If the crux of the matter relies on the parents not make accounts for the kids, why not just let the parents decide in the first place, without these laws that impact everyone else too.

The reality is that often the kids that are the ones being harmed, are also being harmed by their parents in the first place. Parents that don't want to parent.

 

You've seen people treat cats and dogs nicer than their own children. The computer is the babysitter. The game console is the babysitter. Tiktok is the babysitter.

 

At any rate, the ideal situation is we just get darwin's law work. If people die, or self-terminate because of social media, go after the platform, get the identity of the bully, throw them in jail for first degree murder. Treat bullying and defamation on social media the same as reality. It sucks, but since the platform doesn't want to be held responsible for the transmission of information that causes death, then it should be required to foot the cost of policing their platform to the level the state wants them to. If the platform is unwilling to employ enough human moderators, then the platform should not exist, or it should close membership to a level that it can. Twitter isn't removing any of the hate speech by blue checkmark users. Hmm, maybe Twitter should stop existing. Facebook knows hate is proliferating on their platform, maybe that platform should not exist. 

 

Police still have this attitude that the solution to "things happening on the internet" is to log-off. They do not treat crimes online with anywhere the severity as the same action in real life. Unless it involves trafficking of children.

[Brooksie359]

On 3/27/2024 at 10:07 AM, Bitter said:

Shifting legal repercussions onto individuals while still allowing the corporation to do "the things" is a backwards way to fix a problem. Fixing a problem at it's source is much more effective.

Say that to prohibition or the war on drugs that made weed illegal. We have numerous cases where the source was outlawed and I would hardly say they were effective. Also an age restriction is super commonplace in law so I am not sure why you are acting like this is some bizarre method of regulation rather than a pretty typical age restriction that is used on something that is detrimental to underdeveloped minds.