Under 14? No social media for you!

[Bitter]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

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. 

They don't record your ID# and keep a database of where you bought it and how much you bought each time you buy a beer or cigarette that could be accessed and used by law enforcement in the future if they see fit. If they did you bet your heiny I'd be against that too. That's the key difference here, that it opens a gaping hole for abuse by law enforcement and historically speaking any time you give law enforcement something they can abuse they absolutely abuse it. Just look at civil forfeiture if you want a great example of giving law enforcement a tool that they take and abuse against the public.

[HumdrumPenguin]

I think it would be a good idea to force people into studying and taking a test about social media and its repercussions. If passing, they'd be granted a "license code" that would be mandatory for signing up. That license code would also be attached to who you are, so creating fake accounts would be significantly harder. If shit hits the fan, authorities would likely have an easier time tracking the perpetrator.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Bitter said:

They don't record your ID# and keep a database of where you bought it and how much you bought each time you buy a beer or cigarette that could be accessed and used by law enforcement in the future if they see fit. If they did you bet your heiny I'd be against that too. That's the key difference here, that it opens a gaping hole for abuse by law enforcement and historically speaking any time you give law enforcement something they can abuse they absolutely abuse it. Just look at civil forfeiture if you want a great example of giving law enforcement a tool that they take and abuse against the public.

Yes there isn't a place that records financial transactions that you make that the police couldn't get access to with the proper warrant. I'm sorry but this is stupid because we already have the ability to even use location data of phones if the police have the proper warrant and you are afraid the police know you use social media? 

[Bitter]

19 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yes there isn't a place that records financial transactions that you make that the police couldn't get access to with the proper warrant. I'm sorry but this is stupid because we already have the ability to even use location data of phones if the police have the proper warrant and you are afraid the police know you use social media? 

Warrant is the key thing there. That's at least a small check on their surveillance powers.

You can pay cash still you know?

[Brooksie359]

50 minutes ago, Bitter said:

Warrant is the key thing there. That's at least a small check on their surveillance powers.

You can pay cash still you know?

Yes and are you assuming that police would have access to the data used to verify age for social media websites and could look up all the social media a person uses without a warrant? I would doubt that would be the case and honestly I am not sure what information they would even get anyways. Also do you really think the police are that busy to go stalking you like that even if they did have access? 

[thechinchinsong]

18 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

no.

Why not though?

[Bitter]

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yes and are you assuming that police would have access to the data used to verify age for social media websites and could look up all the social media a person uses without a warrant? I would doubt that would be the case and honestly I am not sure what information they would even get anyways. Also do you really think the police are that busy to go stalking you like that even if they did have access? 

 

Imagine if you will your child is trans and you live in Florida. A teacher overhears your child talking to a classmate about that and reports it to the school as they are required by law to do. Child protective services go to the police who then access your ID and check what you've been doing online, your child confided their feelings in you, their parents. You went online and found a social media group supporting other parents of trans youths. The police decide this is probable cause to start a child abuse investigation with child protective services. Child protective services takes your children into protective custody while the investigation is conducted. Police seize all computers and smart phones in your house. They find that you looked up out of state doctors who could provide gender affirming care. You're charged with child abuse and prosecuted. Your children are wards of the state placed in the foster care system.

[Donut417]

While I do agree Social Media is a cesspool that should be burned down with fire. I just dont see how they are going to enforce this. The current age verification standards I have seen used on the Net are based on the honor system. Its kinda hard to check ID's on the internet.

[Bitter]

7 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

While I do agree Social Media is a cesspool that should be burned down with fire. I just dont see how they are going to enforce this. The current age verification standards I have seen used on the Net are based on the honor system. Its kinda hard to check ID's on the internet.

NO state government issued ID? NO INTERNET FOR YOU!

[Donut417]

Just now, Bitter said:

NO state government issued ID? NO INTERNET FOR YOU!

Yeah not everyone has an state ID, especially at that age. What are you suppose to do? Place the ID on a fucking scanner and send them a picture? ID's can be faked. So even then they have no way of knowing if its valid.

[Brooksie359]

13 hours ago, Bitter said:

 

Imagine if you will your child is trans and you live in Florida. A teacher overhears your child talking to a classmate about that and reports it to the school as they are required by law to do. Child protective services go to the police who then access your ID and check what you've been doing online, your child confided their feelings in you, their parents. You went online and found a social media group supporting other parents of trans youths. The police decide this is probable cause to start a child abuse investigation with child protective services. Child protective services takes your children into protective custody while the investigation is conducted. Police seize all computers and smart phones in your house. They find that you looked up out of state doctors who could provide gender affirming care. You're charged with child abuse and prosecuted. Your children are wards of the state placed in the foster care system.

Imagine coming up with a scenario that has little to nothing to do with this age restriction law being an issue. First and foremost you don't know if the police would have access to that info without a warrant or if that information is even stored. Second is that with a warrant or sometimes even without a warrant they cN get this type of info even if there isn't ID verification. Last thing is that you are only saying that this could make it easier for people to get caught breaking the law which shouldn't be a bad thing. The issue you are describing seems mostly to hinge on the law that is being violated being not good. 

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

Imagine coming up with a scenario that has little to nothing to do with this age restriction law being an issue.

No, this is about consequences of mandatory ID to access services.

 

If you needed ID to access social media, the chances are you can reach out to mental health services online approaches zero. Because few people will want to talk openly about social issues. You know how I know this? Because I got on the internet exactly when I was 12, before the "web" was a thing. People joined IRC channels if they knew about IRC or usenet (Which "required" your email address.) You know what is scary about IRC? All the ERP and Piracy channels that make looking for anything in the channel list a hazard. How you found anything on IRC was from usenet which was equally a hazard. Before there was Youtube, Tiktok or Discord, "IRC" was king and people were pretty bold about what their intents were. My sister's friend was un-afraid of going onto IRC and just treating ERP as a joke. They were 14 around that time.  They also bragged about it afterwords. 

 

There are many people who treat the entire internet as a joke, and are pretty shameless about it, and they are super popular, kids want to "notice me streamer!", and that's what leads to a lot of these incidents of children being harmed trying to show off and get their streamer "Friend" to watch their video. Some of these big streamers are basically "america's funniest home videos" without any rules.

 

Let's say, that you needed to plug your state ID/DL into the computer before the computer would let you access the public internet. No ID, you get "kid internet" a whitelist of "babysitter" sites . Plug your ID into the computer and the ISP will check if your ID matches the internet subscriber, if it matches, you get to go on the public internet, if it doesn't, babysitter internet. Babysitter internet includes the local banks, government services, a subset of wikipedia in the local language (no talk or history pages,) curated youtube kids, and maybe a few other curated sites by the city council that have no third party ads on them.

 

That is of course a very exaggerated possibility, akin to a mandatory ignition immobilizer on cars that would require the drivers license. Would it keep people from stealing cars or driving drunk? Of course not. People who want to steal a car would just get a tow truck. 

 

What generally happens is we get a slippery slope of closing access to services that people need. Look no further than the situation with credit card payments. People are forced to send cash in the mail if they want to buy things that are legal to possess but not purchase in-state.

 

[SolarNova]

Good.

 

Social media, as it pertains to being perpetually online with a mobile, is very bad for kids. They are addicted to the point of threatening suicide if they cant use it, and going so far as to do incredibly stupid lethal things just because their social media said so.

 

It teaches them to be talked at, and for them to talk at other people, and not engage in proper debate and discourse, especially face to face, resulting in adults incapable of accepting things they dont agree with and retaliating violently or in other extreme ways.

 

Since parents nowadays are incapable, unwilling, or otherwise unable to actually parent, its unfortunately going to be left down to companies, and government, to put in place safeguards to at leeast attempt to keep some semblance of moderation in place on how young people develop as a person. being perpetually on social media is not good for a developing mind, we know this now.

 

The idea that without access to social media these kids wont have anything to do is ...well thats the kind of thinking that results from being on social media all the time. There are plenty of things to do nowadays, more so than in the past, even if one cant 'go outside'.

 

15 hours ago, Bitter said:

 

Imagine if you will your child is trans and you live in Florida. A teacher overhears your child talking to a classmate about that and reports it to the school as they are required by law to do. Child protective services go to the police who then access your ID and check what you've been doing online, your child confided their feelings in you, their parents. You went online and found a social media group supporting other parents of trans youths. The police decide this is probable cause to start a child abuse investigation with child protective services. Child protective services takes your children into protective custody while the investigation is conducted. Police seize all computers and smart phones in your house. They find that you looked up out of state doctors who could provide gender affirming care. You're charged with child abuse and prosecuted. Your children are wards of the state placed in the foster care system.

A rather extreme series of circumstances, but in this scenario the child needs help/treatment.

One would hope the police or social services get in contact with the parents first before any major investigation to inform them of whats been reported and offer assistance/support in an entirely non combative and non accusatory way.

Now if things continue to progress without change, or gets worse, then sure protective services can then step in if they think the child is being pressured into 'the group' or otherwise not offered essential psychological help.

[Bitter]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Imagine coming up with a scenario that has little to nothing to do with this age restriction law being an issue. First and foremost you don't know if the police would have access to that info without a warrant or if that information is even stored. Second is that with a warrant or sometimes even without a warrant they cN get this type of info even if there isn't ID verification. Last thing is that you are only saying that this could make it easier for people to get caught breaking the law which shouldn't be a bad thing. The issue you are describing seems mostly to hinge on the law that is being violated being not good. 

Because the laws are not about protecting children. They're about restricting and chilling access to information deemed "immoral". If they wanted to protect children there's substantially more effective ways to do that like healthcare, social services, nutritional access, childcare, health screenings, immunization programs, gun safety training, improving vehicle pedestrian safety, and so on and so on. These laws are never about the children, that's a dog whistle meant to illicit an emotional knee jerk response from voters.

 

And it's not an imaginary scenario.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/08/paxton-transgender-child-abuse/

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/texas-bill-could-send-parents-prison-providing-gender-affirming-care-n1264060

 

[fultotop]

All it will mean is that anyone over 14 will have to prove their identity, say something wrong they'll know who you are.  If a law was created that said all adults have to verify their identity before having a social media account would you still be as happy.

[Bitter]

33 minutes ago, fultotop said:

All it will mean is that anyone over 14 will have to prove their identity, say something wrong they'll know who you are.  If a law was created that said all adults have to verify their identity before having a social media account would you still be as happy.

I'm sorry,are not adults also over 14??? Yes they're saying that all adults are going to have to show ID to prove they're adults to use social media.

[Brooksie359]

11 hours ago, Bitter said:

Because the laws are not about protecting children. They're about restricting and chilling access to information deemed "immoral". If they wanted to protect children there's substantially more effective ways to do that like healthcare, social services, nutritional access, childcare, health screenings, immunization programs, gun safety training, improving vehicle pedestrian safety, and so on and so on. These laws are never about the children, that's a dog whistle meant to illicit an emotional knee jerk response from voters.

 

And it's not an imaginary scenario.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/08/paxton-transgender-child-abuse/

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/texas-bill-could-send-parents-prison-providing-gender-affirming-care-n1264060

 

We are talking about age requirements on social media usage. Social media is very well knows to cause mental health issues in young people. Well it probably causes mental health issues for all people but it's worse for children. If you think this is about immoral information then you are wrong. There are very legitimate concerns that this would address. Also you are not getting the point. You have an issue with the law you linked not the law about social media usage. If that law you linked didn't exist then the issue you have wouldn't exist which is my entire point. It would be like saying they should get rid of cps because they can be used in the way you described. 

[Brooksie359]

12 hours ago, Kisai said:

No, this is about consequences of mandatory ID to access services.

 

If you needed ID to access social media, the chances are you can reach out to mental health services online approaches zero. Because few people will want to talk openly about social issues. You know how I know this? Because I got on the internet exactly when I was 12, before the "web" was a thing. People joined IRC channels if they knew about IRC or usenet (Which "required" your email address.) You know what is scary about IRC? All the ERP and Piracy channels that make looking for anything in the channel list a hazard. How you found anything on IRC was from usenet which was equally a hazard. Before there was Youtube, Tiktok or Discord, "IRC" was king and people were pretty bold about what their intents were. My sister's friend was un-afraid of going onto IRC and just treating ERP as a joke. They were 14 around that time.  They also bragged about it afterwords. 

 

There are many people who treat the entire internet as a joke, and are pretty shameless about it, and they are super popular, kids want to "notice me streamer!", and that's what leads to a lot of these incidents of children being harmed trying to show off and get their streamer "Friend" to watch their video. Some of these big streamers are basically "america's funniest home videos" without any rules.

 

Let's say, that you needed to plug your state ID/DL into the computer before the computer would let you access the public internet. No ID, you get "kid internet" a whitelist of "babysitter" sites . Plug your ID into the computer and the ISP will check if your ID matches the internet subscriber, if it matches, you get to go on the public internet, if it doesn't, babysitter internet. Babysitter internet includes the local banks, government services, a subset of wikipedia in the local language (no talk or history pages,) curated youtube kids, and maybe a few other curated sites by the city council that have no third party ads on them.

 

That is of course a very exaggerated possibility, akin to a mandatory ignition immobilizer on cars that would require the drivers license. Would it keep people from stealing cars or driving drunk? Of course not. People who want to steal a car would just get a tow truck. 

 

What generally happens is we get a slippery slope of closing access to services that people need. Look no further than the situation with credit card payments. People are forced to send cash in the mail if they want to buy things that are legal to possess but not purchase in-state.

 

Yeah I don't see your point. It's just ID verification not that you would have your ID publicly tied to the social media account that anyone could see. 

[SansVarnic]

Sooooo... because of anonymity, based on arguments thus far, this forum is a raging sesspool of vilenes, gotcha

/s

[Bitter]

9 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

We are talking about age requirements on social media usage. Social media is very well knows to cause mental health issues in young people. Well it probably causes mental health issues for all people but it's worse for children. If you think this is about immoral information then you are wrong. There are very legitimate concerns that this would address. Also you are not getting the point. You have an issue with the law you linked not the law about social media usage. If that law you linked didn't exist then the issue you have wouldn't exist which is my entire point. It would be like saying they should get rid of cps because they can be used in the way you described. 

The bill sponsors are using protection of children as a dog whistle to get people on board for censorship, reduced free speech, and intimidation of certain groups they dislike. These are the same people responsible for banning books in schools, removing women's healthcare, rolling back free school lunch programs, reducing Medicaid, etc. This bill isn't by itself, it's part of a broad sweeping attack on freedom under to very thin and polarizing veil of protecting children. It does not exist in a vacuum. Those same social media harms are also bad for adults too, so why not try to fix social media as a whole? Because it's not about that.

9 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yeah I don't see your point. It's just ID verification not that you would have your ID publicly tied to the social media account that anyone could see. 

I'll call back to post 9/11 again as historical evidence of government overreach and blatant abuse, look at the no fly list system, the secret FISA court that issues surveillance warrants, and the anti Muslim American programs ran by federal, state, and local police forces. Replace Muslim with LGBTQ, liberal, etc. Dividing people into small groups and pitting them against one another as the perceived "evil group destroying your country" is one of the classic ploys of early nationalistic fascism. Divide and conquer.

 

Arguments in the Supreme Court from lawyers representing doctors against abortion fessed up that their clients want a legal foothold to refuse even lifesaving emergency medical intervention to anyone they deem as having sinned or as immoral. They would rather watch a patient die than save them under the stance that saving a sinner makes them complicit in the sin. These people are doctors who are staffing hospitals and may end up on hospital boards to set policy at their hospital, may end up on state medical boards and control laws governing entire states. Imagine a country where you could be left to die outside an emergency room because hospital policy forbids admitted you just for being gay, cohabitating, because you had an abortion, are the wrong religion, identify as atheist, aren't baptized, etc.

Yes this is related because these are the same groups and people pushing these "child protective" laws across the country. They want to stop groups of people they don't desire to live from talking to each other and gaining political and public power, the invisible minority is the easiest minority to erase.

[Sauron]

On 3/29/2024 at 2:26 AM, Donut417 said:

Yeah not everyone has an state ID, especially at that age. What are you suppose to do? Place the ID on a fucking scanner and send them a picture? ID's can be faked. So even then they have no way of knowing if its valid.

Let alone prove the owner of said ID card is actually the one signing up for the service.

[djksm]

On 3/26/2024 at 9:24 PM, TetraSky said:

Well, that's a legislation that will totally work because kids would never lie on their age.

we dont?

i-- i mean yes we dont

[BrandonTech.05]

On 3/28/2024 at 2:46 PM, HumdrumPenguin said:

I think it would be a good idea to force people into studying and taking a test about social media and its repercussions. If passing, they'd be granted a "license code" that would be mandatory for signing up. That license code would also be attached to who you are, so creating fake accounts would be significantly harder. If shit hits the fan, authorities would likely have an easier time tracking the perpetrator.

Features like this will probably never see the light of day unless for paid accounts. Seems like its too reasonable for literally everybody to do. I mean, a way to verify people are real without money changing hands? That's crazy.

[SolarNova]

On 3/30/2024 at 2:06 PM, Bitter said:

These are the same people responsible for banning books in schools,

if i'm not mistaken, and i'm not American so i may well be on this particular issue, wasn't that actually about common decency and re-confirmation of what is and is not appropriate in schools for young children along the lines of pornography.

IIRC the books mentioned were entirely unsuitable for kids of the age that were being targeted, with content of a pornographic nature and discussion on sexual activities that such young children shouldnt even be thinking about let alone being taught in detail from a random book.

 

So if thats what you on about, in all seriousness thats REALLY! not something you want to be using in defense of your point of view.  >.<

 

Anyhow, it doesn't matter where the bill is coming from, or who has put it forward.

The idea of restricting social media and all that it has become from those that it is currently harming, is a good thing. Access to information and communication isnt being entirely shut of here, just the easy access to the cesspool that is social media until such a time that a person is somewhat more capable of navigating through it without being permanently harmed by it.

[Bitter]

17 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

if i'm not mistaken, and i'm not American so i may well be on this particular issue, wasn't that actually about common decency and re-confirmation of what is and is not appropriate in schools for young children along the lines of pornography.

IIRC the books mentioned were entirely unsuitable for kids of the age that were being targeted, with content of a pornographic nature and discussion on sexual activities that such young children shouldnt even be thinking about let alone being taught in detail from a random book.

 

So if thats what you on about, in all seriousness thats REALLY! not something you want to be using in defense of your point of view.  >.<

 

Anyhow, it doesn't matter where the bill is coming from, or who has put it forward.

The idea of restricting social media and all that it has become from those that it is currently harming, is a good thing. Access to information and communication isnt being entirely shut of here, just the easy access to the cesspool that is social media until such a time that a person is somewhat more capable of navigating through it without being permanently harmed by it.

Many many books on the ban list aren't that, some are simply written by someone gay. Some are intended for young adult and do tackle different difficult topics.

Some however....

https://theweek.com/articles/459795/america-surprising-banned-books