It’s unenforceable, so it’s just a distraction. I assume any “funding” for this will just be pocketed by the governor & cops.
It’s Florida, so the rationale behind it is probably to stop kids from getting information that might make them good people or that might help then understand themselves.
Social media, as it currently exists, is a net negative. We’d all be better off without it.
Even Lemmy, for adults I mean? It’s an infinite book of content, or perhaps more like hanging out at a pub after/instead of work, in that it can be misused but does offer positives of connection, knowledge, enjoyment, correction, and more?
Lemmy is slightly better because as far as I can tell it’s not algorithmically run and it’s decentralized. The data does not appear to be for sale although I’m sure AI is using it for training without compensation.
Lemmy is still ripe for manipulation. At this point in time nobody knows if the other person they’re talking with is real or a bot, AI has made the ability to manufacture consent a lot easier and real seeming when it’s not organic.
I personally believe we fucked up somewhere along the line in our tech development
Lemmy lacks the downsides of other social media platforms and the downsides it does have are mostly shared with them. Although we do lack moderation to create spaces that people feel more comfortable talking in - especially bc reports do not cross-federate (will be added in 0.20 supposedly, and I mean reports to a mod who has an account on another instance). It is what it is. It’s kinda good? :-)
Although we do lack moderation to create spaces that people feel more comfortable talking in - especially bc reports do not cross-federate
To me that is a feature. I’m an anarchist and I frequently get reported by both liberals and fascists.
From what I read of the modlog responses, the top reasons for censoring you are ranting and civility. As an anarchist though, aren’t you okay with being censored - bc you can do as you please, but so too can they? :-) You may think about what it is you are wanting to accomplish - e.g. I wrote out a really long response full of details based on your comment, then decided to replace it all instead. People like reading shorter content that is more to the point. In this case, I decided that was better. Maybe you’ll block me for that, or maybe you’d block me for having done the other, but either way this is what I decided was better for me, right now. You’ll have to decide what you want for yourself:-).
Not blocking you because I have no reason to.
What some people see as ranting is what I consider being autistic. We’re constantly misunderstood so we over explain ourselves.
I’m likely banned for “advocating” violence, but all I’m advocating is self defense against social murder.
Also I got blocked on world for stating the inconvenient fact that democrat joe Lieberman was single handedly responsible for killing the single payer option of Obamacare. That’s a fact that liberals hate.
I get it. You wrote nicely formatted paragraphs here, unlike my message above. We can make ourselves understood when we need to. It’s exhausting though.
Note that not everyone visiting Lemmy does so with a proxy connection. Advocation of violence can get some people in trouble - e.g. I would worry about anyone in Brazil coming here, and perhaps the USA after next month. You can’t impact people after they leave.
There is a need for a casual space that isn’t enshittified by corporate interests like Reddit, and usable by mainstream people who don’t use Arch btw. It looks increasingly like Lemmy might not be able to be it, bc people are so free to express their minds here, that ironically some other people won’t bother to visit anymore. And then where will they go, except back to Reddit? Actions have consequences. I hope you don’t think I’m picking on you in particular - it’s the entire framework here and culture of the Fediverse rather, which is so freeing but then that’s the dichotomy.
I hate interacting with children on the internet so this would be a good idea in theory if it wasn’t unenforcable without massive privacy violations.
Parents job not the govt. I fucking hate shit like this.
I think that I, as a person born on Jan 1st, 1900, can circumvent age gates, then so will these kids.
This is a major waste of tax dollars.
There is research around this that suggests more than half of all children have profiles with an 18+ age.
I recall the most common is to bump their age by 10 years, keeping the month and day the same. Also, many of these are setup with the guidance of a parent.
Also, many of these are setup with the guidance of a parent.
👀 ok it’s one thing for kids to be clever and circumvent age restrictions on websites, it’s another thing for their parents to help them. That’s just bad parenting. Reminds me of a friend of mine who’s mom would buy him alcohol starting around 15 - guess what, at 25 he’s a raging fucking alcoholic who threw his life away. And he was a natural talent and athlete who could of potentially gone pro in his sport.
I’m guessing you don’t have children.
Underaged drinking is nothing like having an account that lets them use the full set of features.
Laws around social media do not allow parental discretion. Do you think allowing a 13 to watch R movies is bad parenting or should that be left up to the parent to decide?
Would you blame movies for teen pregnancy?
Do you blame video games for violence?
The unfortunate reality is your alcoholic friend was likely to become one either the way.
I’ve read that starting drinking early is a solid indicator of future addiction. OTOH I thinks it’s largely genetic.
Correct. Largely genetic to the point there are specific genes that are link to it.
The early drinking part is likely because they are being raised by alcoholics so access to easy and possibly encouraged.
Claiming early drinking alone is responsible for alcoholism is about as meaningful as blaming early marijuana use to drug addiction.
The path to the destination may leads through certain steps but does not require those steps. There is a reason many children of addicts choose absolute abstention.
I’m guessing you don’t have children.
No, and no intention. Irrelevant.
Underaged drinking is nothing like having an account that lets them use the full set of features.
Both are addictive substances that interfere with brain development. One you have to drink to affect brain chemistry, the other you have to use. Social media networks are designed to be addictive.
The internet of today is going to be looked at one day the same way cigarettes are today.
Do you think allowing a 13 to watch R movies is bad parenting or should that be left up to the parent to decide?
Not an addictive substance.
Would you blame movies for teen pregnancy?
Not an addictive substance.
Do you blame video games for violence?
I blame violent society.
The unfortunate reality is your alcoholic friend was likely to become one either the way.
Irrelevant. Anybody’s brain chemistry can be fucked with. Just look at kids going through withdrawal symptoms when they don’t have their tech toys.
You don’t have children and have no plans so let me let you in on a little parenting secret:
Never tell other people how to parent their children.
I’m not gong to bother touching the idea you’ve got in your head that social media is an addictive substance but tv and movies are not not the idea that tech withdrawal is anything like drug withdrawal.
This comment would be better without the “I’m not gong to bother touching the idea you’ve got in your head” bit. It comes across as passive aggressive, and could be replaced with “It doesn’t make sense to me” or similar without loss of meaning.
We’re trying to foster chill conversation in this community, because there’s plenty of other places online and on Lemmy for charged discussion.
Removed by mod
This comment would’ve been a lot better without the insult. It had a good response, but starting any reply with “Fuck off”, even if you felt insulted first, leads to yelling matches, which isn’t what we’re going for here
Also on Jan 1st, Florida is requiring adult websites to ID users before allowing access. So kiss pornhub and other sites goodbye if you don’t have a VPN (because those sites have told Florida to fuck off).
Seems like any enforcement of the law would be a constitutional breach. Crazy the free speech party is passing these totalitarian laws
The rights of children is more murky than those for adults. Just look at how schools can control speech.
It isn’t, though, we just treat children like they aren’t people.
Most social media is bad for you. I don’t think this kind of ban is the right tool. But the idea that everyone would just delete Facebook and Instagram is a dream that will never happen.
The government could break up the megacorps though.
Community tab with content sections
YouTube is social media. So is email. It’s an online platform where people communicate with each other. Socialisation isn’t all food pics and memes. It’s the foundation of society. That’s why it’s the same root word. The law says children can’t use the internet to participate in society.
The bill does provide some exceptions. According to the bill, the term does not apply to an online service, website or app where the exclusive function is e-mail or direct messaging that could consist of photographs or videos shared only between the sender and recipients.
Email lacks upvotes basically, and an algorithmic feed picking content, so children can still text, chat, email, etc. Although these days even SMS texts allow someone to “react” to messages, though no algorithmic feed and limited distribution list so probably not considered “addictive”.
Anyway it’s surely just security theater on the part of Florida, while at the same time social media is legit addictive - both are true at the same time.
I’ve good thing Florida has done I guess. SM is a bad thing and bad for our brains.
ah, yes, the “land of the free”
Free to go to Walmart and buy guns with your bananas
