Florida is on the verge of passing one of the nation’s most restrictive bans on minors’ use of social media after the state Senate passed a bill Thursday that would keep children under the age of 16 off popular platforms regardless of parental approval.

The measure now goes back to the state House, where the speaker has made the issue his top priority during the legislative session that ends March 8. Still, critics have pointed to similar efforts in other states that have been blocked by courts.

The bill targets any social media site that tracks user activity, allows children to upload material and interact with others, and uses addictive features designed to cause excessive or compulsive use. Supporters point to rising suicide rates among children, cyberbullying and predators using social media to prey on kids.

  • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    how the F is the government going to oversee and reprimand this?

    By requiring the platforms to verify the age of their users with identity checks and government ID. I’d bet the 16 cutoff age is because that’s the age when teens get either driver’s licenses or state ID cards.

    Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with protecting kids. It’s entire aim is to tie online accounts to real life users.

    • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      The thing is online access can happen anywhere and because hardware is firmly in the hands of the user, the user controls the dissemination of the data. There’s plenty of AI out there that can generate valid driver licenses with complete PDF417 barcodes related to the state in question.

      There’s no way Florida is going to commit the required funds it would take to police every single aspect. And social media sure as shit isn’t going to bend over and have that policing thrown onto to them freely. At some point Florida will require telephone carriers and ISP to play ball to some degree and then POOF, you’re now in Federal territory.

      That’s why all this state level law making is so bunk. It’s not a problem that can be solved by just saying “Oh, well <16 yo cannot get on.” Unless the State has some really deep pockets to invest in their own technology, Good Luck playing wack-a-mole.

      Additionally, there’s zero ways I would be scanning a driver’s license into some random website. Not with how every other day they leak massive amounts of information. So a lot of these states start getting what pornhub and what not are doing, “Oh you’re from Utah? Okay, well I guess you’re paying for a VPN for your porn.” And that’s ultimately what happens. Everyone just starts using a VPN because the State wanted to pass some “token” law to look like they were doing something.

      It’s all people ignorant of how technology works attempting to legislate technology. They are never going to be successful in any of this, but I guess whatever plays well for your base.

      • Uranium3006@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        If spineless liberals let Republicans get away with this shit, and they are, they can do whatever they want. You have to actually stop them

        • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          How do you suggest Claifornia Liberals stop Florida Republicans from doing this? Floridians literally voted for this to happen in their own state. If anything I say go at it and van all the kids up to 18. That’ll make sure a lot of them get pissed at Republicans and vote against them out of spite. I feel sorry for them because they can’t do anything to change it but maybe once they’re old enough they’ll be able to.

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Then they can very easily create a registry of whatever they want. Someone put pronouns in their bio that don’t match their ID? On a list. Someone signed up for a dating app with their government ID and they’re looking for same-sex partners? On a list. It doesn’t even have to stop there, though that’s definitely where it’s starting. Say on social media that you’re am atheist? On a list. Use your social media presence to criticize the government? You guessed it, on a list.

    • Dankob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      So how come pornhub doesn’t provide ID check? I doubt that’s actually gonna happen…

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      They can already do that just through whatever back doors they can get into social media companies if the corps don’t already just give them the data.

      What this is about is shutting young folks up online because they’re the most vocal opponents of stuff like the don’t say gay bill.

      Personally I’m for government issued universal ID, and I think the government should provide a secure verification API, but I don’t think this because I think there should be age restrictions, I think it because I think it’d be a viable solution to mass botting. Something like 2FA being mandatory would also help so that just stealing someone’s card doesn’t automatically give you access to all their shit.

      • Rivalarrival
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s a viable solution to mass botting in the same way that burning down your fucking house is a viable solution for that spider that disappeared behind your headboard.

          • Rivalarrival
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            It’ll work, but it is complete overkill, and has far more harmful side effects than benefits.

            • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Exactly what harmful side effects are there here? It makes blocks and bans more effective, it significantly cuts down sock puppeting and mass botting, it renders engagement manipulation much more difficult, and it requires literally zero 1984 surveillance state shit, I mean unless you’re one of those quacks who thinks a state ID is 1984 surveillance shit despite it literally just making literally everything about securing state services more accessible including obtaining licenses and benefits.

              • Rivalarrival
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                literally just making literally everything about securing state services more accessible including obtaining licenses and benefits.

                When did “blocks and bans” become a “state service”?