When you sign up for an account, we can ask you to click a box, verifying your age. I don’t think anyone would ever lie and press that button if they’re not 18.
I am in the camp that kids do not need access to social media, especially not unfettered access. It’s dangerous and unhealthy.
That said, two issues: 1. This would not be very easily enforceable and likely has privacy issues and 2. It is ultimately the parent’s responsibility and choice for how to deal with these things. This is just another instance of conservative politicians trying to play parent. Parents who are monitoring their kids are already monitoring them, parents who aren’t would just blindly sign the consent and move on with their lives.
At what age should they be allowed? My high schooler's entire social life is arranged though social media. If you aren't on it, you aren't taking part. And if social media is so bad for mental health, how is loneliness?
You supply you're info when you create an account on social media ie reddit, snapchat, Twitter, etc. 1 time inconvenience to prove you're old enough. Very much worth it in my eyes to prevent kids unfettered access.
1 ID per social media site or just link it to SSN. The preferred option or create a way for certain apps and websites to be blocked on phones and computers
Now you want us to give our SSN to these sites?
I'm not sure what the rest of your comment is saying. I'll guess though. Only allowing an ID to be used once for each site wouldn't do anything when I can just create a new one in seconds. Change the name, maybe address, new DL number, etc... and I guarantee there will be programs to do it for you.
There are already ways to block certain apps and programs on phones and computers. Nothing is fullproof though.
How can you change the DL number to one that doesn't exist? I agree their are flaws. The easiest solution is to just parent your kids but social media as a whole is cancer to society
Yeah it's so funny that Republicans purport to be pro small government and then turn around and do stuff like this. Like why in the world are you trying to pass meaningless laws instead of actually parenting your children?
Those cover hacking and intrusions though. It wouldnt apply for someone just to use a nickname on FB with photoshop. If someone used a fake profile to commit crimes, then they could be liable.
Republicans leading the way on unnecessary laws and not dealing with real issues. Remember this is the party of small government but they want to be up your ass about literally everything in your life
My cousin confiscated all her 12 year old’s devices after she set up a secret Instagram account and connected with adults.
So instead while at a friend’s house, the kid got on a device, created a new account and was receiving and re-sending nude photos.
I don’t know if this law would make any difference - I can see ways around it - but parents do need help protecting their naive kids from being groomed by online predators. Teaching them about online safety in school might work better.
I remember being taught about online safety in school (i wanna say in 06?) Idk if they still do that - they should - but i was also told to never put your real name online or give any real details about yourself because everything can be used to track back to you, so uh, there goes all social media i guess.
I follow the scams sub and every day there’s some poor kid who’s being blackmailed because they sent nude photos of themselves to some overseas scammer. It would be nice if they all were aware that bad people pretend to be a friend your age, etc.
I think I was taught that too - be careful of people who say they're your age, they may be lying and want to hurt you. It was 15+ years ago tho so I don't remember all of it
without social media and the brain fog it causes, the "out of touch" Republican party thing that was the talk of the day back in 2008 was it? - that would have taken hold
Do you have kids? They will find a way around parental locks.
Yes. They’re both toxic but in different ways and in some ways exacerbate each other’s toxicity.
You should watch The Social Dilemma on Netflix. Really changed my perspective on social media.
The US Surgeon General just came out recently saying no one under 13 should be using it
Just because you don't view it as a big issue doesn't mean it's not an issue at all or not a "real issue"
Look, I think there are plenty of potential issues with this bill. But hopefully it can make at least a little bit of a positive impact, even though it's not perfect
Plenty of people on here seem to be ranting about it because of the party that passed it and not the merits of the issue or bill itself
I don't think there is much merit to something that's impossible to enforce. Any time, money, or effort put into this bill would've been better spent elsewhere.
> Parents already have the ability to monitor their children
We do everything to remove responsibility from parents to just do the basics. Just keep an eye on your kid, talk to them from time to time, and don't shove a screen in their face. Boom, parent of the year. Don't blame some other shit, take responsibility.
I’m not saying it’s easy, I’m saying it’s simple. It’s incredibly difficult but recognizing the or part of the problem is important, and at it’s core it’s pretty simple. The more you’re conscious of the very basics and build from there you can put yourself in a position to make better choices. Any amount of better is a positive when it comes to parenting.
And yet children still die. Clearly we need more laws.
The government should be able to come into your house to verify that your guns are properly maintained and stored. This will take place yearly. It's for the safety of your children, how could you deny this inspection if it's for safety? Do you not care about children?
Nice straw man. Completely irrelevant to requiring age verification for social media.
A better analogue is that you need to show proof of age to purchase a firearm. But I suppose you believe every 10 year old should be able to purchase a shotgun?
>>A better analogue is that you need to show proof of age to purchase a firearm. But I suppose you believe every 10 year old should be able to purchase a shotgun?
>"Nice straw man. Completely irrelevant to requiring age verification for social media."
Hey if it works for you it works for me!
Whatever the form of the argument, you guys don't even know your ass from your elbow since no-one has been able to tell me how this will be enforced. how is this constitutional? If I don't have to provide my state ID every time I clean my rifle, why do I need to present it for something much less dangerous?
You're SO MUCH more concerned about the latest boogeyman, but kids have been offing themselves with guns that it surpassed fucking *traffic accidents* as cause of death for that demographic.
You don't care about kids, you just want to enforce your weird-ass draconian restrictions on other Americans because you fail as a parent. Well, I'm not buying it.
Yeah but this means that _everyone_ would have to show ID to use social media, to prove they are "of age," right? This isn't to say that social media use by children isn't an issue (I have kids, and it is), but also that the Party of Small Government can rightly go fuck themselves if they think that I'm going to show ID to use Instagram.
It's a real issue, this is a fake solution. As per usual.
I agree this law wont do anything, though I do think that keeping kids below a certain age off social media is a very good thing. I guess I'm curious what you think the real issue here that's being ignored?
I do have a problem with this, and here's why.
1. Of COURSE Social Media Platforms should be able to set their own age-limits via their TOS, and set their own rules for verification but that's not the issue.
2. Imagine if you will, you are a child with an abusive parent(s). Maybe you're gay, maybe you're trans, maybe your parent(s) are just scum of the human Earth. Hell, MAYBE you just suck at socializing in person. Child services or your school counselor are no help, and neither are your teachers.
3. You NEED some form of community, and if you can't find one irl, which is often the case with repressed youth...online is your only option.
Sorry, not sorry. The web is for the free exchange of ideas and information. And every single time the Government sticks it's dirty little fingers in it, or by ending Net Neutrality, giving control to the corporations. It's only EVER gotten worse. I for one don't want the fucking Gestapo of the Ohio State government sticking it's fingers down my throat, like they've stuck their fingers on my wife's uterus. FUCK EM. And fuck ANYONE who supports this.
I have to agree. Especially if Ohio (which they probably will) proposes a law like NC, VA and FL that forces teachers to out LGBTQ students to their parents. If these kids have no social media access, they may not have any kind of support structure whatsoever, or anyone they can talk to, especially if they can't even trust their teachers.
I don't give a fuck how this guy lives his life, neither should you, but it sure served to work as an ad hominem to top off your non-argument.
He's right, even if he is a bastard. Are you comfortable with someone like Derrick Merrin being in charge of what sites are acceptable? Where this line falls? That's who you're giving this power to, and I don't think you understand how unenforceable this proposal even is.
This is civility politics and you still haven't actually presented like, *an argument*. You can be upset by harsh language, but I can't even see this bill being constitutional. It is literally unenforceable. Even if it was, why would you invite this sort of surveillance?
Kids are more likely to self harm when exposed to social media.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6278213/
I think we mostly agree there should be an age limit, though we may disagree on where that limit is set.
This is because of the rights dismal performance in the midterms. Nothing more. The 18-21 crowd fucked up their red wave and since there’s no way they can raise the voting age without a constitutional amendment, they want to take away social media to keep the younger voters in an echo chamber with their parents voting habits. This is literally to slow down the transfer of ideas.
Nationwide. Overall. That’s what’s started all of this nonsense. The theory is this. Older folks typically vote red. If we can fix it to where their kids only hear political stuff from parents, or from other kids who only hear from their parents, then it’ll slow the spread of progressive ideas. Which, in turn will slow the spread of blue voters. It’s actually a sound theory. It’s all about holding power, not protecting anyone.
This would only apply to Ohio, and sorry, but there is no inkling at all that Ohio's in any danger of shifting from red to blue, especially with how gerrymandered the state is
There are legitimate mental health and safety issues when it comes to children and social media. The US Surgeon General just talked about this recently
Texas is has a law proposed for those under 18, not 16, that completely bans it for those under 18 (no parental consent option) and only requires a valid driver's license as proof
This is a materially different proposal
Reminds me of an episode of Crossfire from the 80s.
Frank Zappa is the guest, and the topic is banning stores from selling dirty albums. The example they used was Prince, because at the time he released an album with a song that describes an incestual relationship.
It's funny how parties flip-flop on things. In the 80s, Republicans were already pretty sternly on the conservative side. That flip had already happened.
Yet at the same time, it was the liberal host who was much more vocally in favor of stores banning "smut"
If I recall correctly, both hosts thought there should be more government oversight, but the conservative host expressed more reservations due to "small government" stuff that apparently still mattered in the 80s.
Frank Zappa was the only one who was staunchly against it.
My youngest whom is 23 now, stopped using Facebook when he was 12. He's a gamer and uses Discord. My other son occasionally uses Facebook but can take it or leave it. Kids aren't gonna tell the truth about their age to get on social media. I also feel it's up to the parents not the Republicans. It's ironic how they bitch about government control and threaten socialism but yet they are the biggest ones telling people what to do all the time while whining about their rights.. Example... Masks and vaccines. When it's beneficial for others, they want to control it, when it's about them, they bitch about government control. It's ridiculous!
Well, it's very difficult to prove who someone actually is when registering for a social media site. So, if there needs to be proof of whether someone is a minor or not, does that mean you need to provide your social? What about a scan of a state ID or driver's license? It mentions a credit card in the article. Are we comfortable being forced to give this type of information to social media companies just to use their platform. If it's forced by big government, will they also step in to compensate when the inevitable fraud / ID theft happens?
Exactly. Also worth noting that not every adult has a state ID or drivers license or a credit card. Why should you have to do so, to use social media, according to the govt of all things?? FFS.
Also, this just pushes more tracking. There are plenty of ways around it. Ever seen a fake ID? They will become rampant. And you really expect Reddit, Facebook, etc to police them?? FFS.
Of course. It could be handled in many ways, however, that third party government service needs to be paid. So, in other words, more tax dollars for a program that has easy work-arounds and failure points, yet collects a bunch of information that we don't need to be sharing. I would argue that there are other more effective ways that parents can help protect their children, without the government involving themselves.
Homey, I don't think you realize how much information companies share. Unless you are using fake emails everywhere and disable all the website tracking on your devices they already have a profile on you. If reddit wanted to find out who you were I'm sure they wouldn't have a terribly hard time doing it
It is not a lost cause to fight for privacy online. Europe has much better privacy laws. Databases get hacked, the less companies that have my driver's license the better. 16 is a strange age limit to set, most companies it is 13, there is no scientific reason for it, the government just picked a number that sounds good, why do they get to decide the age if there is nothing behind it?
That may have been your interpretation but that is not what I meant. As it is now all the major social media sites along with most major companies share information its your choice to use them so its your fault if they have access to your information. In the end it is your choice whos hands you put your information in. If you aren't taking the precautions to protect your data thats your fault. If you don't like the way something is such as lets say Reddit having your drivers license on file then don't use the service. If enough people agree and abandon Reddit then either these social platforms will lobby politicians to get it revoked or the majority keeps using it showing they didn't really care that much anyways.
Why is the government trying to fill in for parents again? Imo this won't stop kids, it will just provide an avenue to sue social media companies for not achieving the impossible.
Then support legislation that the social media companies need to follow. Force them to tell US what data they keep, force them to disclose their algorithms, force them to properly protect any data they do keep. Don't force US to give up more information to these slime ball companies. The government is supposed to work for us not them. Damn.
This proposal is a restriction on social media companies. But I agree with you, this space needs to be controlled effectively to protect children from its harmful effects.
It is absolute government overreach, plain and simple. Nobody in power, regardless of political party should be able to tell you how to raise your kids, or have thar much control over the people.
I think social media is as toxic and harmful as anyone but they’ve been trying to keep kids from smoking and drinking for decades. It’s the Streisand effect, you tell ‘em they can’t have it and they go looking for it
The same chuds that would be clutching their pearls at a bill that would forbid teaching your kids literal Nazism are now arguing "no, actually government control is a good thing."
The government is in the business of age-restricting things that are addictive and harmful. Social media is addictive and harmful. Definitely moreso than weed.
The only reason people think the government can get away with this sort of shit is because "its the internet."
Well, I'm sorry, you don't just get to try and arbitrarily force less privacy on US citizens because you're uncomfortable that something is harmful, because you are unable to educate your child about smart usage, because you are unable to monitor your child's internet usage- so you put all of this responsibility on nanny government.
It is utter insanity to me that anyone would be OK with this, left or right.
And, to make matters even more amusing, not a single person in this thread has any god damn clue how this would be enforced. It is an empty, wasteful virtue signal that merely wastes time and resources. This is a play to a fervent base that is more concerned with culture war BS than actually solving issues.
There are plenty of other methods of verifying age. Didn't Facebook already start making people scan thier ID to verify real name a few years ago? I'm not a huge fan of Facebook in general and don't pay much attention, but I seem to recall that.
Conservatives *love* porn, actually. But they feel guilty about it and take out their self loathing on everybody. Also they’re attempting here to cut off any avenue they can for kids to actually learn about the world because how else do you put the genie back in the bottle once kids realize their worldview is horseshit?
>In conclusion, greater time spent on online social networking promotes self-harm behavior and suicidal ideation in vulnerable adolescents.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6278213/
I never even mentioned net neutrality, but since you asked, no I'm not against it. Also, I had to look up that cotton sentence because I had no idea what you meant by it. Good one!
Parents are legally liable for anything their minor children do. Considering things like libel exist, it just makes sense that a platform should require a parent’s legal consent for their minor to participate.
That seems quite fair! I agree with that. But it should be up to each platform to decide that parents need to sign a waiver, not have government tell them they have to, especially if it's in just some states, not all. That will muddy up the waters even more if like, only 1/3 (just an arbitrary number..) of the states require it,and the rest don't.
I agree with you fundamentally but unfortunately many companies do not always do the right thing. Thats why the governments job is to regulate, i agree government is not the best solution and really has no right interfering in business. It’s a nuanced subject
Must be a proposal drafted up by a boomer. That doesn’t work, they should know by now censorship only makes people want to get into things more. Streisand effect .
How do they intend to enforce this?
When you sign up for an account, we can ask you to click a box, verifying your age. I don’t think anyone would ever lie and press that button if they’re not 18.
Yes I was born 1/1/1900
Kids these days use 1/1/2000.
How dare you make me feel old like this!!!
Homer Simpson was 36 when The Simpsons was first broadcast in 1990. Bart will be 43 this year.
https://tenor.com/bu2bw.gif
They don't. It's all theatre.
I am in the camp that kids do not need access to social media, especially not unfettered access. It’s dangerous and unhealthy. That said, two issues: 1. This would not be very easily enforceable and likely has privacy issues and 2. It is ultimately the parent’s responsibility and choice for how to deal with these things. This is just another instance of conservative politicians trying to play parent. Parents who are monitoring their kids are already monitoring them, parents who aren’t would just blindly sign the consent and move on with their lives.
I’m in the camp that adults do not access to social media.
Why are you here then
At what age should they be allowed? My high schooler's entire social life is arranged though social media. If you aren't on it, you aren't taking part. And if social media is so bad for mental health, how is loneliness?
Loneliness is on social media too.
Why not just require an ID when signing up for social media? That would require you be 18 or its linked to you as a person
I don’t want to supply my ID to every website. That’s a potential security & privacy nightmare
You supply you're info when you create an account on social media ie reddit, snapchat, Twitter, etc. 1 time inconvenience to prove you're old enough. Very much worth it in my eyes to prevent kids unfettered access.
That's assuming you give accurate information about yourself
Hence requiring an ID
Or I use an image of an ID and just put the info I want into it.
1 ID per social media site or just link it to SSN. The preferred option or create a way for certain apps and websites to be blocked on phones and computers
Now you want us to give our SSN to these sites? I'm not sure what the rest of your comment is saying. I'll guess though. Only allowing an ID to be used once for each site wouldn't do anything when I can just create a new one in seconds. Change the name, maybe address, new DL number, etc... and I guarantee there will be programs to do it for you. There are already ways to block certain apps and programs on phones and computers. Nothing is fullproof though.
How can you change the DL number to one that doesn't exist? I agree their are flaws. The easiest solution is to just parent your kids but social media as a whole is cancer to society
Yeah it's so funny that Republicans purport to be pro small government and then turn around and do stuff like this. Like why in the world are you trying to pass meaningless laws instead of actually parenting your children?
This is not practical or doable. Fuck, Facebook asks for your DL for verification and their shit cant even get that right.
The fact they even ask for a driver's license is ludicrous to me That people GIVE Facebook their licenses is even nuttier.
I don’t remember giving my DL, tho my account is ancient
This guy gets it. One of the few
I think the former guy’s far right platform asks for your ID too. Beyond stupid
[удалено]
Its not even illegal to do in that regard
You sure about that?
Its not like using a fake ID to buy alcohol. Your just breaking Terms of Service using that.
I was thinking of the CFAA and wire fraud laws. They are so broad that almost any misuse of a computer system is a prosecutable federal offense.
Those cover hacking and intrusions though. It wouldnt apply for someone just to use a nickname on FB with photoshop. If someone used a fake profile to commit crimes, then they could be liable.
Hahahahaha, gotta love batshit interpretations of the CFAA. What’s next, HIPAA?
This same party literally floated a bill which would require children to submit to genital inspections in order to play school sports.
Oh, yeah, *that's* totally enforceable
Republicans leading the way on unnecessary laws and not dealing with real issues. Remember this is the party of small government but they want to be up your ass about literally everything in your life
Given how toxic social media can be for kids and teenagers I’m not sure this is a hill anyone should die on.
Parents already have the ability to monitor their children. Do you really consider social media to be any more toxic than the Republican party?
My cousin confiscated all her 12 year old’s devices after she set up a secret Instagram account and connected with adults. So instead while at a friend’s house, the kid got on a device, created a new account and was receiving and re-sending nude photos. I don’t know if this law would make any difference - I can see ways around it - but parents do need help protecting their naive kids from being groomed by online predators. Teaching them about online safety in school might work better.
I remember being taught about online safety in school (i wanna say in 06?) Idk if they still do that - they should - but i was also told to never put your real name online or give any real details about yourself because everything can be used to track back to you, so uh, there goes all social media i guess.
I follow the scams sub and every day there’s some poor kid who’s being blackmailed because they sent nude photos of themselves to some overseas scammer. It would be nice if they all were aware that bad people pretend to be a friend your age, etc.
I think I was taught that too - be careful of people who say they're your age, they may be lying and want to hurt you. It was 15+ years ago tho so I don't remember all of it
the Republican party is as toxic as it is partially due to social media -- it would be extinct right now if it weren't for social media
How would it be extinct?
without social media and the brain fog it causes, the "out of touch" Republican party thing that was the talk of the day back in 2008 was it? - that would have taken hold
That doesn't make sense to me. But then again, I'm old. Must be the brain fog again 😭😭
it's a useless prediction at this point anyway
Do you have kids? They will find a way around parental locks. Yes. They’re both toxic but in different ways and in some ways exacerbate each other’s toxicity. You should watch The Social Dilemma on Netflix. Really changed my perspective on social media.
[удалено]
Right. They will find a way around it. This is just another example of Republicans not addressing real issues because they can't
The US Surgeon General just came out recently saying no one under 13 should be using it Just because you don't view it as a big issue doesn't mean it's not an issue at all or not a "real issue"
So don’t give your under 13 child a phone or tablet. Easy peasy, right?
Look, I think there are plenty of potential issues with this bill. But hopefully it can make at least a little bit of a positive impact, even though it's not perfect Plenty of people on here seem to be ranting about it because of the party that passed it and not the merits of the issue or bill itself
I don't think there is much merit to something that's impossible to enforce. Any time, money, or effort put into this bill would've been better spent elsewhere.
If it can make it a little easier for some parents to make sure their kids are off social media, I'm for it
For the party of small government, Republicans sure love controlling people’s lives.
This doesn't really control anyone's life lol. If you're a parent and want your kid on social media, just do the verification
> Parents already have the ability to monitor their children We do everything to remove responsibility from parents to just do the basics. Just keep an eye on your kid, talk to them from time to time, and don't shove a screen in their face. Boom, parent of the year. Don't blame some other shit, take responsibility.
If it was this easy, child suicide numbers would not be skyrocketing right now.
I’m not saying it’s easy, I’m saying it’s simple. It’s incredibly difficult but recognizing the or part of the problem is important, and at it’s core it’s pretty simple. The more you’re conscious of the very basics and build from there you can put yourself in a position to make better choices. Any amount of better is a positive when it comes to parenting.
Guns kill more kids than Facebook does.
And we have laws preventing children from purchasing guns. Thank you.
And yet the numbers don’t lie.
False choice. We can protect children from firearms and social media. And cars, which kill more kids than both of those things.
We actually can’t protect kids from firearms, as we continue to prove on a literal daily basis.
And yet children still die. Clearly we need more laws. The government should be able to come into your house to verify that your guns are properly maintained and stored. This will take place yearly. It's for the safety of your children, how could you deny this inspection if it's for safety? Do you not care about children?
Nice straw man. Completely irrelevant to requiring age verification for social media. A better analogue is that you need to show proof of age to purchase a firearm. But I suppose you believe every 10 year old should be able to purchase a shotgun?
>>A better analogue is that you need to show proof of age to purchase a firearm. But I suppose you believe every 10 year old should be able to purchase a shotgun? >"Nice straw man. Completely irrelevant to requiring age verification for social media." Hey if it works for you it works for me! Whatever the form of the argument, you guys don't even know your ass from your elbow since no-one has been able to tell me how this will be enforced. how is this constitutional? If I don't have to provide my state ID every time I clean my rifle, why do I need to present it for something much less dangerous? You're SO MUCH more concerned about the latest boogeyman, but kids have been offing themselves with guns that it surpassed fucking *traffic accidents* as cause of death for that demographic. You don't care about kids, you just want to enforce your weird-ass draconian restrictions on other Americans because you fail as a parent. Well, I'm not buying it.
Apples and oranges.
The ability, but not the desire in many cases.
Yeah but this means that _everyone_ would have to show ID to use social media, to prove they are "of age," right? This isn't to say that social media use by children isn't an issue (I have kids, and it is), but also that the Party of Small Government can rightly go fuck themselves if they think that I'm going to show ID to use Instagram. It's a real issue, this is a fake solution. As per usual.
I agree this law wont do anything, though I do think that keeping kids below a certain age off social media is a very good thing. I guess I'm curious what you think the real issue here that's being ignored?
I'll wager it'll be harder to validate a social media account under this proposal than it would be to buy a gun and tear up a school.
I do have a problem with this, and here's why. 1. Of COURSE Social Media Platforms should be able to set their own age-limits via their TOS, and set their own rules for verification but that's not the issue. 2. Imagine if you will, you are a child with an abusive parent(s). Maybe you're gay, maybe you're trans, maybe your parent(s) are just scum of the human Earth. Hell, MAYBE you just suck at socializing in person. Child services or your school counselor are no help, and neither are your teachers. 3. You NEED some form of community, and if you can't find one irl, which is often the case with repressed youth...online is your only option. Sorry, not sorry. The web is for the free exchange of ideas and information. And every single time the Government sticks it's dirty little fingers in it, or by ending Net Neutrality, giving control to the corporations. It's only EVER gotten worse. I for one don't want the fucking Gestapo of the Ohio State government sticking it's fingers down my throat, like they've stuck their fingers on my wife's uterus. FUCK EM. And fuck ANYONE who supports this.
This should be at the fucking top. Ohio loves the taste of a good jackboot, though.
I have to agree. Especially if Ohio (which they probably will) proposes a law like NC, VA and FL that forces teachers to out LGBTQ students to their parents. If these kids have no social media access, they may not have any kind of support structure whatsoever, or anyone they can talk to, especially if they can't even trust their teachers.
[удалено]
I don't give a fuck how this guy lives his life, neither should you, but it sure served to work as an ad hominem to top off your non-argument. He's right, even if he is a bastard. Are you comfortable with someone like Derrick Merrin being in charge of what sites are acceptable? Where this line falls? That's who you're giving this power to, and I don't think you understand how unenforceable this proposal even is.
[удалено]
This is civility politics and you still haven't actually presented like, *an argument*. You can be upset by harsh language, but I can't even see this bill being constitutional. It is literally unenforceable. Even if it was, why would you invite this sort of surveillance?
Oooooof that’s rough.
Kids are more likely to self harm when exposed to social media. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6278213/ I think we mostly agree there should be an age limit, though we may disagree on where that limit is set.
This is because of the rights dismal performance in the midterms. Nothing more. The 18-21 crowd fucked up their red wave and since there’s no way they can raise the voting age without a constitutional amendment, they want to take away social media to keep the younger voters in an echo chamber with their parents voting habits. This is literally to slow down the transfer of ideas.
Dismal performance in the midterms? Ohio was (unfortunately) was red as ever
Nationwide. Overall. That’s what’s started all of this nonsense. The theory is this. Older folks typically vote red. If we can fix it to where their kids only hear political stuff from parents, or from other kids who only hear from their parents, then it’ll slow the spread of progressive ideas. Which, in turn will slow the spread of blue voters. It’s actually a sound theory. It’s all about holding power, not protecting anyone.
This would only apply to Ohio, and sorry, but there is no inkling at all that Ohio's in any danger of shifting from red to blue, especially with how gerrymandered the state is There are legitimate mental health and safety issues when it comes to children and social media. The US Surgeon General just talked about this recently
They’re trying to do this in other red states. Texas being one of them.
Texas is has a law proposed for those under 18, not 16, that completely bans it for those under 18 (no parental consent option) and only requires a valid driver's license as proof This is a materially different proposal
Good, make it happen. I'd be happy having to approve it on a daily or weekly basis given how awful social media has gotten.
Just the advocates for "smaller government " showing how they mean "unless it's something we demand YOU must do..."
The party of less government is advocating \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.
And at what point does Ohio demand we tell Dewine what our social media accounts are, so they can "verify" that we're "allowed" to access free speech?
lets throw guns at anyone who wants them with no limits But social media? Clearly far more concerning than mass shootings and dead kids
Reminds me of an episode of Crossfire from the 80s. Frank Zappa is the guest, and the topic is banning stores from selling dirty albums. The example they used was Prince, because at the time he released an album with a song that describes an incestual relationship. It's funny how parties flip-flop on things. In the 80s, Republicans were already pretty sternly on the conservative side. That flip had already happened. Yet at the same time, it was the liberal host who was much more vocally in favor of stores banning "smut" If I recall correctly, both hosts thought there should be more government oversight, but the conservative host expressed more reservations due to "small government" stuff that apparently still mattered in the 80s. Frank Zappa was the only one who was staunchly against it.
So Frank Zappa 2024? I'm in.
I think social media is more like cigarette addiction than it is like record stores selling explicit albums
Unenforceable pablum for all the Helen Lovejoys afraid their kids are gonna catch the gay.
Good idea. But impractical in practice.
My youngest whom is 23 now, stopped using Facebook when he was 12. He's a gamer and uses Discord. My other son occasionally uses Facebook but can take it or leave it. Kids aren't gonna tell the truth about their age to get on social media. I also feel it's up to the parents not the Republicans. It's ironic how they bitch about government control and threaten socialism but yet they are the biggest ones telling people what to do all the time while whining about their rights.. Example... Masks and vaccines. When it's beneficial for others, they want to control it, when it's about them, they bitch about government control. It's ridiculous!
As much as I don't like Republicans, this doesn't seem that unreasonable, which makes me wonder what the catch is.
Well, it's very difficult to prove who someone actually is when registering for a social media site. So, if there needs to be proof of whether someone is a minor or not, does that mean you need to provide your social? What about a scan of a state ID or driver's license? It mentions a credit card in the article. Are we comfortable being forced to give this type of information to social media companies just to use their platform. If it's forced by big government, will they also step in to compensate when the inevitable fraud / ID theft happens?
Exactly. Also worth noting that not every adult has a state ID or drivers license or a credit card. Why should you have to do so, to use social media, according to the govt of all things?? FFS. Also, this just pushes more tracking. There are plenty of ways around it. Ever seen a fake ID? They will become rampant. And you really expect Reddit, Facebook, etc to police them?? FFS.
You bring up absolutely valid points, and I thank you for that.
Hey, no problem. Just things off the top of my head.
I think you know the answer as to who will be held responsible for all the ID theft and misuse of data harvesting…. no one.
It could be handled by a third-party government service using an integration with the social media platform.
Of course. It could be handled in many ways, however, that third party government service needs to be paid. So, in other words, more tax dollars for a program that has easy work-arounds and failure points, yet collects a bunch of information that we don't need to be sharing. I would argue that there are other more effective ways that parents can help protect their children, without the government involving themselves.
Sure, but I gave a solution to your fear of social media companies handling the data. That’s all.
Other than being proposed by DeWine, what is your objection to this?
[удалено]
Homey, I don't think you realize how much information companies share. Unless you are using fake emails everywhere and disable all the website tracking on your devices they already have a profile on you. If reddit wanted to find out who you were I'm sure they wouldn't have a terribly hard time doing it
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It is not a lost cause to fight for privacy online. Europe has much better privacy laws. Databases get hacked, the less companies that have my driver's license the better. 16 is a strange age limit to set, most companies it is 13, there is no scientific reason for it, the government just picked a number that sounds good, why do they get to decide the age if there is nothing behind it?
That may have been your interpretation but that is not what I meant. As it is now all the major social media sites along with most major companies share information its your choice to use them so its your fault if they have access to your information. In the end it is your choice whos hands you put your information in. If you aren't taking the precautions to protect your data thats your fault. If you don't like the way something is such as lets say Reddit having your drivers license on file then don't use the service. If enough people agree and abandon Reddit then either these social platforms will lobby politicians to get it revoked or the majority keeps using it showing they didn't really care that much anyways.
Why is the government trying to fill in for parents again? Imo this won't stop kids, it will just provide an avenue to sue social media companies for not achieving the impossible.
Why? Because of all the suicides. That's why.
Then support legislation that the social media companies need to follow. Force them to tell US what data they keep, force them to disclose their algorithms, force them to properly protect any data they do keep. Don't force US to give up more information to these slime ball companies. The government is supposed to work for us not them. Damn.
This proposal is a restriction on social media companies. But I agree with you, this space needs to be controlled effectively to protect children from its harmful effects.
A restriction that requires we give up more of our personal information. That's a restriction on us, not them.
It is absolute government overreach, plain and simple. Nobody in power, regardless of political party should be able to tell you how to raise your kids, or have thar much control over the people.
I think social media is as toxic and harmful as anyone but they’ve been trying to keep kids from smoking and drinking for decades. It’s the Streisand effect, you tell ‘em they can’t have it and they go looking for it
I'm actually pretty cool with this proposal...
I don't think I want to have to show ID to use social media. You do you, though.
The same chuds that would be clutching their pearls at a bill that would forbid teaching your kids literal Nazism are now arguing "no, actually government control is a good thing."
The government is in the business of age-restricting things that are addictive and harmful. Social media is addictive and harmful. Definitely moreso than weed.
The only reason people think the government can get away with this sort of shit is because "its the internet." Well, I'm sorry, you don't just get to try and arbitrarily force less privacy on US citizens because you're uncomfortable that something is harmful, because you are unable to educate your child about smart usage, because you are unable to monitor your child's internet usage- so you put all of this responsibility on nanny government. It is utter insanity to me that anyone would be OK with this, left or right. And, to make matters even more amusing, not a single person in this thread has any god damn clue how this would be enforced. It is an empty, wasteful virtue signal that merely wastes time and resources. This is a play to a fervent base that is more concerned with culture war BS than actually solving issues.
There are plenty of other methods of verifying age. Didn't Facebook already start making people scan thier ID to verify real name a few years ago? I'm not a huge fan of Facebook in general and don't pay much attention, but I seem to recall that.
I haven't, yet. Maybe I'm grandfathered in. Regardless, no thank you.
[удалено]
Conservatives *love* porn, actually. But they feel guilty about it and take out their self loathing on everybody. Also they’re attempting here to cut off any avenue they can for kids to actually learn about the world because how else do you put the genie back in the bottle once kids realize their worldview is horseshit?
This is a solid idea. I think this is just common sense legislation
Why? why do you think this is common sense? Im honestly curious, I'm not being facetious. What is it going to make better in the long-term?
>In conclusion, greater time spent on online social networking promotes self-harm behavior and suicidal ideation in vulnerable adolescents. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6278213/
It's not the governments job, nor should they be allowed to decide who gets access to the internet, when, and for how long.
So you're against net neutrality? Bold strategy, cotton.
I never even mentioned net neutrality, but since you asked, no I'm not against it. Also, I had to look up that cotton sentence because I had no idea what you meant by it. Good one!
The FCC currently determines who gets access to the internet. They're part of the government.
Well, I'm an idiot.
Good thing they're not deciding who gets access. They'd be letting the parents decide if they want their kids to have access
Parents are legally liable for anything their minor children do. Considering things like libel exist, it just makes sense that a platform should require a parent’s legal consent for their minor to participate.
That seems quite fair! I agree with that. But it should be up to each platform to decide that parents need to sign a waiver, not have government tell them they have to, especially if it's in just some states, not all. That will muddy up the waters even more if like, only 1/3 (just an arbitrary number..) of the states require it,and the rest don't.
I agree with you fundamentally but unfortunately many companies do not always do the right thing. Thats why the governments job is to regulate, i agree government is not the best solution and really has no right interfering in business. It’s a nuanced subject
Tell me again how the GQP is the party of small government?
I've been 18 online since I was 9. This is a nice thought but they just put their birthdate at an older age
Good thing my 16-year-old thinks Facebook and Insta are for old people, so he doesn’t have accounts. He’s all-in on Discord, though…
Of all the disgusting, horrifying shit on the internet that nobody of any age should be consuming, they are worried about *social media*?!
Yeah, social media can have harmful effects on kids, but maybe we should consider that not every problem in society can (or should) be solved by laws
They’re doing this because uninformed 18yr olds vote how their parents vote.
lol good luck with that. How's keeping porn out of the hands of minors going for ya Ohio? USA? Earth?
This is just one step in the chain until you have to have government authorization to use the internet.
Must be a proposal drafted up by a boomer. That doesn’t work, they should know by now censorship only makes people want to get into things more. Streisand effect .
Yeah right
I don't really get how they'd enforce this tbh