Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Social Networks United States

Utah Passes Laws Requiring Parental Permission For Teens To Use Social Media (engadget.com) 143

Posted by BeauHD from the permission-required dept.
Utah's governor has signed two bills that could upend how teens in the state are able to use social media apps. Engadget reports: Under the new laws, companies like Meta, Snap and TikTok would be required to get parents permission before teens could create accounts on their platforms. The laws also require curfew, parental controls and age verification features. The laws could dramatically change how social platforms handle the accounts of their youngest users. In addition to the parental consent and age verification features, the laws also bar companies "from using a design or feature that causes a minor to have an addiction to the company's social media platform." For now, it's not clear how Utah officials intend to enforce the laws or how they will apply to teenagers' existing social media accounts. Both laws are scheduled to take effect next March.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Utah Passes Laws Requiring Parental Permission For Teens To Use Social Media More

Utah Passes Laws Requiring Parental Permission For Teens To Use Social Media

Comments Filter:

  • Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Snotnose ( 212196 ) on Thursday March 23, 2023 @08:48PM (#63394789)
    How do the parents prove they're not only the parents, but over 18. Credit card? Scan of their driver's license?

    This is the same slippery slope as requiring adults to prove their adultness to view porn.

    • In Utah...

      Teenage boys and girls who are at least 16 years old, but are not yet 18 years old can get married in Utah with the consent of their parents or guardians.

      Teens who are at least 15 years old can marry with court approval. The 15 year old must, with his or her parent, petition the juvenile court or court commissioner for permission to marry.

      Utah permits first cousins to marry as long as both parties are at least 65 years old, or both parties are at least 55 years old and the local district court has

      • Re:In Utah (Score:5, Informative)

        by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Thursday March 23, 2023 @11:08PM (#63395069)

        How about 10 year olds getting married in Tennessee? And no 10 isn’t a typo. https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]

        Yeah, about those “groomers” I keep hearing about.

      • In Utah...

        Teenage boys and girls who are at least 16 years old, but are not yet 18 years old can get married in Utah with the consent of their parents or guardians.

        Teens who are at least 15 years old can marry with court approval. The 15 year old must, with his or her parent, petition the juvenile court or court commissioner for permission to marry.

        Utah permits first cousins to marry as long as both parties are at least 65 years old, or both parties are at least 55 years old and the local district court has determined that either party is unable to reproduce.

        Mom, I want to get married and have a Insta account, okay?

        What do Utah marriage laws have to do with requiring parental consent for teens using social media?

        Two states (Massachusetts and New Hampshire) allow 14-year-olds to get married with parental consent. Two states (Hawaii and Missouri) allow 15-year-olds to get married with parental consent. 36 states (including Utah) allow 16-year-olds to get married with parental consent. Five states allow 17-year-olds to marry with parental consent. I know people like to make fun of Utah, mostly because roughly half of its

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by suutar ( 1860506 )

          well, one thing is that under the new Utah law, a person who has been married does not count as a minor anymore and therefore doesn't need parental permission to get a social media account anymore.

        • What do Utah marriage laws have to do with requiring parental consent for teens using social media?

          I think the GP is questioning the rationality of the belief that a 15 year old is mature enough to get married but not mature enough to make their own decisions about viewing social media. In that sense Utah's marriage laws are relevant and the marriage laws of those other states are not (unless those other states are also passing laws restricting access to social media). It's more about the fact that two different Utah laws seem to come to drastically different conclusions about the maturity of teenager

          • What do Utah marriage laws have to do with requiring parental consent for teens using social media?

            I think the GP is questioning the rationality of the belief that a 15 year old is mature enough to get married but not mature enough to make their own decisions about viewing social media. In that sense Utah's marriage laws are relevant and the marriage laws of those other states are not (unless those other states are also passing laws restricting access to social media). It's more about the fact that two different Utah laws seem to come to drastically different conclusions about the maturity of teenagers rather than making a moral judgement on either of those laws in isolation. Or at least how I read that comment. Although admittedly the bit about allowing first cousins to marry does seem like a non sequitur which suggests the GP isn't a big fan of Utah's marriage laws.

            From the article [engadget.com] cited in the summary, "Lawmakers in Congress and in other states have also proposed laws that would limit teens' ability to use social media apps." Again, this was an attack against Utah despite other states being in a similar situation. Also, 16 is the youngest marriagle age with parental consent; one must be at least 18 to marry without parental consent, lining up with HB-0311 and SB-0152.

            I feel that social media can be harmful to young individuals, but don't know what the cutoff age shou

          • I think the GP is questioning the rationality of the belief that a 15 year old is mature enough to get married but not mature enough to make their own decisions

            But Utah doesn't think most 15 year-olds are mature enough to get married. It can only happen with both parental and court approval, which presumably includes determining whether they're mature enough to make their own decisions about pretty much everything.

            The whole point of these ages requiring adult oversight is that different kids are ready for different freedoms and their associated responsibilities at different times. I will grant that if you've never been around troubled teens it might seem crazy

            • But Utah doesn't think most 15 year-olds are mature enough to get married. It can only happen with both parental and court approval, which presumably includes determining whether they're mature enough to make their own decisions about pretty much everything.

              And I think that's a reasonable and valid critique of the OP's original point. But just saying "Utah marriage laws are completely off topic" as the post I was responding to did is...less convincing IMHO.

              The whole point of these ages requiring adult oversight is that different kids are ready for different freedoms and their associated responsibilities at different times

              Which I think is also reasonable and I don't really have a problem with the general idea of giving parents more tools. My personal concern with this particular bill is that it generally seems to be more aimed at punishing tech companies than at empowering parents (although I haven't dug into the details

          • What do Utah marriage laws have to do with requiring parental consent for teens using social media?

            I think the GP is questioning the rationality of the belief that a 15 year old is mature enough to get married but not mature enough to make their own decisions about viewing social media. In that sense Utah's marriage laws are relevant and the marriage laws of those other states are not (unless those other states are also passing laws restricting access to social media). It's more about the fact that two different Utah laws seem to come to drastically different conclusions about the maturity of teenagers rather than making a moral judgement on either of those laws in isolation. Or at least how I read that comment. Although admittedly the bit about allowing first cousins to marry does seem like a non sequitur which suggests the GP isn't a big fan of Utah's marriage laws.

            I hate to nitpick, but Utah's minimum marriageable age (with parental consent) is 16, not 15. And again, parental consent is needed for marriage of anyone under 18 years of age. Utah's social media law states that people under 18 need parental consent in order to have a social media account. A Utahn, without parental consent, must be at least 18 to either marry or open a social media account. I don't recall a minimum age to open a social media account with parental consent. Other states are debating laws

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by migos ( 10321981 )
      Scan of driver license or government ID would do just fine. People prefer to look at porn anonymously, but with social media they already have to give phone numbers in many cases. It can work if the social media companies want to. The problem is that they don't want to because many of their platforms are optimized for teen addiction.

      • People prefer to look at porn anonymously, but with social media they already have to give phone numbers in many cases.

        It's been awhile, but I'm pretty sure you can still make a Twitter/Facebook/YouTube account without a phone number. And if you really need a throwaway phone number, there's presently quite a few free eSim trial apps around these days for newer eSim supported phones. I recently used that trick to get around ChatGPT's phone number requirement.

    • Scan of their driver's license?

      That's exactly what Coinbase, Crypto.com, Gemini, Kraken and other US crypto exchanges do, and their processes tend to be pretty fast at validating. They tend to require a front and back scan of the license along with a selfie. That's it.

      Like it or not, the crypto industry solved this problem with a much smaller moderation pool for validating users than Meta can bring to bear on the problem through their massive number of moderators.

      Set aside the question of whether it or not

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

        Regardless of the fact that this method is only mildly secure and trustworthy at best, this still only helps proves one person is an adult, and not necessarily the parent/guardian of another. So, it doesn't solve anything, because it can be bypassed easily. Coinbase and anything related to any kind of crypto aren't relevant at all.

      • Scan of their driver's license?

        That's exactly what Coinbase, Crypto.com, Gemini, Kraken and other US crypto exchanges do, and their processes tend to be pretty fast at validating.

        I seem to recall that being the point where I was like "fuck it, I'm out" regarding toying around with (very) small amounts of cryptocurrencies. Exchanges collectively aren't known for their stellar security record and they don't need a copy of my driver's license.

        Same deal with Facebook, Twitter, et al. Your shit is barely worth using as it is because of all the data mining. If I have to trust your marketing department with my ID too, I'm gone.

        • Forget the data security, worry about the fact that most of the crypto customers are criminals, they're likely to just sell your personally identifiable data for more monetization.

        • Well,
          if yo have no "friends" in Twitter or Facebook, it is obviously not really worth using it.
          So: why are you there - and unable to find your RL friends?

    • They basically present a box that you click that says "Do you live in Utah?" If you click it, you cannot use the social media website. The end. The entire state of Utah barely inches over a single percent of the US total population and the under 18 population is way less. None of these social media sites stand to lose any significant sum of money by just not doing business in the State, especially Utah.

      Now that doesn't mean that's the cure. These site will need to get off their asses and figure things

      • They are not passing this law in order to do something useful. They're passing this law because it gets them votes. "Protect the children!"

        • It's almost like they're adding contentious requirements just to provoke the media companies to fight this. Here are some additional requirements in the bill:

          The laws also prohibit social media companies from displaying ads to minors, showing minor accounts in search results, collecting information about minors, targeting or suggesting content to minors, or knowingly integrating addictive technologies into social media apps used by minors. They also impose a curfew on the use of social media for minors, locking them out of their social media accounts between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. based on the location of a user’s device, unless adjusted with the consent of a parent.

          No ads for minor's accounts? Perhaps I should adjust my birth date in my profile.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Aczlan ( 636310 )

            No ads for minor's accounts? Perhaps I should adjust my birth date in my profile.

            Same here, it would be nice if FB allowed you to at least opt out out of "non-g-rated" ads in Marketplace...
            I don't want or need to see ads for dating sites, mens underwear, lingerie or "[nationality/] women in your area" while I am looking for stuff on Marketplace in the app...

            Aaron Z

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sloppy ( 14984 )

          I think this is the real issue. A significant fraction of people are stupid and/or evil and want to use the power government against others. This is one of the reasons we should try to limit government's powers. I might go as far as saying we should amend the constitution to ensure that.

          The only other alternative is to try to persuade our fellow ciitzens to stop being evil and stupid. I haven't heard much in the way of past efforts having success with this, though. Sometimes, I suspect freedom's adversaries

          • The constitution though is already being ignored in some areas. The rule of the supreme court as the constitutional arbiter isn't even official, it's just precedent that fills in a role missing in the constitution. And even then it only works because of trust in the courts which has been declining.

            It was even in my lifetime when it was considered taboo fort the courts to touch political topics - which is on the surface a noble goal. However everything is "political" now. Back then some states were blatan

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        I'm not saying Utah hasn't got a good fight here. But what they're wanting is an overly complex asking of companies to parent kids. Parent's need to parent kids

        I think the people behind and supporting this legislation would argue that letting 'parents parent their kids' is EXACTLY what the bill is designed to do. Internet access is EVERYWHERE, and the science increasingly shows social media is basically an addictive behavior controlling mess.

        This law and others like as much as the IETF types want to pretend otherwise is badly needed. The real world analogy would be if we completely removed all the age restrictions on pornography and booze, pot, tobacco products, e

    • How do the parents prove they're not only the parents, but over 18. Credit card? Scan of their driver's license?

      They'll have to show proof of being vaccinated. Feel better, now?

    • Obviously you just show your bone graft.

  • Their motives are probably ironic, but (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eunomion ( 8640039 ) on Thursday March 23, 2023 @09:06PM (#63394835)
    I don't essentially disagree: It's a bad situation when 99% of what's going on in young people's heads is the property of corporate creeps thousands of miles away. Governments should basically ban social media for under 18 except through a locally-owned and operated network tied to their school. The same legal logic that mandates education and criminalizes negligence in the first place would more than justify it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      I was thinking of this the other day. I wanted a Postobon. It is not anything special, but corporate programming has that much effect. I remember the jingle from 40 years ago. On the other hand I did not buy the drink. I bought sparkling water, which had little advertising.

      One either is educated and knows how to utilize tools and protect oneself or one is a victim. Banning reality just creates victims. How many dead teens do we see because no one taught them not to abuse alcohol.

      The issue we have is the

      • Moral panic is something to guard against, but so is using past failures as excuses for present ones.

        A lot of people would be alive today, and families richer and unbroken, if corporate advertising to children had been banned when industry started openly exploring the concept of conditioning children behind parents' backs decades ago. With social media, they've gone beyond that and have sought (quite successfully) to not only replace families, but replace nations...even replace their definition of self
        • The is a probably story, probably legend not based on reality, of tribes in the Amazon the would give a kid a coco bran to eat them send them out of village. If they came back alive they were worthy. In our culture it has been high school and driving that have tested our young people.

          I guess the point is that we canâ(TM)t cut the butterfly out of the cocoon. Growing up is hard and trying to make it easy is a mistake.

          Backwater places like Florida and Utah will always panic.

          • The internet isn't an environmental hazard: Not something that's blindly indifferent, and rewarding of trial-and-error experience. It's a consciously hostile camp full of booby traps and poisoned spike pits. The Goonies do not survive this one.

            These companies don't even see people as slaves, they see them as the crops their slaves harvest.

            Futures resembling 1984 or Brave New World are not inevitable. You just have to choose something else and do things that make sense to achieve it.

    • It's a bad situation when 99% of what's going on in young people's heads is the property of corporate creeps thousands of miles away.

      I heard you on the wireless back in fifty two
      Lying awake intent at tuning in on you
      If I was young it didn't stop you coming through
      - The Buggles - Video Killed the Radio Star

      My parents generation had TV, my generation had cable TV, this generation has social media. Oh, but now we have the technology to prevent kids from being exposed to things that are supposed to be under the purview of their parents in the first place, not the damn government.

      • I'd put it this way: A small, carefully limited social media network through a school would be teaching kids to swim, but allowing them on the internet generally (even behind the dubious shield of a parental filter) is throwing them in the open ocean, pointing to land, and saying, "I hope you make it!"

        I'm sure this is "we were tougher back then" nonsense, but my generation was pretty lucky to be in the Wild West internet, because we were the ones shaping it before companies knew what they were doing. We

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shilly ( 142940 )

      Tied to their school?? Why on earth would you do that? Kids have social circles that go waay beyond their school

      • As in through their school, not limited to it. Talking about providing structure.

        Don't hide other students from them, of course, but it should be in the same kind of framework as an in-person activity group. As in, coordinated between schools. Not some automated corporate herding mechanism where for-profit businesses are literally acting as both parent and teacher.

      • Kids have social circles that go waay beyond their school
        I certainly had not as a kid.
        Hoe would that be supposed to work/happen?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by suutar ( 1860506 )

          church
          neighborhood kids, if you're near the edge of a school's district
          family
          All of these tend to correlate from being (usually) mostly geographically based, but then there's cases like private school, where the other students may not be from the same neighborhood, or family members who live out of state...

          • Church?

            Seriously?

            neighborhood kids, if you're near the edge of a school's district
            You can only met them, when out of school - theoretically.

            family
            As in sister and brother? Who happen to be gay/queer and comfort you because you already know that you yourself are gay/queer?

            Seriously?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Duds ( 100634 )

      This would be 100% disastrous for any and all LGBTQIA+ kids.

      • Why?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      Governments should basically ban social media for under 18 except through a locally-owned and operated network tied to their school.

      Wow, if you had been in charge in 1984, I wouldn't have been allowed on all those BBSs.

      And now that I think of it, if you'd been setting policy, I suspect I wouldn't have been allowed in libraries, either. Well, a few libraries would quality, but not most of them. And bookstores. I wonder if television and radio would fall to the same fate.

      On the bright side, the same attitude

      • "Wow, if you had been in charge in 1984, I wouldn't have been allowed on all those BBSs."

        If those BBSs had been owned and operated by, say for instance, the Stasi or KGB, would that have been unreasonable? Or do you just imagine your superior intellect and indomitable will would have made you immune to concerted malice?

        "I suspect I wouldn't have been allowed in libraries, either."

        Then you're not listening, and I'm starting to suspect your agenda is the opposite of what you claim.

  • Ah yes, the party of limited governent (Score:5, Funny)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Thursday March 23, 2023 @09:10PM (#63394845)

    Nothing says small government and parental rights like forcing parents to micromanage their kids.

    Must be the people who whined, "My body, my choice" when it came to wearing masks for a few minutes.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 )

      Must be the people who whined, "My body, my choice" when it came to wearing masks for a few minutes.

      It's also the same people who tell women what healthcare they can get.

    • 1) Of Utah's 14 D house members, only one D voted no [fastdemocracy.com].
      2) Utah has a Housing First program that gives unconditional housing to homeless. It has Mitt Romney as a Senator who is known for supporting things like big child tax credits and government healthccare. (This also isn't 1980.)
      3) Utah implemented mask mandates through April 2021 [utah.gov]. (and still had the for large gatherings)

      So I don't think your preconceptions are landing accurately.

      This is in response to growing medical evidence [nih.gov] that social media causes harm

      • Asking companies to implement parental controls is the direct opposite of asking parents to micromanage their kids. It's making it so parents don't have to monitor their children's phone usage.

        I wouldn't exactly see it that way. It may be different in Utah, but if I read a law like this, my first impression is that this should put the burden of policing a teenager's use of online media on the parent because they gave their consent to that use, so they are now responsible for it. And that opens a whole can of worms because we're talking teenagers here, who usually know more about online media than their parents (twice so in Utah, I'd expect) but who also have no concept of what it would mean to ju

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by DarkRookie2 ( 5551422 )
      You miss the point. Children aren't people. Not yet at least. They must go thru the 18 years of indoctinations first. Until then, they are useful tax deductions and political tools.
      If these people truly care about children, child hunger and poor health wouldn't be a thing in this country.
      Until that happens, these people and the ones that support them are stupid shitheads using children to get want they want. Like the kid is some kind of sex slave.

      • Re:Ah yes, the party of limited governent (Score:4)

        by Keick ( 252453 ) on Friday March 24, 2023 @09:47AM (#63395997)

        We have a metric ton of food and health programs for the poor and especially the kids. WIC, SNAP, EAP, TANF, DFS, FAMIS, etc. Not sure what any of that has to do with social media though.

        Society has long ago determined that letting anyone under 18 enter into a contractual agreement is a bad (tm) idea. I think it's generally common knowledge that these social media apps record and track everything you do for all of time; something that could be argued is a contract of service.

        Society overall tries to protect kids from things they don't fully understand; guns, drugs, alcohol, gambling, marriage, porn, and apparently now social media apps. I'd hazard a guess that in most cases we didn't have an age restriction until it is observed the amount of harm it caused.

        Also not sure how supporting those assistance programs, or limiting things that have been proven to be bad for kids, would make someone a shithead. Nor how calling someone a shithead somehow makes your argument valid.

    • Re:Ah yes, the party of limited governent (Score:5, Informative)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Thursday March 23, 2023 @11:57PM (#63395189) Homepage

      Nothing says small government and parental rights like forcing parents to micromanage their kids.

      It's Utah. They hate the idea that a kid might find out about The Trevor Project [thetrevorproject.org] and discover that they're not actually some freak for being LGBTQ+, and then go on social media to form bonds with other like-minded youths.

      Nope, in those kind of hellholes you're supposed to stay firmly in the closet or become another teenage suicide statistic where the parents just assume you were suffering from depression. As they say, there's no hate quite like Christian love.

    • They also whined "your body, my laws say no!" Remember, freedom is for us, not for them.

  • Shouldn't adults be blocked from social media? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Thursday March 23, 2023 @09:24PM (#63394867)

    Adults are the ones who fall for the obvious scam links. Get caught up in click bait titles. Fall for the nutty conspiracy theories.
    The kids just want to see people they are attracted to dancing. And gossip with their friends.

    • Hey, you can't keep adults from being swindled out of their money! That's a first amendment violation, you're cutting into the bottom line of religions!

    • The kids just want to see people they are attracted to dancing. And gossip with their friends.

      You are way underestimating the power of propaganda. Just because kids aren't snorting horse dewormer and complaining that vaccines don't work doesn't mean they are sensible and ignore stupid bullshit they see on social media. It just means they have a preference for eating Tidepods, eating the actual pregnancy test rather than the morning after pill, eating tablespoons of nutmeg or cinnamon, or doing other stupid shit.

      Monkey see monkey doo applies just as much to kids as it does to adults. If you think kid

  • I can see a lot of benefit that anyone who has a parent who is still alive must seek their permission to use social media. I pondered for a minute as to if I should append a :-)

  • Will not survive First Amendment muster (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mendax ( 114116 ) on Thursday March 23, 2023 @09:34PM (#63394887)

    This new law will die a horrible death in the Federal courts. I'd bet real money on it. Here's why.

    This law will prevents adults living in Utah from using social media services without first identifying themselves. While a social media service may require a user to provide identification, the government may not do that without violating the First Amendment. Americans have a right to anonymous speech and anonymous association. Even that idiot Clarence Thomas, whose opinions are likely all written in crayon, agrees with this. The California legislature passed a similarly unconstitutional bill, which the governor foolishly signed (it's for the children after all and he could not be seen to not be against them!), and it will also die a similar horrible death.

    While I'm a techie, I'm also an amateur legal scholar, having had once in my life been forced to do my own legal research on First Amendment case law to challenge an unjust governmental violation of the First Amendment in court. (I won, BTW.) So, I know what I'm talking about; I'm not talking out of my ass.

    • Many many laws are passed with the full knowledge that they'll be overturned in the courts. Even recently the Idaho governor warned that the strict anti-abortion law was contrary to the state's constitution but he signed it anyway. The reason the laws get passed anyway is that this gives you a gold star with some voters, and thus more likely to be re-elected. The reason to warn against a law while also not vetoing it, is to get some votes from two opposing interests.

      Politicians don't get punished for pass

  • Some kids will be harmed by this (Score:4)

    by clawsoon ( 748629 ) on Thursday March 23, 2023 @10:02PM (#63394943)
    I'm most worried for LGBTQ+ and budding atheist kids in religious homes. For all of the faults of social media, at least it lets those kids know that there's another world out there beyond the fundamentalist hell they're trapped in. Browse r/exchristian or r/exmormon for a few days and you'll see what a lifeline it can be to connect with people outside your religious bubble.

    • The "bubble" is possibly one reason for such rules. Sure, most probably are just naively thinking of the kids, but there are some who honestly do not want they're kids to hear about or learn anything they disagree with - such as those who don't want any sex ed (kids who don't know what sex is won't have any they naively think), don't want them to hear about evolution, other religions, other political factions, or hear strange ideas like people being equal. It's not all of them, but I suspect there's a siz

  • Government overreach into my personal life. What I wanted.

  • My son and daughter got cell phones and email addresses when they were 13.
    That's really a pretty good number, they are No longer 12, they are a teen.
    We raised them correctly and they both are responsible teens.

  • In older days young people learnt early to despise the system, "not trust anyone over 30" and have a proper hatred for the despicable double-digit IQ fools who run most of the world. The problem was they got lazy and sold out... Today economic exclusion and wealth disparity put them at much greater social disadvantage so the sooner resentment brews the better.

    What is forbidden becomes more attractive thereby and technological barriers breed appetite for circumvention. Nothing teaches hatred for superstition

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by suutar ( 1860506 )

      (9) (a) "Social media platform" means an online forum that a social media company
      164 makes available for an account holder to:
      165 (i) create a profile;
      166 (ii) upload posts;
      167 (iii) view the posts of other account holders; and
      168 (iv) interact with other account holders or users.
      Followed by exceptions for around 20 cases that don't involve users making posts that the whole world can see about random topics of their own choice (including things like Netflix, Amazon,

  • It's time to ban anyone under 18 from social media. Good for the kids, and easier on everyone else. Actually let's ban anyone under the age of 88 from social media. Even better.

  • I mean, let's be honest and take a look at what this really means: They are now 100% responsible for whatever their kids do on social media.

    Whether that consent is real or not, they allegedly just signed that they want to take responsibility for their teenage kids' actions online. I'm absolutely sure the average Utah citizen has a remote idea what that means, right?

    • They are now 100% responsible for whatever their kids do on social media.

      I believe they always were. Parents have some level of responsibility on what their kids do. As an extreme example that makes it into the news, if a minor murders someone, then parents can be charged with involuntary manslaughter. See this law school analysis https://udayton.edu/magazine/2... [udayton.edu]

      • Well, technically, yes, but at least so far they had the "moral" escape "Uh, I didn't know he's doing this on there". Plus, I don't know about Utah's legislation, but the worst I think parents could be slapped with is negligence. With this law, they basically sign a co-conspirator contract.

  • People, especially minors, shouldn't be using commercial social media anyway.

    Go back to being anonymous Pseudos on IRC, ICQ or some other network where young people can do their think without being pested by nosy corps watching their every move and word, trying to exploit them.

    As anyone who was a computer teen/youngster in the late 80ies / early 90ies can attest, times were *way* better back then when social media megacorps weren't a thing. And anything that curbs them today gets a thumbs up from me.

  • Freedom. I don't think it means what red states think it means.

  • ... Slashdot suddenly goes dark.

  • You: I want to speak to a manager.
    Customer support:, cuts mike, Someone play manager for me?
    Utah:
    Them: we need your parents' approval.
    Kid: cuts mike, "Hey, Jane, pretend your my mom?"

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close