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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government The Internet

Louisiana Passes Bill Banning Kids From the Internet Without Parental Consent (theverge.com) 108

Louisiana lawmakers have passed a bill that would prohibit minors from creating their own social media accounts without parental consent, potentially impacting popular platforms like Instagram and online games such as Roblox and Fortnite. The Verge reports: The bill, HB61, would ban "interactive computer services" from allowing people under 18 to sign up for their own accounts without parental consent. The bill's definition of online services is extremely broad, seemingly barring minors from creating social media accounts on sites like Instagram, accessing popular online games like Roblox and Fortnite, or even registering for an email address. The bill also goes as far as allowing parents to cancel the terms of service contracts their children entered into when signing up for existing accounts.

As of publication, it's unclear how the state plans to enforce these new rules, but it calls on state entities to review the bill and provide feedback before it would go into effect. The Louisiana State Legislature passed the bill unanimously on Tuesday, sending it to Gov. John Bel Edwards' desk for final approval. The ban would go into effect August 1st of next year if he chooses to sign it.
"We are hopeful that Governor Edwards will veto this bill. It violates First Amendment rights, takes away parental rights for their families and requires massive data collection on all Louisiana citizens," NetChoice vice president and general counsel Carl Szabo said in a statement Thursday.

"It's true that Big Tech's advertising model hurts kids and teens," Fight for the Future said in a call for people to tell their elected officials not to pass online age restrictions. "But age-gating all social media, for anyone under 18? That won't solve the problem, and it's a direct attack on millions of young people's First Amendment rights."

Further reading: Congress Shocked To Discover 10 Year Olds Check the 'I'm Over 18' Box Online [Not The Onion]
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Louisiana Passes Bill Banning Kids From the Internet Without Parental Consent

Comments Filter:
  • by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Thursday June 08, 2023 @04:44PM (#63586696) Homepage

    I hope they throw the book at those little critters when they don't obey their parents. 10 years in the slammer minimum.

    • by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

      No way! I'm totally moving to LA now! When my 10 year old is a teen and set's himself up with 100+ online services without my permission I'm suing EVERYONE!

    • Doesn't matter they have zero method or resources to enforce it. Since it's Louisiana what we'll see is selective enforcement, if any, in predominantly black neighborhoods. They'll just be able to knock on literally any door arrest or fine anyone with kids.

    • by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )

      I think it just means parents can terminate the accounts as they're not giving parental consent, putting the power back in the hands of parents so that companies can't try to market around parents and use these services without their parents permission. I don't think the government is going to punish kids or parents, but rather make companies put in measures to ensure they have parental consent, and they're panicked because they can convince kids to simply sign up hand over information and influence them.

      • by youngone ( 975102 ) on Thursday June 08, 2023 @07:19PM (#63587064)
        It's the opposite of "putting the power back in the hands of parents".
        It's a stupid law from one of those parts of America that would be a failed state if they were forced to go it alone though, so at some point the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional and everyone will carry on pretending Louisiana is run by adults.
        These people should be ashamed of themselves. They won't be though.
        • by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )

          Explain to me how restricting what children can do without parental consent is taking away parental rights.
          It sounds to me like another person about to scream about not having direct access to influence someones kids for their own marketing, be it products or ideology.

          Fyi if you had kids you'd know you often have to provide parental consent, field trips, vaccines, other things.

    • Burned at the stake.

    • Can't do that they are still children, you can however give the parents 99 - 99 year sentences to run serially.
    • If children disobey their parents I hide under their bed and eat them in their sleep.
  • Was was a minor ever held to a ToC contract to begin with? Isn't a minor unable to enter into a valid contract?

  • I allow my child access to many things on the internet, but they do not have a right to ensure they have direct access to feed my child whatever content they want if they can convince kids that this social thing is where all the cool kids go so they can drown in whatever koolaide they're pushing at the time.

    That's their fear. They're afraid of losing direct access to children who do not know better and are easily influenced without guidance to manipulate them on whatever content they want to push on their p

    • Poor parenting (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Your society started going downhill when both parents had to start working in the late 60s, and they relied on television to entertain/babysit the kids. The only thing thats changed is even less parent time now do to yet more work, and internet has replaced the TV as the babysitter.
      • by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )

        Ouu gotcha, I don't live in the US.

        I just happen to agree with their policy in this regards.

      • Yes, the good old days when women were expected to immediately leave the work force once married, so that men would never have to toil and slave away in the home in demeaning work...

        You realize that the poorer classes very often had both sexes working, it's was an upper class thing to have women staying at home for being too delicate. The middle class always wanting to emulate those richer adopted this style when there were economic booms. This was a dark age, don't mistake it for a golden age of enlighte

        • Yes, the good old days when women were expected to immediately leave the work force once married, so that men would never have to toil and slave away in the home in demeaning work...

          Oddly enough, that TV portrayal of life in the 1950/60s doesn't quite match my grandparent's lived experience, nor my great-uncle's and great-aunt's lived experiences, nor the older family members of friends that I knew. Women had jobs if they wanted, they would work part time during school hours when kids were young, and when the kids were older full time jobs. It was their choice. And difficult and/or demeaning work was not exactly exclusive to women. Plus the household work was not necessarily considered

        • As a loyal subject of a class-based country, I'm appalled at your misuse of "upper-class." The upper-class do not & have not ever done a day's work in their lives. They may have gentlemanly pursuits, such as colonisation & genocide, but certainly no actual work or risk to them is ever involved. That's what the middle & working classes are for. They have to toil, shed blood, & risk life & limb all for the sake of the empire & their natural born rulers.
    • by Xenx ( 2211586 )
      No, decreases parental rights is correct. I'm also not going to speak on whether this is better or worse. You might prefer to have your rights restricted in this way, or may not consider it a restriction upon your rights. However, it still is one. You currently have the right to allow your child to sign up for those sites on their own. This would remove that right. It isn't granting you any rights, so as a whole it decreases your rights.
      • by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )

        No I don't buy that, sounds like manipulation. Parent's are not going to be outraged that they had to give permission on the site as parental consent for something as potentially harmful a social media.

        If I'm interpreting your point right, you're basically saying, "What if as a parent you may let your kids do whatever they want, and now you have to prove it, so it's taking away your rights"? Is that it?

        All I'm seeing, this is people with a vested interest in manipulating and catching children with advertisi

        • by Xenx ( 2211586 )

          No I don't buy that, sounds like manipulation.

          No, it sounds like it's the truth. I'm sorry if that is considered manipulation by you.

          Parent's are not going to be outraged that they had to give permission on the site as parental consent for something as potentially harmful a social media.

          Maybe not, but I explicitly said I wasn't speaking about how they would feel about it. However, I'll go further into how a parent could have a problem with it below.

          If I'm interpreting your point right, you're basically saying, "What if as a parent you may let your kids do whatever they want, and now you have to prove it, so it's taking away your rights"? Is that it?

          I'm saying parents can currently choose to let their kids sign up for accounts online, without them having to approve it every time. Remember, this bill covers things like signing up for online platforms for video games, Some parents trust their child(technica

          • by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )

            Some parents want to place trust in their child, whether it be honest trust or a way for them to learn about reality, and consider doing so important. This law would remove that right from them.

            What if parents decide their 16 year can drink responsibly, do we remove the restriction of selling to minors? Like this is not a new concept where children required parents to sign consent for many things. Like drivers licenses at 16 and more. It's not truth because you say it is, that's like all the other special interest groups. It's true and science just because we say so. Doesn't work like that.

            All I see in this is special interest groups and marking firms crying that they won't have direct access to i

            • by Xenx ( 2211586 )
              You still seem to completely ignore my actual point, or just like to argue. I've literally expressed exactly my intent with what I said, and showed why. I don't care about anything else.
              • by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )

                Are you a parent? This sounds like a fictional scenario made up to argue, and I feel like you're projecting saying I like to argue. It's not that I've ignored your point, it's that I think your point has no merit.

                I do not believe parents will see it the way you do. If you're a parent, let me know and I'll know I've heard at least someone say they have an issue with it, someone who is affected by it potentially as a parent.

                I ask if you're a parent as we're seeing way too much from people that are causing har

                • by Xenx ( 2211586 )
                  I'm sorry that you can stand being corrected. Get on with your life already.
                  • by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )

                    Ahhh okay, not a parent, speaking for others for the injustice, part of the crowd afraid to lose influence on children? Get on with YOUR life and stop trying to be the moral hero that no one asked about things you have no idea about for your agenda.

                    If this is a discussion, your points had no merit.
                    If this is an argument, you've lost.
                    If you think you and people like you who behave in the ways I described matter, you're finding out more and more that you don't. You're right though, why am I responding? I do h

                    • by Xenx ( 2211586 )
                      Look, I've tried to be polite. I explained exactly my point, and exactly how limited my point was. You can't refute my point, so you keep going off on your own tangent about what this was supposed to be about. As for whether I have kids or not, it isn't fucking relevant at all to the conversation. Nothing about me having kids changes anything about what I said. I have experienced parents with exactly the general mindset of the examples I've provided. Me personally having kids doesn't change that. Again, bec
        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          Isn't this forcing parents to provide ID in a manner that the various web sites can hoard that data until some crook figures out how to access it and do identity theft or worse? Sounds like a reduction in rights.

          • by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )

            Okay, so is the argument then not requiring parental consent, but the methods they want to employ to do it are flawed and create additional risks? I feel like that's a separate and probably very valid discussion to have about the best way to implement it and ensure parental security is intact?

            At the same time, for many things I still have to provide parental consent - but I don't have to provide my ID. Like for a school field trip. I still have to sign my name that as the father I give permissions for my ch

            • by dryeo ( 100693 )

              Well, if there is the capability of locking down a device to stop your kids from accessing various sites, it is the way to go. I don't really see that working unless it locks out the internet period but I haven't kept up with it and simply did not give my kid a device until he was old enough, around grade 12, when kids should be getting more rights. It was easier back then for a kid not to have a device.
              Unluckily as time has gone on, it is harder and harder for kids not to have a device. No more pay phones

      • You currently have the right to allow your child to sign up for those sites on their own.

        Not really, no agreement (contract) between the site and a minor is enforceable. A minor cannot agree to have their online habits profiled for targeted advertising. A parent may be able to sue a site.

        • by Xenx ( 2211586 )
          That isn't how it works. To avoid confusion and complexity around COPPA, or any similar laws, I'm talking about 13+. Minors can enter into contracts. The other party is bound by the contract, but the minor(or guardian) is usually able to disaffirm the contract. It's not relevant here, but there are situations in which the minor would be bound by the contract. As far as I understand, assuming no abnormal circumstances, any suit the parent could bring would only be of one to cancel the contract. I know Faceb
    • Reducing social media to young people is an absolute great idea. Anybody with kids should agree that letting the social media and advertising companies have more influence on the kids than the family is a bad thing. Social media time and time again is being shown to be very bad for certain kids, and fairly bad for the average kids.

      • This appears to be an argument for encouraging more attentive parenting. I'm not seeing a compelling reason for new law.

        Oh, wait. It's for the children you say? Well my stars, how could I be so callous. By all means carry on!

        • by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )

          Oh wait, you don't want direct access to your children by tech giants, ideology groups and marketing? Cleary this is just a for the children scam!

        • by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )

          P.S Let's face it, it's because special interest groups are leveraging these platforms and clearly targeting children, in schools and on these platforms, thats what all the crying is about. People are making things up like it decrease parental rights, or its a security risk for parents, or oh this is a fluff for the children thing, but the real issue is it undermines their direct access to children to push what agenda they want to them since children are easier to influence.

  • Louisiana will all meekly comply, delete their social media presence and submit to the will of their parents like good little rugrats.
    • Next.. (Score:1, Troll)

      They probably will pass a law lowering the age of gun ownership 10 and allow them to by AR's and AK's. Social Media bad... AK-47 with a 30 round clip.. Good!! Welcome to Magadonia.

      • All those guns are perfectly fine, since they can also ban any books that encourage critical thinking, and outlaw sex ed and abortion. The boom in birth rates will cancel out the school shootings.

        Maybe the red states are onto something here
      • Itâ(TM)s not a troll if itâ(TM)s the truth

  • While I can’t really say that banning all kids from the internet is that bad, they should have at least done it on a case by case basis and asked the parents first.
    • And they should most likely want to follow the US constitution instead of blatantly ignoring it in an attempt to pander to voters. Of course this law will get overturned, and they know it. But this is the modern conservative movement: ignore the laws since laws are for people you disagree with, not for you and your buddies, freedom is only possible when you force everyone to live the way you want them to.

  • The kids have already known the internet and no stupid law will keep them from it. I doubt even their parents will give a rat's ass about some dumb law. Then there is the enforcement. Cops won't try to enforce something inherently unenforceable.

    • This is just more "think of the children" goodfeels bullshit that makes a politician "look good" and hopefully net a few extra votes. Back in my day, kids used to watch R rated movies. As in physically going to the theater and sneaking in through the fire exits. This proposal will stop nothing.
  • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Thursday June 08, 2023 @04:54PM (#63586720) Homepage

    First, 18 is old. Louisiana gives out out drivers licenses at 15 with ANY adult approval. You can buy a gun via a private sale at age 17, and carry one at any age if you have a permission note from your parent.

    Second, no way to enforce it - unless you are going to be arresting the children that violate it and click the box that says "over 18?" Are you 'protecting' the kid or attacking them?

    Third, stop trying to let the parents off easy by having the government do the parenting. It does not effectively parent, it does not make the parents job easier, and all too often you have a strict shmuck in charge yelling at the permissive parents, who outnumber the strict shmuck's followers 2 to 1.

    • First, 18 is old. Louisiana gives out out drivers licenses at 15 with ANY adult approval. You can buy a gun via a private sale at age 17, and carry one at any age if you have a permission note from your parent.

      The age of consent is 17 in Louisiana, so kids are allowed to have sex before being able to get a social media account.

      • Ah, but you're not thinking about it correctly. A True Conservative knows that kids won't even know sex exists without social media!

    • Second, no way to enforce it - unless you are going to be arresting the children that violate it and click the box that says "over 18?" Are you 'protecting' the kid or attacking them?

      in short, there is already a system to do this. In louisiana you have a digital id card (la wallet) and you use that to "verify" you're over 18 by signing into the app and doing a 2 step verification if need be. makes looking at adult sites a pain in the ass. the solution? a vpn

      • First, that system sounds like something out of a distopia.
        Second, I bet most kids use the same computer as their parents and can get into that app easily. Most parents probably just leave it open on their PC and expect the kids not to use their PC.

      • by Sloppy ( 14984 )

        the solution? a vpn

        That's only a solution as long as the VPN client doesn't authenticate with the server. If it authenticates, then that's an indicator that the user very likely signed up for an account.

    • Here in Switzerland, WhatsApp is age restricted under 16. This makes it effectively impossible for schools to push all students there, which I consider a huge benefit. Also, I took to the opportunity to tell my kids they should manage without WhatsApp until 16. Without such a law, parenting how I as a parent want, would not have worked, just because you can't easily forbid your kids something that indeed all others have and everybody assumes all others have. And yes, you can indeed insist and go your own wa
  • by PseudoThink ( 576121 ) on Thursday June 08, 2023 @04:56PM (#63586732)
    Kids are legally required (and forced) to be in school for several hours per day a for a majority of the year, for most of their youth. They are limited from drinking, marrying, and a host of other things. I'm not advocating for this, but not all of these limits are unreasonable, and given the recent statements like from the surgeon general and APA about social media use, I think it's not unreasonable to consider this type of limitation as well.
    • Have been saying this a long time now. It's not good for them and, the part I actually care about, it's not good for the internet. Age gates suck. Censorship "because of the kids" also sucks. In any case, stop making the net into a daycare.

      • by Bahbus ( 1180627 ) on Friday June 09, 2023 @02:41AM (#63587720) Homepage

        Well, if society in general embraced a better social culture, kids wouldn't be so driven to social medias in the first place. We already know why kids have recessed into them, but no one is attempting to solve the actual problem. The problem is not inattentive parents, video games, or other such nonsense. It's that kids aren't allowed to exist for free in most public spaces on their own. We've got helicopter parents who can't leave their kids alone for two seconds. Parks are less and less common and increasingly poorly maintained. Everything costs more and more money. Some malls, before they all started going really downhill, imposed restrictions on when minors can be in them or what they can even bring into the mall. More and more children have been penalized for just trying to exist in public on their own. It's at the point now where most parents can't imagine not being able to know where their child is *right this moment*. When I was a kid, I roamed the neighborhood randomly. Went through people's yards (not in a damaging way). Explored the woods. Biked 20 minutes on busy roads to visit my friends. AND still played video games. It's a relatively simple problem to solve, with a lot of parties or people who would rather not.

        • Can't imagine growing up under the microscope every second, and the worst of those moments instantly public and forever. Then again, maybe that's good, except for the attention seeking gunslingers that actually enjoy that.

          Hard to learn from mistakes when you aren't allowed to make any.

    • I gotta admit. I really regret living in the same administrative instance as you.

      The "limits" that you are talking about should be enforced by the parents, not the State. Mind your own business, not mine. My daughter asked me (proper upbringing) if she could have a myspace account when she was younger. I gave her some information about human interactions and longevity of data and told her she could create the account.

      She is now a happy and healthy fully socialized adult who is particpating productively in s

  • by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Thursday June 08, 2023 @05:00PM (#63586748)

    Parents having to be parents? GTFO! Every time I've said that parents need to take some responsibility for what their children do on the computer I've been told that it's impossible, can't happen, there's too much pressure. Now there's a law essentially saying parents need to take responsibility for their children? I can't wait for the public backlash on this shit. Parents won't stand for it. There will be blood in the streets before they take responsibility for the people they've brought into the world and actually try to keep track of them.

    But at least the outrage will be delicious.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )

      Right? I don't get how they're saying it decreases parental rights, what, because you have to sign a permission form for your kids? Do you not have kids in school? You have to give written permission for tons of things, as there could be dangers associated with. Without a doubt, an absolute doubt, social media has dangers associated with it.

      So why not have to give a permission slip for that too? It's absolutely the crowd who wants access to your children to manipulate without guidance who are going to cry o

    • Every time I've said that parents need to take some responsibility for what their children do on the computer I've been told that it's impossible, can't happen, there's too much pressure.

      When I see the "it's impossible" comeback from a parent, it isn't because someone said "parents need to take some responsibility", it's because some wise guy claimed it's possible for parents to monitor their kids 100% of the time but are just too lazy/irresponsible/whatever to do it.

      • by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )

        When I see the "it's impossible" comeback from a parent, it isn't because someone said "parents need to take some responsibility", it's because some wise guy claimed it's possible for parents to monitor their kids 100% of the time but are just too lazy/irresponsible/whatever to do it.

        Anecdotally I usually see it in a response to some responsibility and the retort is 'We can't monitor them 100% of the time'. It'll be like kids who are out every night, stealing and getting into trouble or other such things, that some responsibility and monitoring would change, and the response is "Well we can't monitor them all the time". I often find it's use as a cop out. Now, of course you can't watch them 100% of the time, but it doesn't mean never is valid.

        Also fault and responsibility are not tied

    • It sounds funny until you read the part where adults will need to submit photo IDs in order to open accounts on any of the affected services.

      • Since some one will ding me for it - you're right, that's not specific to the Louisiana law, but apparently for a bunch of the ones going around. Not a great trend in my book.

  • Great idea, but it doesn't go far enough. Needs to require parental consent for adults as well. The world would be a better place if no one had social media accounts.
  • by evanh ( 627108 ) on Thursday June 08, 2023 @05:15PM (#63586792)

    Title is dramatically misleading. I initially laughed until I read the content and thought it's not a bad idea. But really, the better solution is just ban all social media from the Internet entirely.

    • But really, the better solution is just ban all social media from the Internet entirely.

      I have a better idea. Why don't YOU stop telling ME what is good or bad for me and then writing laws to enforce that idea.

      What the fuck dude? Go live in an authoritarian country if you want authoritarian controls. Stop trying to change my country into an authoritarian country. I do NOT want you as my neighbor. Mr. Rogers would be disappointed.

  • I think the vast majority of users were under the age of 18. In that perspective, it seems weird to ban them from creating user accounts, even on gaming sites with games aimed at their demographic, without parental consent.

    This really does come down to a situation where I think the parents are the ones who should be responsible and laying down rules on if they'll allow their kids to use social media or other Internet sites. I know that's not 100% enforceable in a world where the Internet is everywhere. But

  • ... cancel the terms of service contracts their children entered into ...

    Since persons less than 14 years-old can't create an account, this shouldn't be a problem. Well, it might be a problem for Pearson and schools who forced children into an having online identity for 'schoolwork'.

    This affects the 14-17 year-olds who can have an online identity, which is now controlled by the ideology of their parents: It removes their right to association. On the one hand parents need to keep children away from, for example, pro-anorexia web-sites, on the other, it allows parents to isol

    • It appears to include things like Roblox, where is no age restriction for account

    • And? 14-17 year olds are not adults. They are minors under the care of their parents, not independent adults with their own rights. Parents are entirely within their rights to instill whatever values they think appropriate, regardless of your pathetic expressions of disrespect.
  • Ponder this for a moment: Kids have WAY more spare time at their hands than their parents. And they generally know WAY better how to deal with computers than their parents.

    Now add that the social standing within your peer group as a teenager has always been boosted by knowing how to thwart and circumvent limitations the parents of your buddies put up and you should quickly realize that the whole law is pretty much useless.

  • louisiana apparently believes children don’t have constitutional rights. okay. you know these kids will grow up to be voters one day

  • What's the bloody point of coming up with a law that can't realistically be enforced unless we turn the country into a police state that would make the extinct Soviet Union look like a walk in the beach?
    • I think it goes like this...

      No Johnny you may not access the internet today

      Johnny browses internet and accidentally finds out that gay people exist

      Parents sue website for not checking to see if Johnny had the right permissions

      • by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

        Website people laugh as it doesn't pay parents anything because even if it went to court and a judge ordered them to pay, they could just ignore it. If the website has no employees or offices in the state, the state cannot hope to force any payment of fines. What would a state court do if they didn't pay? Order the blockage through ISPs? Cool, that works until users figure out the IP address or use a VPN. Take it to a federal court? That might work if they have a US office or employees, assuming the agree t

  • Teenagers can't drink.
    Teenagers can't watch porn.

    And yet....

    • by drnb ( 2434720 )

      Teenagers can't drink. Teenagers can't watch porn.

      And yet....

      ... and yet we can legally prosecute this who knowingly provide them liquor or porn, because there is a law on the books.

  • ....keep your children off of the internet creep.

  • "The bill also goes as far as allowing parents to cancel the terms of service contracts their children entered into" - that is not far at all, it perfectly normal. My daughter is 10 yo and she can't legally enter into service contracts, if she click "I agree", that is void.

  • But looking at the issue as a complete picture, you have to choose between parents deciding or corporate sociopaths with zero accountability deciding.

    If a kid is enough of a rebel to actually benefit from unfettered access to the internet, they'll find a way no matter what. If they can't outwit their parents, they definitely can't outwit a social media company's manipulations.
  • Louisiana cab't complain when the internet bans them.
  • Louisiana cannot legislate like this against a problem that is on the user-side and not at all something the platform or site can control. They think they can, but it's unenforceable and does nothing at all in the end.

    It's the parents' responsibility to monitor their children's actions. There's no way for a social media site to know it's an adult and not just a kid with their parents' credit card or account login. Nor should their be. This has about as much effect as those "This content is only for adult
  • To quote my first ex, telling me that when she and a friend were 16, one would have a six-pack of malt liquor delivered, and one would answer the door, and yell, "Mom, where's the money for the liquor?", while the other, in another room, would tell her.

    But, of course, such cheating by teenagers is *nothing* at all like someone in a call center standing up and asking for another call taker to pretend to be a manager.

  • "Louisiana Passes Bill Banning Kids From the Internet Without Parental Consent "

    "Louisiana lawmakers have passed a bill that would prohibit minors from creating their own social media accounts without parental consent"

What sin has not been committed in the name of efficiency?

Working...