Texas Bans Kids From Social Media Without Parental Consent (theverge.com) 254
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed a bill prohibiting children under 18 from joining various social media platforms without parental consent. Similar legislation has been passed in Utah and Louisiana. The Verge reports: The bill, HB 18, requires social media companies to receive explicit consent from a minor's parent or guardian before they'd be allowed to create their own accounts starting in September of next year. It also forces these companies to prevent children from seeing "harmful" content -- like content related to eating disorders, substance abuse, or "grooming" -- by creating new filtering systems.
Texas' definition of a "digital service" is extremely broad. Under the law, parental consent would be necessary for kids trying to access nearly any site that collects identifying information, like an email address. There are some exceptions, including sites that primarily deliver educational or news content and email services. The Texas attorney general could sue companies found to have violated this law. The law's requirements to filter loosely defined "harmful material" and provide parents with control over their child's accounts mirror language in some federal legislation that has spooked civil and digital rights groups.
Like HB 18, the US Senate-led Kids Online Safety Act orders platforms to prevent minors from being exposed to content related to disordered eating and other destructive behaviors. But critics fear this language could encourage companies like Instagram or TikTok to overmoderate non-harmful content to avoid legal challenges. Overly strict parental controls could also harm kids in abusive households, allowing parents to spy on marginalized children searching for helpful resources online.
Texas' definition of a "digital service" is extremely broad. Under the law, parental consent would be necessary for kids trying to access nearly any site that collects identifying information, like an email address. There are some exceptions, including sites that primarily deliver educational or news content and email services. The Texas attorney general could sue companies found to have violated this law. The law's requirements to filter loosely defined "harmful material" and provide parents with control over their child's accounts mirror language in some federal legislation that has spooked civil and digital rights groups.
Like HB 18, the US Senate-led Kids Online Safety Act orders platforms to prevent minors from being exposed to content related to disordered eating and other destructive behaviors. But critics fear this language could encourage companies like Instagram or TikTok to overmoderate non-harmful content to avoid legal challenges. Overly strict parental controls could also harm kids in abusive households, allowing parents to spy on marginalized children searching for helpful resources online.
The vague language: (Score:5, Informative)
(3)AA"Harmful material" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.24, Penal Code.
here it is: https://statutes.capitol.texas... [texas.gov]
(2) "Harmful material" means material whose dominant theme taken as a whole:
(A) appeals to the prurient interest of a minor, in sex, nudity, or excretion;
(B) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors; and
(C) is utterly without redeeming social value for minors.
This is where it really breaks down because "patently offensive" and "prevailing standards" are arbitrary when it comes to enforcement.
Re:The vague language: (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems apt:
Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I will find something in them which will hang him
- Cardinal Richelieu
Re:The vague language: (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh... give me a legislature, and I will not be able to find six honest men — or women — in it.
And as for the Texas legislature... wow.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the latest outrage I have seen that the new live action Disney princess Arielle is black, I expect someone to sue over it in Texas.
While people may gripe and boycott the movie, there's not much point in suing Disney when Disney didn't break any laws by changing the race of a character they created. The law is the law. This is one case which shows why people don't always equate what's legal and what's right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The vague language: (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the outrage I have seen has been that it's a horrible movie.
That said, race swapping is a lazy way to get to diversity. Make something new and unique. Its got the Disney stamp, so new stuff (like Frozen or Princess Tiana) are almost guaranteed success.
Re: (Score:2)
This is where it really breaks down because "patently offensive" and "prevailing standards" are arbitrary when it comes to enforcement.
It will be interesting to see what happens if a liberal part of Texas decides the NRA website and other gun websites are “patently offensive” based on “prevailing standards” and sues.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably they get their districts broken up, polling stations removed, then next year it's no longer a liberal part as far as representation goes. Or if that doesn't tip the scales enough, they just write it into the law that certain counties and cities aren't allowed to sue. That one's becoming popular lately, brought to you by the party of "local governance" of course.
Re: (Score:2)
This is standard boilerplate in all adult entertainment laws.
The kids will surely abide by this (Score:3, Insightful)
Those kids are not going to be stopped by some silly law designed to give the conservatives "talking points" with their sheep. That's all this bill is about, the kids will simply act like it does not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
The way you write sure doesn't make you look biased at all. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of his characterization do you disagree with, and why? It seems on-point to me. He didn't say anything about the average Democratic voter not being a sheep, either, but there was a rush to assume that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you against all minor protection laws (like drinking and smoking) since kids usually find a way around these laws anyways?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you against all minor protection laws (like drinking and smoking) since kids usually find a way around these laws anyways?
You're making a false equivalence. Drinking and Smoking laws have very very strong adherence along with a physical check in place at the time of sale. They are rarely circumvented in the grand scheme of things.
On the flipside only "please enter your date of birth", or "click here to confirm your mommy is letting you play" buttons are virtual prompts that provide zero assurance or protection and are completely ignored by the vast majority of people who come across them.
They are not the same thing and not cir
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about siphoning-up all aspects of people's lives (even non-users) in a deniable manner, I mean something along the lines of an HTML form:
"Are you a child? If so, please tell us your name and address and the names of your parents."
Yeah, and as far as steam and a lot of other web forms are concerned, I was born on Jan 1 1900 as I'm irritated by entering my birth date each time they ask.
So close (again) (Score:5, Interesting)
Here, let me fix that:
Under the law, consent would be necessary for anyone trying to access nearly any site that collects identifying information.
Done. How hard was that? But no, let's grandstand about children some more instead of doing anything useful.
Helena Lovejoy was supposed to be satire.
Re: (Score:2)
So much that was supposed to be satire or an actual warning has turned into an actual handbook to some people...
Re: (Score:2)
Because your proposal would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the Interstate Commerce Clause?
Whereas the "For the Children" "escape clause" may pass muster.
Re: (Score:3, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Well it does mean that either you're an ignoramus who hasn't bothered to read the bill in question or you're a lying sack of shit. In order to qualify for enforcement under the law, the business in question has to have more than at absolute minimum 100 employees and more than 1 million dollars in revenue. And given the way the government calculates what qualifies as a small business as relates to the field of social media and just how large the juggernauts in the field are, that probably gets a hell of lot
Re: (Score:2)
"Why are these people so obsessed with children?"
Because:
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
-- Adolf Hitler
\o/ (Score:3, Insightful)
Fake parental-consent SaaS-app in 3, 2, ...
I only see a problem with the counter-arguments. (Score:5, Insightful)
And that last bit about "marginalized" children of abusive parents... that's garbage. A weak hypothetical that had no place in publication.
These are children we are talking about. They are to be protected.
Re:I only see a problem with the counter-arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese saw this years ago. That's why their kids have social media time limits and are restricted on what content they can access.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not it is tricky to implement parental permission, it is a good idea to require it.
A pointless law is a bad law regardless if the intent is honourable. The issue isn't just that it's tricky to implement, the issue is that it's flat out not possible.
You ask for confirmation. A kid can click yes. Now what happens when the kid has clicked yes without getting the confirmation? Nothing, because a child can't be legally bound by a contract. So the only people who are covered by this law are those who already have parental supervision and approval.
It's a bit like those piracy warnings on DVD, it
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, do like the document signing companies do and have an automated process that requires you to hold up a valid state-issued ID and require you to be in frame for a few shots.
Re: (Score:2)
Just make all account creation happen in-person at the Company's headquarters. Don't have a valid Adult ID? Better make sure your parents come with you. Easy!
I approve of this. If only for the reason that it will kill Facebook and TikTok.
Re: (Score:2)
"And that last bit about "marginalized" children of abusive parents... that's garbage. A weak hypothetical that had no place in publication."
Yes and from a legal standpoint there are no children in abusive homes. Children aren't in abusive homes until due process has found they are in abusive homes [prior to that they are innocent until proven guilty] at which point the court will have ordered them removed from said homes.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that children in abusive homes are getting significant access to anti-abuse resources from social media websites is the garbage bit.
Re:I only see a problem with the counter-arguments (Score:4, Insightful)
And that last bit about "marginalized" children of abusive parents... that's garbage. A weak hypothetical that had no place in publication.
That's not a hypothetical. You can see it every day if you browse places like r/exchristian or r/exjw. Many state agencies seem to think that child abuse is good as long as it's done by "good Christian parents", especially if it's done to LGBTQ+ kids.
Re: (Score:3)
And that last bit about "marginalized" children of abusive parents... that's garbage. A weak hypothetical that had no place in publication.
That's not a hypothetical. You can see it every day if you browse places like r/exchristian or r/exjw. Many state agencies seem to think that child abuse is good as long as it's done by "good Christian parents", especially if it's done to LGBTQ+ kids.
I'll admit to being Christian upfront. Jesus taught that it would be better for a person to drown themself with a millstone around their neck than to harm a child. Anyone engaged in child or spousal abuse is no true follower of Jesus. I would also like to point out that very few people leave Christianity or the JW (or whatever unpopular sect / denomination) on good terms. Many former members have an ax to grind or desire to prove they were right to leave. Gauge their bias just as you would gauge the bias of
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit to being Christian upfront. Jesus taught that it would be better for a person to drown themself with a millstone around their neck than to harm a child. Anyone engaged in child or spousal abuse is no true follower of Jesus. I would also like to point out that very few people leave Christianity or the JW (or whatever unpopular sect / denomination) on good terms. Many former members have an ax to grind or desire to prove they were right to leave. Gauge their bias just as you would gauge the bias of a fervent adherent claiming abuse never happens. The truth is normally somewhere in the middle.
Jesus said that causing a child to sin/stumble was bad. Proverbs makes it clear that the way to prevent a child from sinning is to hit them. This leads to the hitting of many children; who wants their child to stumble into sin and end up in hell? Who wouldn't be willing to go to an extreme to prevent that extremely bad outcome?
Combine those things with Paul's disgust at anything sexual outside of heterosexual marriage, and you've got a recipe for LGBTQ+ kids in Christian homes to have a horrible time o
Re: (Score:3)
They're essentially the Pharisees that the Bible warns of. But they do hold so much power and influence that they've practically become the establishment in many places and are the defacto iconic Christian.
Sure there are also many Christians
Thank you. (Score:2)
This attitude seems to have gotten lost somewhere.
Give the Gov some credit (Score:2)
Gov. Abbott has already said that Texas would eliminate rape. Why can't he eliminate grooming, too? I don't understand why other states don't just eliminate bad stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when republicans didn’t like the government interfering with their lives.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I remember when republicans didnâ(TM)t like the government interfering with their lives.
Right, they just wanted the government to interfere with other people's lives on their behalf.
Re: (Score:2)
COPA (Score:2)
We already have a Federal law about under 13 yo.
How do these companies get around that? Gosh, well, the kid has to click a box affirming they are 13+.
This is pure virtue signal.
Re:COPA (Score:5, Informative)
Gosh, well, the kid has to click a box affirming they are 13+.
And if the kid lies what happens? Nothing, since you can't contractually bind a minor without parental consent.
For any company in Texas ... (Score:2)
Does this apply to companies not in Texas, not in the USA ... ...
Does this apply to minors outside Texas
Does this apply to standards outside Texas
Does this apply to Native American Reservations in Texas
Vague language and they probably have no jurisdiction ....
Re: (Score:2)
It applies to companies that provide service in Texas. Any effort to avoid spilling over onto the others you've mentioned is in the 'not our problem' category.
Re: (Score:2)
It applies to companies that provide service in Texas. Any effort to avoid spilling over onto the others you've mentioned is in the 'not our problem' category.
Looks like Texas will join Utah in being geoblocked https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02... [cnn.com]
In a fit of irony, the red states are some of the main watchers of Pr0n. https://www.cnbc.com/2009/07/1... [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Pr0n sites aren't social media ;)
Compliance is illegal too? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's pretty simple, any information that isn't actually needed for the account itself to function, can be opted out of and the company can't shut down the media account. So basically 90+% of the information that the company would sell to advertisers.
Oh, that'll work (Score:2)
And if they try to implement some sort of mandatory age verification, Texas is just going to be dropped from their service regions. The state will disappear from the registration form, and geolocation blocks put on IPs.
This is not the own they think it is.
Re: (Score:2)
And if they try to implement some sort of mandatory age verification, Texas is just going to be dropped from their service regions. The state will disappear from the registration form, and geolocation blocks put on IPs.
So you’re saying Facebook would disappear from Texas? That sounds like a feature, not a bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, crazy con-tards in Texas might be up in arms once they can't see their racist grandpa memes and millennial "Just stop drinking Starbucks" bashing.
the truth is... (Score:2)
Texas Bans 5 Children ... (Score:2)
Fixed it for you!
And they're going to enforce this how? (Score:2)
My first ex told me when she was 16, she and a friend would order a six-pack of malt liquor delivered (apparently, it was possible then in Philly). When the delivery arrived, one would answer the door, and yell out "hey, mom, where's the money?" and the other, in another room, would answer.
"Small government" GOP Texas is going to send a cop to every house with kids?
Zuck should be happy. (Score:2)
This might actually make FaceBook cool.
If anyone is wondering why TX has a problem... (Score:3)
I have a problem with this too. LGB folks... I have no idea why you are embracing this. It really has nothing to do with preference and it wouldn't be okay for ANY adult to be on that stage.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1671171268975157248
Re: (Score:2)
And they would economically destroy themselves again, just like last time. They have absolutely no ability to operate separately.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah this retarded argument again.
The entire structure of the economy would be altered. In the civil war era even the industrial North mostly had the capacity to feed itself. This NOT true today. You cut out the red states, grain becomes an import! You not getting it from Ukraine now even if you wanted too. The Red states would simply set the prices high enough that they do just fine. They'll stave if they don't so the simple direct option is to flip the script and say well pay up or you'll stave.
Everythin
Re: (Score:2)
The north can just buy from Canada. Fuck the confederates they can negotiate deals with Mexico and Cuba.
Re: (Score:2)
The north can just buy from Canada. Fuck the confederates they can negotiate deals with Mexico and Cuba.
They are really pissed off that their role model has been arrested for espionage violations - at long last, they expose themselves as the mortal enemy of the USA and it's constitution.
Isn't it a strange thing? The people itching to take over the USA, now fully exposed in wanting to kill other Americans who don't agree with them and are quite open about it https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com] seem to have an almost Putinesque outlook.
Well, if they get their wish, and can start eliminating those yankees,
Re: (Score:2)
We have no need for the Gulf of Mexico. That's mostly for, well, your own benefit. As for the river, you DO know it cuts through both the north and south? Either way, we don't need that either. Plenty of other routes. Do you have any halfway decent arguments? Or just more useless shit?
Re: (Score:2)
We've got electric trucks. But also, those same ports that we have to get our products to for exporting...we can IMPORT any oil we need through them. Oh wait, we already have and do! Hmm, weird how that works, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah this retarded argument again.
The entire structure of the economy would be altered. In the civil war era even the industrial North mostly had the capacity to feed itself. This NOT true today. You cut out the red states, grain becomes an import! You not getting it from Ukraine now even if you wanted too. The Red states would simply set the prices high enough that they do just fine. They'll stave if they don't so the simple direct option is to flip the script and say well pay up or you'll stave.
Blue states do not need red states to survive - grain or otherwise. We can make do without pretty much everything. Nothing I can think of from a red state is a hard necessity.
Everything will get repriced. Now think about all those patents and all that intellectual property -in the hypothetical the new secessionist faction has just won a war of independence you have no ability to AT all to stop them if they decided to just 'take' that stuff and use it without payment or even resell bootlegs on the global mar
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit, I got distracted and didn't finish the rest of the quote tags. Whatever, you'll figure it out.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't say I really know how it would all play out - but I assure you nobody actually does. The disintegration of the US economy, establishment of hard borders, etc would result in a division of the total economic pie that is a lot more complicated than dividing up the states by GDP or current tax receipts etc.
There is no doubt that there are no winners if a large number of southern US states seceded from the union. It would be a depression level event just from the business disruption. Brexit on steroids. Northern and southern states would have their GDP drop significantly because of this disruption.
Of course red states would fare much worse, considering they only make up 40% of the country's GDP and receive more money from the federal government than they pay in taxes. Businesses who moved to red states for the
Re: (Score:2)
The north fought the south in the civil war because the south STARTED the war with them and were trying to take more northern territory if not conquer DC and have a coup.. the fighting did reach right next to DC. There was no room to compromise and if they did the south was weak and could be slowly destroyed by many methods outside of war... which would have been preferable had they allowed it; which they would not. All they had was guns, poor inbred men, and slaves... plus lots of cotton.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they theoretically could "steal" the patents, but they would quickly become an intellectual backwater. Nearly every single tech company would pull out of Texas. And Texas is the only reason the blue states only have 3 times as many patents filed every year as red states and not 5 times as many. (source:https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/reports_stco.htm) Everybody smart who wants to do something interesting would want to leave, because the vast majority of innovation does happen in the b
Re: (Score:3)
And they would economically destroy themselves again, just like last time. They have absolutely no ability to operate separately.
The Emperor of Florida, His majesty Ronald DeSantis, is already succeeding in doing that. While he and his merry band of cryptorepublicans fiddle, they are making a mess. https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com] https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
I used to spend about 20K a year during winter in Florida. Today? I did go down last fall for the aborted Artemis launch, but spent as little as possible, and they won't get another penny from me in the future. Now one person's 20 grand isn't a big deal, but I ain't the
Re: (Score:3)
CA is not a model success by any means. They are, however, leaps and bounds ahead (on average) than any red state. And not because of anything related to the economy. Are there complete shitholes in CA? Sure, just like every state has shitholes and nice places. There are a couple nice towns in FL and TX.
But, yes, the blue states would be able to adapt and keep going just fine. The red states, in general, would suffer. Perhaps not in the immediate short term, but definitely long term. Not to mention the gene
Re: (Score:2)
In the North we encountered an actual border checkpoint like we were entering another country
So you had to show a passport and go through customs? Or were you just asked if you were carrying any fruit or vegetables and sent on you way? Because I'm fairly sure it was just an agricultural inspection station (to keep invasive species out). Sorry for the horrifying ordeal lasting seconds inconveniencing you.
some friends on the Nevada side told us were due to their refusal to maintain the wood and do controlled burns putting everyone at risk as the forest just randomly burns.
Yeah, that has to be the sole reason, and has nothing to do with the difference in types of forest, density, wind, droughts, or that California has over three times as much forest than Nevada.
Also, California does controlled burns, just not everywhere and in every year.
Statewide everything was insanely expensive but I couldn't see any sign there is a benefit to offset it. The land was pretty enough but the people have trashed it, socal was a literal trash dump. You can tell the road crews that are supposed to clean up trash leave bags that eventually get picked up and everyone knows it so they also toss out their trash bags randomly alongside the roads and there is so much more trash that without the bags you wouldn't think anyone picks anything up. There are signs everywhere with huge fines for littering but no sign of enforcement. And that is aside from the vagrants and homeless encampments everywhere. It was disgusting. I've been to every state in Union at this point and I'd rate CA dead last in terms of places I'd want to be.
It sounds like you formed that conclusion way before you went there, and stuck to the worst parts of a few cities to prevent anything from changing your mind.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Yeah, that has to be the sole reason, and has nothing to do with the difference in types of forest, density, wind, droughts, or that California has over three times as much forest than Nevada."
Actually, they have very similar forests in AZ around the grand canyon which was also on our roadtrip. Same redwoods, similar conditions, etc. But they maintain them. We saw the controlled burns. Our friends in NV weren't saying NV does the same thing better, they were saying they have to suffer because CA doesn't ta
Re: (Score:2)
The United Cartels of Stupid America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they're too chickenshit to actually try to secede. They want someone else to establish the Utopia for them, pick them up, and carry them away to it.
I cordially invite anyone to prove me wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
They haven't even figured out how to stop kids from doing pot. I know what social media my son is on, he has yet to ask me for permission. I'm waiting to see how this goes.
Re:Aw man (Score:4, Insightful)
he has yet to ask me for permission
And he'll never actually be required to do so. Whether it be by your rule, the government's, or the social media company's. It will always be unenforceable no matter who is implementing it. There will always be ways to circumvent whatever implementations they try, and the "kids" will figure it out before the "adults" can adapt.
Parents cannot "protect" their child from the world and society, which isn't the job of a parent anyway. Their job as a parent is to arm their children with the tools to be happy in the world, and part of that is making sure they understand the world - both good and bad.
"unenforcable" [Re:Aw man] (Score:3)
he has yet to ask me for permission
And he'll never actually be required to do so. Whether it be by your rule, the government's, or the social media company's. It will always be unenforceable no matter who is implementing it. There will always be ways to circumvent whatever implementations they try,
It puts an obstacle between kids and the internet sites. There are undoubtably going to be "ways to circumvent," but kids, like adults, are lazy; if it's hard to do something, most of them are going to go do something else.
...it will, of course, also put an obstacle between adults and the internet. How is Texas planning to determine who is an adult?
and the "kids" will figure it out before the "adults" can adapt.
That's actually more of a myth than a reality. The kids who are super at computers are the ones we hear about, and the ones people make joke memes about ("Gra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They haven't even figured out how to stop kids from doing pot. I know what social media my son is on, he has yet to ask me for permission. I'm waiting to see how this goes.
The first two sentences say it all.
Children, especially in their teen years, are a whole lot smarter than people give them credit for. They do dumb things, and no doubt, but they are very very clever, especially about "them newfangled computers" something which the rulers of the mentioned stated know little about.
So just like drinking and smoking, getting access to the forbidden adult stuff will be fun stuff for the kids.
Now if you ask me - If I gave more credit to the smartness of those who rule T
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't smarter, but when they have access 24/7 because of smartphones, that doesn't right fucking matter now does it? Effectively infinite attempts means that they will succeed. The answer of course is that kids don't need any sort of smartphone before they're 15 but that would require the parents to take responsibility for their own actions in giving them one to shut them up.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to create a new social media company that is geofenced exclusively inside of Texas that collects emails and actively advertises "educational" content related eating disorders, substance abuse, and real grooming.
Have you visited that part of the country ?? The people there tend to be very very friendly and nice, but also a bit crazy by my "standards". Having spent time there in the past (a few weeks), the only social media company that would be allowed in this scenario are sites that deal with nothing but the christen bible. And it will need to be heavily moderated :)
Re: (Score:2)
"Allowed" is a meaningless qualifier here. They can't do anything to actually disallow it. If I was trying to buy office space in Texas, then maybe this would make sense. But, yes, I've been to multiple areas of Texas, all of them are pretty bad for one reason or another. Austin is tolerable, but barely. Dallas is a shithole. San Antonio might as well be a dumpster fire behind a Waffle House. A couple of small towns that were scenic, but not much else. And a large portion of Texas is just nothing - boring a
Re: (Score:2)
Time to create a new social media company that is geofenced exclusively inside of Texas that collects emails and actively advertises "educational" content related eating disorders, substance abuse, and real grooming.
Have you visited that part of the country ?? The people there tend to be very very friendly and nice, but also a bit crazy by my "standards". Having spent time there in the past (a few weeks), the only social media company that would be allowed in this scenario are sites that deal with nothing but the christen bible. And it will need to be heavily moderated :)
They will have to censor the part about Lot getting drunk, banging his freaking daughters, and making incest babies with them, or offering his daughters to be raped by strangers, or the strange one about Oholibah, and that strange verse about Donkey dicks and massive cumshots.
Re: (Score:3)
Where did you stay in Texas? The major cities are usually fairly left leaning - in fact San Antonio has been votes as one of the most friendly LGBQT+ long before it became fashionable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Aw man (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, if you were doing business in Texas (or any state for that matter), such as selling advertisements, you probably needed to register as a foreign entity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you run a business with at the absolute possible minimum over 100 employees and 1 million dollars in revenue per year(and given the size of the major players in the field the caps would probably be closer to the maximum of 40 million dollars on the revenue side and a middling of 1000 employees on the payroll side) the bill doesn't apply anyway, which means that everyone pissing and moaning about it has clearly not read the fucking thing in question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Texas and its shitty courts can't do jack shit to me or anyone outside of Texas.
If you're in the US, you could absolutely be extradited to Texas if you are offering service in Texas that breaks Texas law.
Re: (Score:2)
Parental controls and screen time locks; This surely doesn’t require abusive legislation for parents to be able to parent. This is nothing more than theater for Politicians to be able to point at and say “See! We’re battling the WoKe AgEnDa”.
Re: (Score:2)
Those kids and their comic books
Those kids and their rock n roll
Those kids and their television
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how Texas as the constitutional authority to regulate activities with a nexus in interstate commerce. The Federal Government has an absolute preemption on the regulation of such activities.
The Texas law pertains to what happens in Texas. If the visitor's IP resolves to Texas, apply Texas law; if it resolves to Louisiana, apply Louisiana law. Thankfully complying with Texas law means the site also complies with the law in Louisiana and Utah.