Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Social Networks

Florida Braces For Lawsuits Over Law Banning Kids From Social Media (arstechnica.com) 168

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Monday, Florida became the first state to ban kids under 14 from social media without parental permission. It appears likely that the law -- considered one of the most restrictive in the US -- will face significant legal challenges, however, before taking effect on January 1. Under HB 3, apps like Instagram, Snapchat, or TikTok would need to verify the ages of users, then delete any accounts for users under 14 when parental consent is not granted. Companies that "knowingly or recklessly" fail to block underage users risk fines of up to $10,000 in damages to anyone suing on behalf of child users. They could also be liable for up to $50,000 per violation in civil penalties. [...]

DeSantis' statement noted that "in addition to protecting children from the dangers of social media, HB 3 requires pornographic or sexually explicit websites to use age verification to prevent minors from accessing sites that are inappropriate for children." This suggests that Florida could face a legal challenge from adult sites like Pornhub, which have been suing to block states from requiring an ID to access adult content. Most recently, Pornhub blocked access to its platform in Texas, arguing that such laws "impinge on the rights of adults to access protected speech" and fail "strict scrutiny by employing the least effective and yet also most restrictive means of accomplishing Texas's stated purpose of allegedly protecting minors."

According to the Guardian, [Florida House Speaker Paul Renner, who spearheaded the law] expected that social media companies would "sue the second after" HB 3 was signed. So far, no legal challenges have been raised, but Renner seemingly expects that the law's focus on "addictive features such as notification alerts and autoplay videos, rather than on their content" would ensure that the law defeats any constitutional concerns potentially raised by social media companies. "We're going to beat them, and we're never, ever going to stop," Renner vowed.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Florida Braces For Lawsuits Over Law Banning Kids From Social Media

Comments Filter:
  • by i_ate_god ( 899684 ) on Tuesday March 26, 2024 @03:03PM (#64346695)

    Age restrictions exist for a lot of things. Why should social media, a service that can easily become detrimental to an individual, especially a youth or teenager, not be age restricted? Gives the kids a chance to learn about social media, it's addictive qualities, and how to mitigate/deal with the negative consequences of social media.

    • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday March 26, 2024 @03:04PM (#64346699) Homepage Journal

      Because you can't institute such age verification without collecting everyone's PII.

      • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday March 26, 2024 @08:14PM (#64347491) Journal

        Because you can't institute such age verification without collecting everyone's PII.

        That's not actually true, though doing it in a privacy-preserving way requires the use of a trusted third party, someone who can essentially say "Yes, I verified that this person meets the requirements."

        We are building infrastructure to be able to do this for adults because data oversharing for age verification is a real problem. Right now, to prove your age to buy alcohol you hand over your driver's license, which contains all sorts of info the person checking your age does not need. I'm actually surprised that bartenders tracking young women down at their home addresses to rape them isn't a common occurrence. They don't need your name, address, driving credentials or even birthdate to tell if they can sell you booze. They need two pieces of information: A photo (or something) to verify your association with the official document, and a bit that indicates whether you're over 21 (or whatever).

        It is possible to build systems that enable data-minimized verifications; I helped to write the ISO 18013-5 mobile driving license standard which does just that. But deployment is just beginning (a handful of US states support it), and of course 14 year-olds don't generally have driving licenses. Also, binding identity to the document is a tricky but not-insoluble problem for online presentations (not solved by the current version of the standard, but under discussion for the next).

        • by Ksevio ( 865461 )

          It might be possible, but the laws don't mandate that sort of thing nor do they have any restrictions on keeping private data.

          In the end, it's pretty easy for a kid to just borrow their parent's license to view websites anyways

          • It might be possible, but the laws don't mandate that sort of thing nor do they have any restrictions on keeping private data.

            I'm not arguing that the law is good, just that age verification doesn't inherently require providing PII.

            In the end, it's pretty easy for a kid to just borrow their parent's license to view websites anyways

            This is why you need identity binding, meaning a way to verify that the person making the request is the person to whom the identity document was issued. For in-person presentation we do that with manual matching against a photo. Doing it online is harder, but not impossible.

    • Don't you already have to be 13 to have a Facebook account?

      • Don't you already have to be 13 to have a Facebook account?

        I think that's a restriction imposed by Meta itself. If so, there's a difference between a company doing that on its own platform and the government mandating it. The latter, most likely, falling under the 1st Amendment ...

        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          No, its a US law that prohibits collecting the information of children under 13 without their parents' consent. However, you just have to have a checkbox asking the user to confirm they are over 13.

          • No, its a US law that prohibits collecting the information of children under 13 without their parents' consent. However, you just have to have a checkbox asking the user to confirm they are over 13.

            Thanks. That was also in the back of my mind, but couldn't pull it forward.

      • by Pascoea ( 968200 )
        Sure, much in the same way you have to "be over 21" to go on www.crownroyal.com. Even the least enterprising 17 year old on the Internet will be able to sleuth their way past that "age verification". Seems that this is adding some "teeth" to that check, putting the liability back on Facebook et. al. in actually verifying ages instead of just booting someone if they are reported.
        • The "Are you 21?" prompts on alcohol company webpages are absolutely hilarious. A web page can't get you drunk, and teenagers really don't think they're getting away with anything by looking at pictures of booze. I'm convinced the real reason they ask for your birthday is so they can obtain marketing demographics.

          Yes, I realize they're not supposed to be marketing to kids, but alcohol is already so pervasive in our culture it's like expecting kids to be ignorant of the fact that cars exist.

          • by SirSlud ( 67381 )

            I don't think you fully appreciate the difference between marketing and "being made aware of". You'd hope the billions of dollars companies spend on both improving their ability to influence decision making, and analyzing the performance of their marketing mandates would clue people in to the fact that the vast majority of advertising is not designed to "make you aware" of a product, let a lone a whole class of products as per your analogy.

            • Are you by any chance not an American? This country has the most bizarre relationship with alcohol. We once tried to ban it, that didn't work, and until the smoking age was also raised to the same age as alcohol, it was the only vice you couldn't legally experience until you'd already been an adult for three years.

              Pretty much all the marketing alcohol needs is taken care of by the fact that it's practically seen as a right of passage when you're finally old enough to legally buy it. Personally, I found i

      • Don't you already have to be 13 to have a Facebook account?

        Yes, but that is easy to bypass.

        My daughter created her own Facebook account when she was eight.

        I only found out about it when she friended me.

        • Which is kind of like saying you found out that Starbucks will sell caffeinated drinks to minors, after you let your your underage kid use the car to drive there.

    • I was running my own damn dial-up BBS at 13, back in the early 90s. Kids mature at different rates and ultimately it should be up to the parents to decide. That's ostensibly what this bill allows, except if your kid is 13 (in which case the parents probably have to lie about their kids age and break the state law if they feel it is unjust).

      Also, lest anyone forgot what WWW stands for, the internet is a world-wide thing. It's a little absurd expecting sites to comply with some absurd patchwork of state re

      • It is in no way absurd for a company to learn the laws of the market place they are operating in. In fact, that's called being in business. Florida, as well as the other 49 states, are all individual market places and they have individual laws that must be followed by businesses that wish to sell products and services in their borders.

        A great example is California's pork law. We have some pretty hefty animal rights for how we expect pork sold in our state to be raised. If you want to sell pork here, you nee

    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday March 26, 2024 @03:21PM (#64346749)
      the only way to enforce this is to force you to give up your identity via a state issued Id every time you sign up for any online service.

      That end anonymity on the internet. And that data can easily be abused by law enforcement and the right wing government of Florida (who have shown a penchant for doing so in the past).

      Post something Ron DeSantis doesn't like online? Expect to get a visit from his goons [miamiherald.com]
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        This small government philosophy sure does call for an awfully big government. Maybe they can get some Evangelicals to do the censorship for free.

        • by drnb ( 2434720 )

          This small government philosophy sure does call for an awfully big government.

          "Small government" is a misnomer. If anything it's "small federal government". What the philosophy really desires is that issues are dealt with at the most local level of government possible. One, because that is where citizens have greater control. And two, many problems have some sort of local component so a local solution is best, not a one size fits all federal solution.

      • the only way to enforce this is to force you to give up your identity via a state issued Id every time you sign up for any online service.

        I think I've actually had a Facebook account long enough that they should be able to figure out I'm an adult that way - my account is nearly 15 years old.

        • they don't give a shit about your kids. If they did they'd stop blocking programs to feed them at school. What they care about is making you give up your identity so that you'll obey.

          When you get right down to it that's what the Republican party and the right wing are all about. Obedience. Anyone above you on the totem pole gets to tell you what to do and you get to tell anyone below you what to do. Then you keep a powerless minority at the bottom for the next rung up to shit on for fun and to feel bett
      • by jythie ( 914043 )
        Enforcing the law would defeat its purpose. It is much more effective not only for a chilling effect, but political leverage. Avoiding prosecution becomes a matter of keeping on the good side of the administration.
      • by SirSlud ( 67381 )

        Post something Ron DeSantis doesn't like online?

        Yeah, nobody has every done that before under their public name. *rolls eyes*

    • Gives the kids a chance to learn about social media, it's addictive qualities, and how to mitigate/deal with the negative consequences of social media.

      Sorry, but no. Kids aren’t going to “learn” from warning labels or bans. There’s a reason we call them kids, both literally and legally. Let’s try and remember why we do instead of assuming addictive tech somehow bestowed wisdom.

    • Age restrictions exist for a lot of things. Why should social media, a service that can easily become detrimental to an individual, especially a youth or teenager, not be age restricted? Gives the kids a chance to learn about social media, it's addictive qualities, and how to mitigate/deal with the negative consequences of social media.

      I think that every page you go to on the internet should require you give your name, address and date of birth.

      Then once a week, your spouse, employer and Law enforcement should receive a report of every website you visited during the week.

      There is more than just pictures of naked people that can harm children - in order to not harm children we should make the net not only non-anonymous, we must scour it, and protect children from anything we don't want them to see. Pro Trans, Democrat and liberal as

    • by Hadlock ( 143607 )

      It also restricts the voice of the youth on political issues. Youth can't vote*, but they can express their opinions, and youth are overwhelmingly liberal until at least age 16
       
      *In a handful of cities, including, yes, you guessed it, SF, youth citizens can vote at 16 in local elections, and public high schools are polling stations, so most youth in those areas have already been voting for 2 years before they leave public schools

    • I'd say you're removing their voice in a connected world. There are bad things about social media, but there are plenty of good things too. In addition if it has to be "Actual age verification" not just put in a DOB which will be easily faked you need to collect even more personal information than before ....
    • I would engage with your question, but I don't want to waste my time if I'm replying to a child. Please prove that you're an adult first.

  • by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Tuesday March 26, 2024 @03:11PM (#64346711) Homepage

    In the last discussion people were so hung up on debating on the appropriateness of social media for teenagers that the attached porn site age verification requirements flew entirely under the radar. This is Florida's way of joining Utah and Texas in getting people to search for "What's a VPN?"

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 )

      In the last discussion people were so hung up on debating on the appropriateness of social media for teenagers that the attached porn site age verification requirements flew entirely under the radar. This is Florida's way of joining Utah and Texas in getting people to search for "What's a VPN?"

      If “parents” are more than willing to hand a 13-year old child a 24/7 hardcore porn surfing device (also known as a “smartphone”) and justify that action under the guise of “safety”, then there’s not much more to say here regarding porn exposure or addiction. Parents are literally enabling that for their own children.

      Like a fucking VPN is going to fix the root cause of that problem.

      • If “parents” are more than willing to hand a 13-year old child a 24/7 hardcore porn surfing device (also known as a “smartphone”)

        They can certainly be configured to not operate as "hardcore porn surfing devices", but that's not good enough to the parents (and probably also some non-parents) who feel their ideas of what is appropriate for teenagers should have the force of law behind it.

    • It's also a porn age verification law

      Good, some of those models/actresses should have their ID's checked.

  • Gotta keep those youngsters away from social media during their formative years to keep them from getting information and their own ideas before they're old enough to vote. Though this hardly seems like a good way to win them over.

  • by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

    And those companies can just ignore the fines. Florida has no power to actually compel any of those companies to pay any of those fines. Just like Texas doesn't have the power to compel xHamster to pay their dumb porn fines.

  • eh (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by nomadic ( 141991 )

    Getting kids off of social media is good for them, but it shouldn't be paired with Florida running it's already-pitiful educational system into the ground. The politicians doing this are purely doing it because they can't control social media the way they can the school systems.

  • ... to represent my children? Tech groups (whatever that means)? I don't think so. I could understand Child Protective Services getting involved. But I think they have real problems to deal with.

    If parents want to add their children to some class action suit to fight this, I suspect that they'd be the ones who would grant their kids permission to use social media anyway.

  • If Floridians want this then they should get it, of course there may be consequences like additional hassle for facebook users in Florida but it seems pretty benign to me provided they give the companies enough time to adapt.
    • Yes because providing government IDs to random companies on the internet is perfectly OK. What could go wrong?

      • Let's not spread fear and doubt on this. There are already websites online offer age verification and this is in the actual bill that these kinds of services may be used. So you can sign up to ONE site, get your stuff verified and that site will tell the rest of the Internet for you. This was in the summary of the other article posted about this same topic on the front page.

    • It means all Florida social media users would have to provide some form of identification that indicates their age. Not just kids. It's the only way they can comply with a law this draconian. I believe the law is well meaning but in true Florida fashion it fails in execution.

      This is similar to laws requiring backdoors into encryption implementations for law enforcement. By making it easier for law enforcement you make it monumentally easier for criminals as well. In this case, it means companies who've mad

    • Commerce Clause -if the transaction crosses state lines, then regulation is a Federal matter.

    • States rights go both ways. Facebook is a California company. So are many other social media sites, actually. Does Florida even have ANY?

      So if we go ahead and go all in on state's rights, DeSantis would have no right to stick his nose in Facebook's business, California would tell him to go pound sand, and if he still wanted to "stick it to those social media luburls in commiefornia" he could damn well go full CCP and build his own great firewall. Actually, that sounds like a perfectly cromulent idea to

  • by physicsphairy ( 720718 ) on Tuesday March 26, 2024 @04:09PM (#64346915)

    According to COPPA, which has been federal law for 10 years

    After July 1, 2013, operators must:[42]

    * Post a clear and comprehensive online privacy policy describing their information practices for personal information collected online from persons under age 13;
    * Make reasonable efforts (taking into account available technology) to provide direct notice to parents of the operator's practices with regard to the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from persons under 13, including notice of any material change to such practices to which the parents have previously consented;
    * Obtain verifiable parental consent, with limited exceptions, prior to any collection, use, and/or disclosure of personal information from persons under age 13;
    * Provide a reasonable means for a parent to review the personal information collected from their child and to refuse to permit its further use or maintenance;

    courts may fine violators of COPPA up to $50,120 in civil penalties for each violation

    Any legal challenged are almost certainly going to be a waste of money given this law is hardly any different in reach or impact than the existing federal law. Effectively all social media sites are already required to meet the same consent requirements. The only difference will be that they will check for a birthday a couple years less recent than they were already doing.

    • Federal law is 13, Florida's idiotic law is 14 or 15 with parent's permission, otherwise 16+.

      The really annoying part though, is the attached porn site age verification requirements, which will lead to the same situation as Utah and Texas.

      • by HBI ( 10338492 )

        Counting down for the first test case of someone using a VPN in Florida to skirt the law, and the provider being held in for that. The only solution will be to demand that kind of intrusive identification across the country.

        Understand the objective here - if they can't get federal action against social media, they'll compel it via other means. These people are far from dumb.

    • by toddz ( 697874 )
      But COPPA is more like a handshake where if the user lies, that falls back on the user.
      For this law, you have to prove you are you and then "approve" another account for your kid.
      So really all this does is grab my information to block my kid from using social media for 2 more years.
      And I guess also grab my kids information when they are 16 if I didn't approve.
      So sounds a lot more like we want to know who is using all this social media.
  • The problem isn't restricting kids under 14, many people are likely for that in concept. The problem is rather requiring an adult to prove that they are an adult (or over 13) and doing that in an inherently trackable way.

    Yes, restrictions exist for other things, but most of those are in-person purchases where the verification is human eye visual and not stored in some database so your purchases can be tracked. Plus other apparent filters made by a person, is this bearded man under 14? unlikely.

    The other a

  • and can spend tens of millions of dollars on legal battles. I'm also glad they completely solved that whole child hunger thing [feedingamerica.org] and did not, in fact, have their Federal Representatives vote against meals for kids while also blowing millions of dollars on a "think of the children" political stunt designed to raise their governor's national profile for a now futile presidential run in 2028.

    What they really need now is to send their national guard to the Texas boarder for a few billion dollars a year.
  • Republican Insanity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Tuesday March 26, 2024 @05:47PM (#64347193) Homepage Journal

    Remember when Hillary Clinton's book, "It Takes A Village" caused a stir among Republicans because she suggested that the government had a role to play in raising children?

    And now, it turns out Republicans - with only the vaguest notions of "harm" as their basis - are attempting to do just what Hillary suggested. To take the reins of parenthood away from parents and substitute them with the state.

    As a parent, I don't want the state parenting my children, because if Republicans have told us anything - and we believe them - the government can't do anything right. That's why we don't have universal healthcare or a social safety net. Now, the folks who have incessantly told us they can't fix social security now tell us we can trust them to raise our children.

    I understand if you don't want your child on social media - and that's a decision you as a parent should make. But I shouldn't have to expose myself to a risk of identity theft so my child can use social media with my supervision. No (competent) parent has ever needed the state's help to keep their children off social media, and passing a law which will require public tax dollars to enforce and monitor is just ludicrous. The party of "small government" has completely lost the plot in Florida. Nobody asked for this - not conservatives, who believe in smaller government, not progressives, who don't believe in Republican anything, and not even Trump voters, who will believe anything except that government censorship is a good idea.

  • ... where this age verification shit caused pornhub to geofence the whole goddam state.

    Interestingly, as people from Texas saw the geo-block, searches for "VPN," rose exponentially.

  • My letter to the editor, as published in the Globe and Miil]

    Back in the 1990s the nerd community was challenged to make the entire world-wide web safe for children. We introduced the same kind of parental controls that cable television used. Parents could block their kids from visiting all pages with age-unsuitable content.

    When I looked, we still had parental controls on phones, chromebooks and web browsers, and the claimed usage was around 81%.

    But the new legislation requires the sites at the other e

    • by davecb ( 6526 )
      Just FYI, the convention in letters to the editor is that when one asks rhetorical questions, the expected answer is "yes" (;-))

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Working...