Bill Banning Social Media For Youngsters Advances (politico.com) 22
The Senate Commerce Committee approved the Kids Off Social Media Act, banning children under 13 from social media and requiring federally funded schools to restrict access on networks and devices. Politico reports: The panel approved the Kids Off Social Media Act -- sponsored by the panel's chair, Texas Republican Ted Cruz, and a senior Democrat on the panel, Hawaii's Brian Schatz -- by voice vote, clearing the way for consideration by the full Senate. Only Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asked to be recorded as a no on the bill. "When you've got Ted Cruz and myself in agreement on something, you've pretty much captured the ideological spectrum of the whole Congress," Sen. Schatz told POLITICO's Gabby Miller.
[...] "KOSMA comes from very good intentions of lawmakers, and establishing national screen time standards for schools is sensible. However, the bill's in-effect requirements on access to protected information jeopardize all Americans' digital privacy and endanger free speech online," said Amy Bos, NetChoice director of state and federal affairs. The trade association represents big tech firms including Meta and Google. Netchoice has been aggressive in combating social media legislation by arguing that these laws illegally restrict -- and in some cases compel -- speech. [...] A Commerce Committee aide told POLITICO that because social media platforms already voluntarily require users to be at least 13 years old, the bill does not restrict speech currently available to kids.
[...] "KOSMA comes from very good intentions of lawmakers, and establishing national screen time standards for schools is sensible. However, the bill's in-effect requirements on access to protected information jeopardize all Americans' digital privacy and endanger free speech online," said Amy Bos, NetChoice director of state and federal affairs. The trade association represents big tech firms including Meta and Google. Netchoice has been aggressive in combating social media legislation by arguing that these laws illegally restrict -- and in some cases compel -- speech. [...] A Commerce Committee aide told POLITICO that because social media platforms already voluntarily require users to be at least 13 years old, the bill does not restrict speech currently available to kids.
America (Score:1)
the land of Freedom. Except.
Re: (Score:3)
"I didn't even get into BBSing back in the day until I was 13."
Back in the '90s, 13 year olds were running BBS's on their home computers. Of course the parents were paying for the phone line, and didn't know what their kids had available for others to download.
Re: (Score:2)
and didn't know what their kids had available for others to download.
Most parents cared very little about pirated software back in the day.
Re: (Score:2)
"mandating some form of online age checks" compels speech, which the first amendment protects against.
It's just an excuse to force active internet posters to be indentifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
"mandating some form of online age checks" compels speech, which the first amendment protects against.
It's just an excuse to force active internet posters to be indentifiable.
The First Amendment should apply equally to online and other contexts, since it doesn't include a distinction. If mandating online age checks is illegal, then mandating in-person age checks at bars should also be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
If mandating online age checks is illegal, then mandating in-person age checks at bars should also be illegal.
Online age checks aren't truly analogous to the in-person kind. Online age checking can retain your personal information and/or continue to link your online activities back to your identity. It's also completely unenforceable across the global internet, unless we're planning on firewalling off every site that chooses not to comply.
Re: Mark my words social media (Score:2)
Unintended consequences. (Score:3)
Telling kids they cannot do or have a thing is a sure way to motivate them to work around obstacles.
Re: (Score:3)
Telling kids they cannot do or have a thing is a sure way to motivate them to work around obstacles.
...and basically to disrespect authority in the process.
Re: (Score:1)
We're talking about preteens here. You tell 'em no, they may pitch a small fit and then they're on to something else in an hour or so. By the time a kid is an adolescent you'll have issues with all kinds of sneaky insubordinate behaviors but by then they'd also legally allowed to use social media anyway.
At least on a national level. Some states (such as Florida) picked a higher age, because apparently kids just mature much more slowly in Florida. Probably something to do with our shitty public education
Re: (Score:1)
If that were true we'd see more 12 year old carjackers and alcoholics.
Define "Social Media" (Score:3)
Please define "Social Media"
Because usually when people are like "oh yeah, that's bad for kids", its with the mindset that its shit like Facebook and Twitter. But what about sites like YouTube? That is also technically "social media" - and sure, you might want to jump up and shout about some of the shit content on there, no different than broadcast TV. But you know what broadcast TV also had? Shit like Bill Nye. And you know what YouTube has? Shit like BILL NYE. Most certainly wouldn't want kids to see THAT type of content, now do we !?
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that isn't Truth Social according to the current administration.
Oldsters (Score:2)
Let's also ban it for oldsters, midsters, and hipsters; actually all -sters.
Because... (Score:2)
This is 'merica - y'a know, "land of the free", as long as it's whatever the government tells you what you can/cannot do.
Relgion (Score:2)
I cannot take any politician that bans any such things to “protect children” but allows parents to force children into institutionalized religion seriously.
If you';re okay with children not only being allowed, but forced to attend religious meetings, then this is really far less consequential.