Bill Banning Social Media For Youngsters Advances (politico.com) 37
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)
Most parents cared very little about pirated software back in the day.
Most parents wouldn't have even known what those words meant.
Re:America (Score:4, Insightful)
"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:1)
"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: (Score:2)
The First Amendment should apply equally to online and other contexts
It's a hoot that you think this government will give a shit about the First Amendment or what's "legal".
You must not have been paying attention.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just an excuse to force active internet posters to be indentifiable.
And to have an excuse to monitor internet activity, prosecute parents for not magically enforcing the age-restriction rules, and it's a handy way to take the kids away from the parents and put them in foster care for being 'juvenile delinquents' or 'rebellious' or whatever.
Re: Mark my words social media (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, this long ass screed that has nothing to do with kids on social media remains untouched, but I get modded down for suggesting that parents do their damn jobs and actually take responsibility for raising their kids? Stay weird, Slashdot.
Re: (Score:1)
That would only be true if you were a worthless parent, like Ted Cruz and the person from Hawaii.
Unintended consequences. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And most parents will literally *help* their kids work around the obstacles.
Re: (Score:1)
Telling kids they cannot do or have a thing is a sure way to motivate them to work around obstacles.
Guess we better start telling them they're more than welcome to do fentanyl and have unsafe sex.
.........
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to popular culture they're already internalizing everything is permitted. Note all the unplanned pregnancies and fent junkies.
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:1)
Anything that isn't Truth Social according to the current administration.
Re: (Score:1)
Anything that isn't Truth Social according to the current administration.
Yep. Just pull shit out of your ass. Make something up.... You have TDS.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, social media is basically the entire friggin' Internet at this point. Anything that has any kind of rating system, thumbs up or thumbs down, or comments section qualifies. If you can post any content, that's social media too. So what these tards are really wanting to do is just ban anyone under 13 from using the Internet at all. I wonder how that would work for remote schooling or telehealth visits with their doctors? Surely, both of those count as social media.
Re: (Score:2)
(Damn no edit function after 25+ years.) Or email. Or Facetiming or Skyping with your father who is overseas in the military. Or...you get the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I looked up the act's definition, because I agree that the boundary problems are inherently hard. I can't work out if YT will be caught, and I also can't work out if Snap will.
Oldsters (Score:2)
Let's also ban it for oldsters, midsters, and hipsters; actually all -sters.
Because... (Score:1)
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:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In some cities, that is the price of normality. Living and working in that city requires obedience to certain customs. Religion is an appeal to a higher authority, one that can't be contradicted. (The USA sees 'patriotism' as the same.) The problem is, humans spend a lot declaring what god 'means': The best example being the parable of Onan. God, as recorded, didn't say anything about the crimes of Onan, or about the wrongness of masturbation.
Hopefully schools provide education, on the moral and his
This is about what I would expect. (Score:1)
This is about what I would expect from the freaking idiots in the US Congress. Just today, these insufferable fuckwads voted to schedule fentanyl as a schedule 1 drug. Retards all over the place rejoiced!
Here is the definition of Schedule I and Schedule II drugs:
Schedule I — drugs with a high abuse risk. These drugs have NO safe, accepted medical use in the United States. Some examples are heroin, marijuana, LSD, PCP, and crack cocaine.
Schedule II — drugs with a high abuse risk, but also have safe and accepted medical uses in the United States. These drugs can cause severe psychological or physical dependence. Schedule II drugs include certain narcotics, stimulants, and depressant drugs. Some examples are morphine, cocaine, oxycodone (OxyContin®), , methylphenidate (Ritalin®), and dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine®).
The problem is that Fentanyl: 1) Has a high abuse risk. 2) Has safe and accepted medical uses in the United States. It's used for severe pain management and as an anesthesia adjunct most commonly. Therefore, it belongs in Schedule II, where it alway