Bill Banning Social Media For Youngsters Advances (politico.com) 86
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:1, Troll)
Keeping kids under 13 off social media seems pretty reasonable. Hell, I doubt I'd have complained at that age, since I didn't even get into BBSing back in the day until I was 13.
The part that probably is going to suck is that the lawmakers will likely implement this entirely the wrong way, by mandating some form of online age checks like they did with porn sites. Ideally, this should be enforced at the device level, by parents properly setting up parental controls and imputing their kid's birthdate. (But
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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, they called it cracked software. Parents used to go to, I guess you would call it a club, where parents swapped cracked floppies and some of the most popular software was stuff like Copy II Plus or Locksmith whose whole purpose was bypassing copy protection. This was before BBS's.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Back in the day, Dads Penthouse mags could do far more damage than any BBS serving up hot ASCII porn in green monochrome.
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)
Agree that bars should not be able to store the info on your ID. One tried it here locally, there was a lot of push back and they stopped. Flashing your ID at a minimum wage worker who verifies at a glance and then forgets seems much different then storing everything and acceptable.
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: (Score:2)
prosecute parents for not magically enforcing the age-restriction rules
To some degree, Google, Apple and Microsoft are responsible for this situation. "Are you setting up this device for someone under 18?" absolutely should come up as part of the initial setup process for any new smartphone/tablet/PC. The parental controls configuration process also needs to be very easy, something where you set an administrator password and your child's birthdate, and it has preconfigured default restrictions for specific age ranges (which a parent should be able to fine-tune if they so des
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 law itself says differently: [congress.gov]
(b) Protections for privacy.—Nothing in this title, including a determination described in subsection (a), shall be construed to require a social media platform to— (1) implement an age gating or age verification functionality; or (2) affirmatively collect any personal data with respect to the age of users that the social media platform is not already collecting in the normal course of business.
Which, as I read it, makes this law "think of the children" theater. If you don't explicitly ask your users for their age and they don't go out of their way to tell you, you're under no obligation to kick them off your platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't COPA basically already do that?
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is the sneaky bit:
affirmatively collect any personal data with respect to the age of users that the social media platform is not already collecting in the normal course of business.
They already collect age, so that provision doesn't apply. Further proof of that can be found in TFS:
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.
Like... what about platforms that do NOT voluntarily require users to be at least 13? What if they dropped that provision? Is the commerce committee aide implying that it WOULD restrict speech if that were the case? Can the platform simply stop making that voluntary requirement and avoid this age checking law?
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.
Welcome to the New America, Citizen. Now show me your papers.
You don't think Musk is building a giant database of people out of government data for the fun of it do you? It sounds a bit Gestapo because it really fucking is.
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:2)
Have you lost your mind rsilvergun, or is someone using your sig to make you look stupid?
Re: (Score:1)
That would only be true if you were a worthless parent, like Ted Cruz and the person from Hawaii.
Re: America (Score:2)
I agree that it seems reasonable and I definitely do not want my kids on social media, but like most legal things this becomes sticky when we try to define things. My concern is that any application would involve a definition of social media that is either too broad or too narrow.
I also do not like the idea eliminating anonymity from the internet, which seems to be a primary goal of governments right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Except what?
Kids are not adults, it is universally accepted that kids should have special protections and also limitations on freedoms. This is not a hard concept.
Your immaturity is not insight.
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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And yet 99% of them will grow up enough to NOT become a hardened criminal, who generally acts like an adult that respects rules and laws.
Ask every 30-year old if they think their 10-year old self needed good parental guidance and limits on their behavior. The obvious (and unanimous) answer will simply confirm through our own experience that limits ARE necessary for the citizens we legally call children for a reason.
That's not social media. It’s an additive mind-altering drug. Prove me wrong by taki
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there are two good indicators that I've done a good job as a parent, it's that my kids grow up disrespecting authority and working around obstacles.
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
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 system in this state.
Florida is ranked pretty damn high on this list:
https://www.usnews.com/news/be... [usnews.com]
Doubt that happens with bribes alone. For all the Florida Man punch lines, state legislators probably know better with that higher age cutoff.
That will become more obvious when we raise the legal voting age. For the same reason.
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.
Re: Unintended consequences. (Score:2)
Are you implying that unplanned pregnancies and drug use are more common than in the past?
Re: (Score:3)
The same is true of presidents!
Re: (Score:2)
It might be better to have child friendly social media so that they can develop good habits and learn how to use it safely, but actually implementing that would be extremely difficult.
One thing that might really help is if they need to know someone in the real world to befriend them on social media. Require a scan of a QR code on a phone screen to add them, with exceptions for educational and maybe some vetted celebrity accounts.
Re: Unintended consequences. (Score:2)
The big problem with that idea is how to make it profitable. I think the only real way to make it work would be to federate it and then servers would be maintained/moderated by organizations with an interest in doing so (schools, scouts, churches, etc.). Of course, that would open the door to bad actors propping up servers for nefarious purposes.
Define "Social Media" (Score:4, Insightful)
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:2)
says the guy that openly displays his 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)
By your definition then, social media would be defined in part by write access, any media that is read-only might not quality. Not criticizing that, just observing it.
But read-only media can be harmful to children, eliminating "write access" might reduce some problems but doesn't solve anything.
The problem is blanket banning rather than addressing specific harms. Reasonable people would agree that the burden should not be on children to solve offenses against children.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Definitions" section of the actual law [congress.gov] excludes pretty much everything you've listed from the definition of "Social Media".
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term “social media platform” means a public-facing website, online service, online application, or mobile application that— (i) is directed to consumers; (ii) collects personal data; (iii) primarily derives revenue from advertising or the sale of personal data; and (iv) as its primary function provides a community forum for user-generated content, including messages, videos, and audio files among users where such content is primarily intended for viewing, resharing, or platform-enabled distributed social endorsement or comment.
It then explicitly excludes teleconferencing services, email, educational services, and messaging services.
A news website that allows reader comments on articles is probably fine. The edge cases are sites like Slashdot. The homepage isn't exactly "user generated" content, though some stories are submitted by readers. The comments section definitely is, but is the "primary funct
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that the combination of (iii) and (iv) is to create an empty set. Technically a non-profit organisation could have a website which qualifies, and technically a for-profit company could have statutes which define its primary purpose as providing a community forum rather than making profit, but those are both negligible edge cases.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd need an actual lawyer to slice and dice this but I don't think that edge case applies.
The law uses the terms "revenue" and "function" rather than "profit" and "purpose". A non-profit could still have a primarily advertising-based revenue stream, and while maybe a company can arbitrarily define their purpose, the function of their platform is what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1990s called. They want their email lists back.
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Posted in response to a comment on government inaction. You are an embarrassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
So is having a social media existence in many places to not be excluded by one's peers.
This “small government” can apparently ban social media under 13. If it can do that, it can do the same with religious institutions and other similar things.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, "evangelical" meant one could have a modern life and be considered a devout Christian. The book-banning/gay-bashing/history white-washing, anti-abortion mob censoring US culture are doing everything Catholicism likes, except being charitable.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no solution to that problem, parents raise children.
However, we can have public education. Which political party opposes that?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Incredible to see that there's no diamorphine prescribing in the US for cancer pain management etc.
"Think of the Children" Theater (Score:2)
Basically re-posting myself because I think this deserves to be a top level comment.
The law says: [congress.gov]
(b) Protections for privacy.—Nothing in this title, including a determination described in subsection (a), shall be construed to require a social media platform to— (1) implement an age gating or age verification functionality; or (2) affirmatively collect any personal data with respect to the age of users that the social media platform is not already collecting in the normal course of business.
Social media platforms are under no obligation to verify (or even ask about) the age of their users. If a platform chooses not to ask a kid for their age and the kid doesn't go out of their way to broadcast it, the platform is under no obligation to kick the user off. "Don't ask, don't tell" if you will.
Regardless of your opinions on whether it's a worthwhile goal, this simply doesn't read like a serious
Re: (Score:2)
If a platform chooses not to ask a kid for their age and the kid doesn't go out of their way to broadcast it, the platform is under no obligation to kick the user off. "Don't ask, don't tell" if you will.
That's all well and good, but they already DO require the user to provide their age. From TFS:
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.
That said, it seems like that would actually neuter this bill.
1. social media platform requires users to say they're over 13.
2. all users have thus said they're over 13, or they wouldn't have been allowed on in the first place.
3. bill restricts access for those reporting to be under 13.
4. bill has zero impact because there are zero users who have reported being under 13. Maybe this allows them to block social sites
It never stops at Youngsters (Score:1)
Same Ol Hidden Agenda (Score:1)
But... think about the kids.