This has all the same issues of the anti-porn bills; This requires adults to show ID to access online speech. Everyone has to prove they're not a kid, not just the kids. If it didn't work like that, you wouldn't need this "fix" in the first place.
I want the government involved as little as possible in the internet. The (still relatively free, but nowhere near as free as it was/should be) internet is one of the few advantages we have over the government, which is why they hate it so much. This whole "think of the kids" thing is manipulative bullshit, that sadly many people are buying.
It's a parent's responsibility to control their kid's access to information, not the government's, and not the government via forcing themselves on various internet entities. This is a road to disaster. The internet has to remain free if we're to have any hope of a peaceful solution. The more the government intervenes in the internet, for whatever reason, the less likely a peaceful outcome becomes.
Internet ID is a terrible idea, and one we'd criticize in any other context. Even requiring phone verification is invasive bullshit.
What were we told by proponents of age/ID verification? "It'll only be for pornography, it won't spread beyond that, stop being hyperbolic and scaremongering". Anyone who said this would be a slippery slope and engage in mission creep was proven right.
It will get worse. The UK is proposing not just Government photo ID but also live (ongoing) facial recognition to verify that someone accessing something not "safe for kids" is of age. That will be implemented next year. Their rationale is that they need to verify that someone physically at a device is who they say they are based on their photo ID.
They didn't think this through, did they? Not that I am surprised by politicians anymore but this is probably one of the most moronic things. Sites will just block the UK. People who do want the pron will find it with a vpn and the whole thing will probably be added onto other stuff not pron related. Ironic that the country that brought forth George Orwell now does exactly the things he wanted about.
The Labour Party wanted to put forth an amendment to ban VPNs for the then Online Safety Bill. It failed but Labour could be in power this year with a majority so it would be trivial to bring in a new bill to ban them.
I fear VPNs are on borrowed time. AirVPN recently blocked Italian residents from service because of the new Piracy Shield.
I agree, I’m a bit torn because I know, as do many others, that social media is poisoning the youth. Unfortunately this is just a symptom and not the actual disease, and the ship has sailed on regulating social media unless you want the government to lock you up for posting on here
If school can take kids out of class for using social media because it's against the law then that's ok; the schools already know the kid's identity and age. The big problem is them using it in school anyway.
Normies are flocking to government to crack down on this stuff because the government is already enforcing unprecedented levels of influence in their daily lives.
Don't believe me? Object to groomers grooming your kids or demanding that your son Timmy is now Tammy and see what happens.
They don't realize that this sort of power always goes one way for some reason. They expect fair and equitable treatment under the law. Will they ever come to grips with the new reality? Dunno. It'll probably be nasty if they ever do.
The cost of your anonymity is too high a price. Digital ID will not prevent the corruption of children by leftists and globalists, but it will be used to prevent you from speaking out against it.
Saying something is not a solution does not mean the government doing anything is a solution.
That reasoning is exactly how we get all these government measures.
I agree that parents aren't doing their job, but that doesn't give governments the right to step in. People are imperfect, many are retarded. And plenty of those retards are in government. Giving retards power over me just because someone else is being a retard is not the answer.
Laws generally hit the people who don't need them hardest anyway. Yeah, sure, fuck all of us over because parents are stupid...and will continue to be stupid after this law passes.
You really think the people that are currently letting their children have unrestricted access won't also be the parents who will sign off on letting their kids have unrestricted access after this?
This solves nothing, and gives the government more control over the flow of information, which is exactly what they want.
That reasoning is exactly how we get all these government measures.
It's that simple. Letting the government do something just because something needs to be done makes things worse, not better. This isn't a solution, so it's a moot point.
I'm not married to the bill. I'm wondering how you think the problem should be solved through extrajudicial or cultural means and I guess your answer is, the problem isn't big enough to prompt a solution.
Somebody has to figure out a way to get kids off the internet.
You mean, like simply not giving them a smartphone? By simply controlling what your kids are doing, just like how humanity has done it for thousands of years, until the last 20 years or so when parents started to rely on technology to do the "parenting"?
Ding Ding Ding! Maybe don't give your 11 year old a smartphone. And no, just cuz Beck from the other class has one doesn't mean YOU should get one. It's one of the most dangerous things aside for a gun or drugs that you can give a kid and just ignore. I started on the net at 15 and the next was a totally different place back then. Now I wouldn't without subervision give a kid a phone at that age.
This is something PARENTS should do, not the state.
I'm adding this into my 'reasons I want to bitch slap A LOT of modern parents', curate the content your kids watch you useless fucks instead of introducing censorship to us all because you KNOW this'll require ID to be effective.
Modern parenting has been about handing kids over to the state since the rise of the nuclear family over the extended family and modern schooling. Normies might breed but their kids belong to the government.
I know, it's so aggravating as I am friends with parents WHO ACTUALLY parent like doing a book report with their kids each week and going on trips to learn about places
Compare that to these 'lol, state should help' parents and it just pisses you off.
It's up to parents NOT government to control what the kids look at online. Want more control over your kids? Pull them out of public school. Stop letting them associate with bad influences which are 90% of children out there with parents who put their kids in public schools.
Digital IDs are not the way to solving the issue of social media in modernity. These are being setup only to allow the government more control on pushing propaganda toward kids and silencing adult dissenters.
All this will do is kill anonymity. Because you'll need an ID to post on social media. So they'll know exactly who you are, even if the online name isn't the same as your ID.
It might wake a few people up and have them leave before it's too late. But I think far too many people are addicted to social media because of the dopamine hits that they'll just surrender and enjoy in ignorance.
This also implies that ID is a valid way to tell who you are, so it could be used for voting. But hey, double standards are the only standards some have.
"Black people are too stupid to be able to get ID to vote. Requiring ID is racist against them." -Official Dem position.
"So we should ban all black people from the internet?" -Florida man.
"Oh no, ID is easy to access and everyone has it, that's perfectly reasonable to do. Anything to oppress the commoners, we're with you!" -Dem position.
As much as i support that children shouldnt be online until a certain age because it fucks with their minds and also puts them within reach of being groomed. Like many say, this will be abused. And seriously, why are conservatives so bad at the culture war lol.
And seriously, why are conservatives so bad at the culture war lol.
Because the majority of "conservatives" are just controlled opposition. They want the same things as the dems, but they have to play along. "Democrats going the speed limit" is another description for them, since they wind up at the same place, but they do it a bit more gradually.
I figured with some of his ridiculous actions, like signing an anti-BDS bill on foreign land, that DeSantis was going to go galaxy-brian about "proteccing the chillens" at some point.
I understand and clearly see that many parents are abject failures. But letting the state take over in place of parenting is giving the Commies/Socialists the W. DO NOT. Letting them take responsibility over one thing creates leeway for them to try and take our own agency over said thing.
So I read the thing, it's even dumber than I thought.
To clean up the lengthy post I had here at first, I'll just sum up with this.
It's kind of misleading. Only sites where at least 10% of the its users are under 14 does this bill apply. Facebook and Twitter will probably be excluded due to the sheer amount of people over 14 that use it. Tik Tok and Snapchat though…
Beside the slightly inconvenient to this bill's entire purpose fact that you don't issue ID to people under 16 for a drivers license and 18/21 for most other things, it just begs the question, is this really for kids if the ones that are being impacted are already old enough for an ID?
I like the spirit of the law, and at least according to the above article it doesn't sound like they're forcing the social media companies to do anything beyond delete an account if it is found (no mention of a digital ID check-in). time will tell if that remains the case.
I still maintain that nobody should be using the real name on the Internet. Were this still the case, I wouldn't mind kids creating anonymous accounts on kid friendly sites such as lego.com like we did in the 90s and 00s. now that it is common to use your real name on the internet, coupled with a real photo and real information about your real address and real life, I would even support banning teenagers under the age of 18 from creating social media accounts.
again, we don't need digital ID to be able to enforce this. we have the tools to classify and block certain sites at the network level, parents need to learn to use them and actually curate the content that their kids are looking at.
I think almost everyone here will agree this is a good idea, except for the issue of age verification. As far as I can tell, there is no mechanism prescribed in the bill to verify age beyond what the user enters as their birthday. However, parents can sue for $10k if the social media site refuses to delete the account.
I wonder how effective this will be. A law that relies on narcing as enforcement (reporting accounts for underage ownership) might be effective while sidestepping the mass verification concerns.
I am no longer willing to put up with "parental responsibility" as a solution to this problem.
They might not say it, but forcing liability on the companies in turn forces verification. They can't afford to get hit with a bunch of (taxpayer funded) government lawsuits because they let minors on their platform. The bill itself might not say anything, but there's only one way to do it without massive risk.
This is just like how the government isn't violating First Amendment rights because they're not officially demanding companies do anything. It's a work around, that artificially forces companies to act in a certain way the government wants.
The law also says that platforms must terminate these accounts should the teen or their parents request it to be removed from the site. If they don’t, companies can be sued on the kid’s behalf and may be liable for up to $10,000 in damages each.
This has all the same issues of the anti-porn bills; This requires adults to show ID to access online speech. Everyone has to prove they're not a kid, not just the kids. If it didn't work like that, you wouldn't need this "fix" in the first place.
I want the government involved as little as possible in the internet. The (still relatively free, but nowhere near as free as it was/should be) internet is one of the few advantages we have over the government, which is why they hate it so much. This whole "think of the kids" thing is manipulative bullshit, that sadly many people are buying.
It's a parent's responsibility to control their kid's access to information, not the government's, and not the government via forcing themselves on various internet entities. This is a road to disaster. The internet has to remain free if we're to have any hope of a peaceful solution. The more the government intervenes in the internet, for whatever reason, the less likely a peaceful outcome becomes.
Internet ID is a terrible idea, and one we'd criticize in any other context. Even requiring phone verification is invasive bullshit.
What were we told by proponents of age/ID verification? "It'll only be for pornography, it won't spread beyond that, stop being hyperbolic and scaremongering". Anyone who said this would be a slippery slope and engage in mission creep was proven right.
It will get worse. The UK is proposing not just Government photo ID but also live (ongoing) facial recognition to verify that someone accessing something not "safe for kids" is of age. That will be implemented next year. Their rationale is that they need to verify that someone physically at a device is who they say they are based on their photo ID.
They didn't think this through, did they? Not that I am surprised by politicians anymore but this is probably one of the most moronic things. Sites will just block the UK. People who do want the pron will find it with a vpn and the whole thing will probably be added onto other stuff not pron related. Ironic that the country that brought forth George Orwell now does exactly the things he wanted about.
The Labour Party wanted to put forth an amendment to ban VPNs for the then Online Safety Bill. It failed but Labour could be in power this year with a majority so it would be trivial to bring in a new bill to ban them.
I fear VPNs are on borrowed time. AirVPN recently blocked Italian residents from service because of the new Piracy Shield.
I agree, I’m a bit torn because I know, as do many others, that social media is poisoning the youth. Unfortunately this is just a symptom and not the actual disease, and the ship has sailed on regulating social media unless you want the government to lock you up for posting on here
Depends on who is enforcing the law.
If school can take kids out of class for using social media because it's against the law then that's ok; the schools already know the kid's identity and age. The big problem is them using it in school anyway.
You say this like this isn't the case already.
Normies are flocking to government to crack down on this stuff because the government is already enforcing unprecedented levels of influence in their daily lives.
Don't believe me? Object to groomers grooming your kids or demanding that your son Timmy is now Tammy and see what happens.
They don't realize that this sort of power always goes one way for some reason. They expect fair and equitable treatment under the law. Will they ever come to grips with the new reality? Dunno. It'll probably be nasty if they ever do.
That may be true, but parental responsibility is not a solution. It's just not. Somebody has to figure out a way to get kids off the internet.
The cost of your anonymity is too high a price. Digital ID will not prevent the corruption of children by leftists and globalists, but it will be used to prevent you from speaking out against it.
Saying something is not a solution does not mean the government doing anything is a solution.
That reasoning is exactly how we get all these government measures.
I agree that parents aren't doing their job, but that doesn't give governments the right to step in. People are imperfect, many are retarded. And plenty of those retards are in government. Giving retards power over me just because someone else is being a retard is not the answer.
Laws generally hit the people who don't need them hardest anyway. Yeah, sure, fuck all of us over because parents are stupid...and will continue to be stupid after this law passes.
You really think the people that are currently letting their children have unrestricted access won't also be the parents who will sign off on letting their kids have unrestricted access after this?
This solves nothing, and gives the government more control over the flow of information, which is exactly what they want.
Fine, then what is?
Pressure the ISPs?
Neighborhood watch to slap phones out of hands?
I'm just going to quote myself here:
It's that simple. Letting the government do something just because something needs to be done makes things worse, not better. This isn't a solution, so it's a moot point.
Where did I say the word "government"? We need a solution.
You're saying this government bill is a solution.
You're not getting it, and you're not addressing any of my points.
"We need a solution," leads to terrible solutions. Even if there's a problem, sometimes the least bad thing is still leaving things how they were.
I'm not married to the bill. I'm wondering how you think the problem should be solved through extrajudicial or cultural means and I guess your answer is, the problem isn't big enough to prompt a solution.
You mean, like simply not giving them a smartphone? By simply controlling what your kids are doing, just like how humanity has done it for thousands of years, until the last 20 years or so when parents started to rely on technology to do the "parenting"?
Ding Ding Ding! Maybe don't give your 11 year old a smartphone. And no, just cuz Beck from the other class has one doesn't mean YOU should get one. It's one of the most dangerous things aside for a gun or drugs that you can give a kid and just ignore. I started on the net at 15 and the next was a totally different place back then. Now I wouldn't without subervision give a kid a phone at that age.
Working for hours to download and reassemble a few uuencoded low resolution images from Usenet forums was a learning experience, at least.
I would love it if I could choose to not allow other people's kids to have smartphones. I really would. Sounds beautifully simple.
Some people might be bad parents, but the government is an even worse parent.
This is something PARENTS should do, not the state.
I'm adding this into my 'reasons I want to bitch slap A LOT of modern parents', curate the content your kids watch you useless fucks instead of introducing censorship to us all because you KNOW this'll require ID to be effective.
Modern parenting has been about handing kids over to the state since the rise of the nuclear family over the extended family and modern schooling. Normies might breed but their kids belong to the government.
I know, it's so aggravating as I am friends with parents WHO ACTUALLY parent like doing a book report with their kids each week and going on trips to learn about places
Compare that to these 'lol, state should help' parents and it just pisses you off.
Parents dont want to curate. They want platforms to curate for them, which leads to censorship.
They want the state to take over the role of parenting and the platforms to take over the role of babysitter.
They want to be cattle.
It's up to parents NOT government to control what the kids look at online. Want more control over your kids? Pull them out of public school. Stop letting them associate with bad influences which are 90% of children out there with parents who put their kids in public schools.
Digital IDs are not the way to solving the issue of social media in modernity. These are being setup only to allow the government more control on pushing propaganda toward kids and silencing adult dissenters.
Another big gubmebt repubicon
Remember when everyone though he might be our guy? Boy, that turned out to wrong pretty quickly.
All this will do is kill anonymity. Because you'll need an ID to post on social media. So they'll know exactly who you are, even if the online name isn't the same as your ID.
It might wake a few people up and have them leave before it's too late. But I think far too many people are addicted to social media because of the dopamine hits that they'll just surrender and enjoy in ignorance.
This also implies that ID is a valid way to tell who you are, so it could be used for voting. But hey, double standards are the only standards some have.
"Black people are too stupid to be able to get ID to vote. Requiring ID is racist against them." -Official Dem position.
"So we should ban all black people from the internet?" -Florida man.
"Oh no, ID is easy to access and everyone has it, that's perfectly reasonable to do. Anything to oppress the commoners, we're with you!" -Dem position.
Okay as a first step, but ultimately we need to ban all Indians and Chinese from the Internet
And the job market. Keeping pajeets from flooding every single tech job opening would make things easier on everyone involved.
Enforced retroactively.
As much as i support that children shouldnt be online until a certain age because it fucks with their minds and also puts them within reach of being groomed. Like many say, this will be abused. And seriously, why are conservatives so bad at the culture war lol.
Because the majority of "conservatives" are just controlled opposition. They want the same things as the dems, but they have to play along. "Democrats going the speed limit" is another description for them, since they wind up at the same place, but they do it a bit more gradually.
I figured with some of his ridiculous actions, like signing an anti-BDS bill on foreign land, that DeSantis was going to go galaxy-brian about "proteccing the chillens" at some point.
I understand and clearly see that many parents are abject failures. But letting the state take over in place of parenting is giving the Commies/Socialists the W. DO NOT. Letting them take responsibility over one thing creates leeway for them to try and take our own agency over said thing.
So I read the thing, it's even dumber than I thought.
To clean up the lengthy post I had here at first, I'll just sum up with this.
It's kind of misleading. Only sites where at least 10% of the its users are under 14 does this bill apply. Facebook and Twitter will probably be excluded due to the sheer amount of people over 14 that use it. Tik Tok and Snapchat though…
Beside the slightly inconvenient to this bill's entire purpose fact that you don't issue ID to people under 16 for a drivers license and 18/21 for most other things, it just begs the question, is this really for kids if the ones that are being impacted are already old enough for an ID?
We already know the answer.
gov law has no jurisdiction over the internet
I like the spirit of the law, and at least according to the above article it doesn't sound like they're forcing the social media companies to do anything beyond delete an account if it is found (no mention of a digital ID check-in). time will tell if that remains the case.
I still maintain that nobody should be using the real name on the Internet. Were this still the case, I wouldn't mind kids creating anonymous accounts on kid friendly sites such as lego.com like we did in the 90s and 00s. now that it is common to use your real name on the internet, coupled with a real photo and real information about your real address and real life, I would even support banning teenagers under the age of 18 from creating social media accounts.
again, we don't need digital ID to be able to enforce this. we have the tools to classify and block certain sites at the network level, parents need to learn to use them and actually curate the content that their kids are looking at.
If we keep complaining about social media ruining us & our kids, we should probably collectively do something about it.
Kids know about VPNs.
Sadly, so do Governments.
Why is it so important to you that kids don't access the internet?
I agree with this. Kids shouldn't be in front of any type of screen until their eyes fully develop, anyways.
I think almost everyone here will agree this is a good idea, except for the issue of age verification. As far as I can tell, there is no mechanism prescribed in the bill to verify age beyond what the user enters as their birthday. However, parents can sue for $10k if the social media site refuses to delete the account.
I wonder how effective this will be. A law that relies on narcing as enforcement (reporting accounts for underage ownership) might be effective while sidestepping the mass verification concerns.
I am no longer willing to put up with "parental responsibility" as a solution to this problem.
And that's a massive fucking issue.
Gubmint can fuck off.
Did you miss this part?
Oh, come on.
They might not say it, but forcing liability on the companies in turn forces verification. They can't afford to get hit with a bunch of (taxpayer funded) government lawsuits because they let minors on their platform. The bill itself might not say anything, but there's only one way to do it without massive risk.
This is just like how the government isn't violating First Amendment rights because they're not officially demanding companies do anything. It's a work around, that artificially forces companies to act in a certain way the government wants.
That's the text about lawsuits.
Hard disagree. I want parents banning their kids from social media. The government has absolutely no business being involved in any capacity.
DeSantis is in with the Democrats, who would've imagined?