I agree with this.
Removed by mod
You used a whole lot of words to say nothing of value.
Specifically what do you disagree or agree about ?
Studies have shown social media is damaging to the mental health of children. As such young children shouldn’t be overly exposed to it.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/dangers-of-social-media-for-youth
Ill ask it in a much clearer way.
Republicans scream and shout about “Democrats telling parents how to raise their kids.”
Republicans are now banning kids from social media. Sure, thats a good step.
But how do you respond to the hypocrisy of “republicans can tell parents how to raise your kids”?
Isn’t the republican view “its up to the parents how they raise their kids”, so why are republicans now celebrating telling parents they aren’t allowed to let their children on social media?
Edit - downvoted and no response. Typical, when asking about republican hypocrisy
If you look at the law closely it restricts children under 14 from creating an account. Parents can create an account and give their children access. Children under 14 can’t consent to terms and shouldn’t be permitted to create accounts.
There is no government getting in between parents and kids, this law just requires a legal guardian to provide consent to their children having accounts.
I am not opposed to this at all. Social media is toxic to children and limiting their access is best.
If parents can allow their children access, so be it.
I didn’t allow my kid to access social media until she was 16 and even then, we had to have her PW to check on her account.
Removed by mod
I refuted your word salad. That wasn’t hard to do.
Maybe instead of calling people dishonest, you should look to your own behavior.
You can’t even point out Anything specific you dislike. I actually cited a study showing why this is a good idea.
Removed by mod
For children yes. Children don’t have the same rights as adults.
Liberals are more likely to be mentally ill. Conservatives are less likely to be mentally ill. As such we are fine on social media.
Removed by mod
We are the reasonable ones. I don’t associate with those people. Those people act more like democrats.
Should this not be up to the parents to decide? Don’t parents have a right to decide how they raise their children?
Why are republicans telling others how to raise their children? Why are republicans trying to make a Big Government State that controls the lives of citizens?
Why do republicans hate freedom?
Why are republicans telling others how to raise their children?
They’re not. This bill still allows parents to create social media accounts for their kids.
The law prevents children under 14 from creating accounts & children 14&15 from creating accounts without their parents consent. Parents can create accounts and give access to their children. The parents can still decide.
Fuck off with this crap. This is a parental decision.
[It] does require websites to give users the option of “anonymous age verification,” which is defined as verification by a third party that cannot retain identifying information after the task is complete.
Its not anonymous if you have to give up anonymity to complete the process.
Also seems ripe to use as a poor tax. How many Lemmy instances could survive a 10-50k fine per offense? The NetChoice gang can afford to fight, and if they lose, implement this.
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing for children on social media. This is just not the way. If the authors of this bill actually gave a shit, they would be fighting for living wages and less work so families can actually spend time together.
It’s anonymous from the perspective of the website.
You have a trusted third party check the ID, so you don’t have to hold that ID data.
It’s kind like Stripe for credit card processing. You can integrate Stripe into your website and they handle all the credit card details in a way your server never has to see those credit card details.
I understand the protocol. If I have to reveal my identity at any point during a transaction to any party, it is not anonymous. It may maintain some privacy between me and the content owner, but my activities are no longer anonymous.
“I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgement and intentions are.”
This goes for corporate and state level actors. I don’t trust Daddy Government or the age verifier to have my best interest in mind when they can start building a profile on the content I consume they deem not suitable for minors.
There may be a specific flavour of a zero knowledge proofs that works to maintain anonymity. Like, I’d rather pay with monero, and I do so when I can, than stripe for this very reason. My payment activity is decoupled from my real identity used to purchase the monero from a KYC institution.
That is not what this bill is proposing, so its not anonymous.
I read about the fine more and if I read it correctly, it is really strange. The youth would be able to sue to get the money.
That means people could create fake accounts and bombard the sites with lawsuits.
I’m not a fan of that. I’ll have to find a better source and verify that I read that correctly.
Same conclusion in my research. All these bullshit bills are erosions of privacy and/or a poor tax. CISPA, SOPA, PIPA, CASE, KOSA, etc…
Also seems ripe to use as a poor tax. How many Lemmy instances could survive a 10-50k fine per offense?
I would say zero. I have not read the bill, I’m not sure how they are defining social media or if they have guard rails to protect something like lemmy. That is a good point though
Removed by mod
