31
submitted 23 hours ago by Blaze@feddit.org to c/AskUSA@discuss.online
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] HeartyOfGlass@lemm.ee 8 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

It's unenforceable, so it's just a distraction. I assume any "funding" for this will just be pocketed by the governor & cops.

[-] shani66@ani.social 8 points 10 hours ago

It's Florida, so the rationale behind it is probably to stop kids from getting information that might make them good people or that might help then understand themselves.

[-] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

Parents job not the govt. I fucking hate shit like this.

[-] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 9 points 12 hours ago

I hate interacting with children on the internet so this would be a good idea in theory if it wasn't unenforcable without massive privacy violations.

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 2 points 8 hours ago

Most social media is bad for you. I don't think this kind of ban is the right tool. But the idea that everyone would just delete Facebook and Instagram is a dream that will never happen.

The government could break up the megacorps though.

[-] ochi_chernye@startrek.website 20 points 16 hours ago

Social media, as it currently exists, is a net negative. We'd all be better off without it.

[-] OpenStars@piefed.social 0 points 12 hours ago

Even Lemmy, for adults I mean? It's an infinite book of content, or perhaps more like hanging out at a pub after/instead of work, in that it can be misused but does offer positives of connection, knowledge, enjoyment, correction, and more?

[-] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 8 hours ago

Lemmy is slightly better because as far as I can tell it’s not algorithmically run and it’s decentralized. The data does not appear to be for sale although I’m sure AI is using it for training without compensation.

Lemmy is still ripe for manipulation. At this point in time nobody knows if the other person they’re talking with is real or a bot, AI has made the ability to manufacture consent a lot easier and real seeming when it’s not organic.

I personally believe we fucked up somewhere along the line in our tech development

[-] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Also on Jan 1st, Florida is requiring adult websites to ID users before allowing access. So kiss pornhub and other sites goodbye if you don't have a VPN (because those sites have told Florida to fuck off).

[-] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 12 points 16 hours ago

I think that I, as a person born on Jan 1st, 1900, can circumvent age gates, then so will these kids.

This is a major waste of tax dollars.

[-] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 14 hours ago

There is research around this that suggests more than half of all children have profiles with an 18+ age.

I recall the most common is to bump their age by 10 years, keeping the month and day the same. Also, many of these are setup with the guidance of a parent.

[-] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 hours ago

Also, many of these are setup with the guidance of a parent.

👀 ok it’s one thing for kids to be clever and circumvent age restrictions on websites, it’s another thing for their parents to help them. That’s just bad parenting. Reminds me of a friend of mine who’s mom would buy him alcohol starting around 15 - guess what, at 25 he’s a raging fucking alcoholic who threw his life away. And he was a natural talent and athlete who could of potentially gone pro in his sport.

[-] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 hours ago

I'm guessing you don't have children.

Underaged drinking is nothing like having an account that lets them use the full set of features.

Laws around social media do not allow parental discretion. Do you think allowing a 13 to watch R movies is bad parenting or should that be left up to the parent to decide?

Would you blame movies for teen pregnancy?

Do you blame video games for violence?

The unfortunate reality is your alcoholic friend was likely to become one either the way.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

I've read that starting drinking early is a solid indicator of future addiction. OTOH I thinks it's largely genetic.

[-] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I'm guessing you don't have children.

No, and no intention. Irrelevant.

Underaged drinking is nothing like having an account that lets them use the full set of features.

Both are addictive substances that interfere with brain development. One you have to drink to affect brain chemistry, the other you have to use. Social media networks are designed to be addictive.

The internet of today is going to be looked at one day the same way cigarettes are today.

Do you think allowing a 13 to watch R movies is bad parenting or should that be left up to the parent to decide?

Not an addictive substance.

Would you blame movies for teen pregnancy?

Not an addictive substance.

Do you blame video games for violence?

I blame violent society.

The unfortunate reality is your alcoholic friend was likely to become one either the way.

Irrelevant. Anybody’s brain chemistry can be fucked with. Just look at kids going through withdrawal symptoms when they don’t have their tech toys.

[-] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 6 hours ago

You don't have children and have no plans so let me let you in on a little parenting secret:

Never tell other people how to parent their children.

I'm not gong to bother touching the idea you've got in your head that social media is an addictive substance but tv and movies are not not the idea that tech withdrawal is anything like drug withdrawal.

[-] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 hours ago

Never tell other people how to parent their children.

Fuck off, parents rights bullshit is at the expense of the children. That’s how you end up with traumatized queer children and kids with drug and alcohol problems. My friends mom buying him a six pack of beer every day when he was a teenager is absolutely responsible for his alcoholism. She would have been charged with child endangerment crimes if she had been reported at the time but I didn’t know him as well back then nor how bad it was.

Social media affects the brain in the way that movies and TV do not. Video games are similar but not as bad. The same brain chemicals that drugs and alcohol stimulate are the same ones stimulated by social media and video games. Like anything else moderation is fine. Doom scrolling all day and/or playing video games all day everyday is not healthy. Social media is especially manipulative and there’s a profit motive to keep people outraged and hooked.

I feel like I’m arguing with a teenager right now who doesn’t even know what life was like before social media and can’t comprehend it’s affect on society. For the worse. For everyone. At least us millennials and older had a fair shot at proper brain development before social media took over - I graduated HS the year Facebook opened its site to the general public instead of just Ivy League schools.

[-] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 2 points 11 hours ago

I've good thing Florida has done I guess. SM is a bad thing and bad for our brains.

[-] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 18 points 22 hours ago

Seems like any enforcement of the law would be a constitutional breach. Crazy the free speech party is passing these totalitarian laws

[-] JillyB@beehaw.org 3 points 13 hours ago

The rights of children is more murky than those for adults. Just look at how schools can control speech.

[-] shani66@ani.social 2 points 10 hours ago

It isn't, though, we just treat children like they aren't people.

[-] OpenStars@piefed.social 7 points 22 hours ago

TIL that YouTube is considered "social media". I need a minute to process that...

img

- image source

[-] can@sh.itjust.works 2 points 18 hours ago

Community tab with content sections

[-] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

YouTube is social media. So is email. It's an online platform where people communicate with each other. Socialisation isn't all food pics and memes. It's the foundation of society. That's why it's the same root word. The law says children can't use the internet to participate in society.

[-] OpenStars@piefed.social 2 points 12 hours ago

The bill does provide some exceptions. According to the bill, the term does not apply to an online service, website or app where the exclusive function is e-mail or direct messaging that could consist of photographs or videos shared only between the sender and recipients.

Email lacks upvotes basically, and an algorithmic feed picking content, so children can still text, chat, email, etc. Although these days even SMS texts allow someone to "react" to messages, though no algorithmic feed and limited distribution list so probably not considered "addictive".

Anyway it's surely just security theater on the part of Florida, while at the same time social media is legit addictive - both are true at the same time.

[-] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 3 points 19 hours ago

ah, yes, the "land of the free"

[-] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 hours ago

Free to go to Walmart and buy guns with your bananas

this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
31 points (97.0% liked)

AskUSA

172 readers
165 users here now

About

Community for asking and answering any question related to the life, the people or anything related to the USA. Please keep in mind:

  1. !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world - politics in our daily lives is inescapable, but please post overtly political things there rather than here
  2. !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com - similarly things with the goal of overt agitation have their place, which is there rather than here

Rules

  1. Be nice or gtfo
  2. Discussions of overt political or agitation nature belong elsewhere
  3. Follow the rules of discuss.online

Sister communities

  1. !askuk@feddit.uk
  2. !ukcasual@lemmy.world
  3. !casualuk@feddit.uk

Related communities

  1. !asklemmy@lemmy.world
  2. !asklemmy@sh.itjust.works
  3. !nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
  4. !showerthoughts@lemmy.world

founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS