The Republican party sells itself as a party of freedom, less government and parents rights but then passes this BS law in the Florida legislature banning social media for teens under 16 years old. 🙄 https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2024/02/22/florida-social-media-ban-desantis-legislature-passes/
Voted "Other" given the characterization that was attached to the "Yes" answer. In fairness, while enforcement will be problematic, the effect of the legislation is to make parents do something that they seem increasingly unwilling to do. As someone once said, "Americans don't raise children. They incite them."
The incidence of mental illness among children, suicides and other pathologies has increased in tandem with the exposure of children to social media. Yet parents stand aside and let their children - from increasingly young ages - engage in social media.
The law is a blunt instrument, though not without its' cultural impacts. Think of this. When the Civil Right Act of 1964 was passed, segregated lunch counters were pretty much the norm in the south. Yet within in a generation, it was almost unheard of.
Men shape the laws and the laws shape them. This is the intention with this legislation. First of all, its' enforcement, where possible - keeping electronic devices out of schools, etc. - will have an immediate and stigmatizing effect. This being possible.
Secondly, over the long term, the law will have a cultural influence of causing parents to be more aware of the effects of social media and to limit those effects on their children. This then having a magnified effect across the generations.
To be sure, the nation is only now coming to grips with the impacts of technology on the culture. However, to date it has been a gradual and not self-aware process. This law suggests an attempt to come to grips with technology's impact and this is long overdue.
To be sure, the law is, as noted, in many ways, a blunt instrument. It would be far better if parents were to step in and actually raise their children instead of leaving it to technology to do it for them. Yet, until that point, laws like this one are an acceptable - and wise - alternative.
m It’s a pointless unenforceable law and as an idea not well thought out. Just how do you prevent someone with a modern smart phone using the internet? Zero chance of every global organisation agreeing to having to authorise age before they can use the site. Also I would not trust them not to leak PII. This comes down to how kids are raised, how parents interact with their kids and about being responsible. Basically it’s stupid.
Just a complete waste of time, but I'm guessing they would try to enforce such law by then trying to gain access through carriers phone records on what the teen was surfing on the net is my best guess.
The law doesn't make any sense at all.
Tecnicly speaking the ideal solution would be to require Devices sold in the state to include Child identification system that send tokens as part of the IP package at a low level.
Websites would then pick up and respond to said packets limiting content accordingly. In terms of major social media sites its even simpler. If they don't comply they get sued in every instance bankrupting them.
sounds like a great way to isolate and stop many hundreds of thousands of kids from developing healthier mindsets/hell even just an escape from their life.
I normally would agree with the right, but this is a hard no for me. We already have settings where parents can control what their kids see online.
Opinion
30Opinion
I don't think it's a bad idea. There's some good things to it such as: Kids doing other things with their free time (being outside, doing hobbies etc.), parents not having to worry about what their children are looking at, kids not getting preyed on by online predators, and I can't think of what else. But it'd be kind of hard because well, kids already lie about their age to be on certain sites whether they're +13 or +18. I mean, even on teen rated games online you might have someone who is under 13 playing the game. Or teens accessing porn sites.
It’s a good idea but how is going to be enforced? Are we going to now require every social media user to submit age verification proof now?
No way social media companies will ever go for that. It would decimate their membership rates hence harm the bottom line. They will lobby and legislate like a mother to prevent that from happening
There is no easy answer unfortunately. It’s just best for parents to keep a close eye on their kids. Require that access got their kids social media accounts if they under 16.
I don't think the government should be doing this. I absolutely think that PARENTS should be doing this. It's the right thing to do, but the government's role in our lives needs to be MINIMIZED, not maximized. People need to start doing their OWN jobs (such as parents parenting), and stop trying to off-load their responsibilities onto the government, who will inevitably use that power against everyone in ways that no one expected, and it will all be bad.
Lets be honest here, the only reason the Republican government is upset over teenagers having social media is because the teenagers are making fun of them and organizing against the Republicans using social media. This has nothing to do with protecting children, it is to protect the Republicans FROM children. Kinda sad when you view it like that.
Except people under 16 can’t even vote dingaling
@WhiteBoyChill Never said it was about voting but you bring up another good point. They are afraid that the youth of today is becoming more and more left wing too which is why they keep talking about raising the minimum age of voting to 21.
No, this is about political movements against Republicans. Things like harassing public figures, making very effective memes such as dark Brandon etc.. Things that oppresses Republicans and energize the Democratic side.
On a side note, you do realize that when engaging politically in a democracy, voting is the least impactful. Ever wondered why you never got what you wanted even though you keep voting? Because voting is just the first step if you want to influence actual political change. What the kids are doing on social media is more effective than your vote.
I don’t care for your “Democracy” all it involves is just censorship of right wing views. The left is the side that doesn’t believe in public discourse
@WhiteBoyChill Congratulations on missing the entire point and congratulations on supporting ACTUAL censorship because you are uncomfortable with real world public discourse. I can't believe you have the nerve to support a law like this and then bitch to me about how teenagers getting involved in politics is censoring right wing views.
No. Your views are just shit and you do not like being called out for it. You not liking what other people thinks of your views is not our problem.
I am ready to debate any issue you want publicly. Just don’t delete me replies
And no, its the media corporations that censor right wing views. You’ve entirely misdiagnosed the issue
@WhiteBoyChill I do not delete replies nor do I want to debate you. Believe it or not but you are not that interesting to talk to.
Also we were talking about people under the age of 18 potentially being banned from social media and you were the one who brought up censorship in relations to the kids mobilizing against Republicans.
Try again. It says “16” not “18” in the question above. Also I was referring to media censorship of conservative views (aka taking down posts and banning conservative accounts) regardless of however you interpreted my comments, that’s what I meant
@WhiteBoyChill *shrugs* just a typo, it does not change my actual argument. That does bring into question why you tried to change the subject though. We were not talking about banning conservative accounts and taking down posts. We were talking about banning accounts of those under the age of 16 and removing their posts.
I don't like it all all when governments force themselves into private affairs.
However - I see a majority of incompetent parents who allow their kids to grow up into phone-zombies.
To secure mankind's future, some interference needs to take place as it seems (today).
...
When in traffic, I break the law numerous times each day. So much for the efficiency of "laws".
Something better is needed.
...
Make me your president, guys, and I'll come up with something that makes everyone happy. For the time being: good luck :D
When my now-26-year-old great-nephew was a lad under the jurisdiction of my city's Children's Aid Society, he was given a computer to keep up with his schoolwork. My late sister, who was then his guardian, vigourously monitored his computer usage, including limiting, if not banning social media until he was eighteen. It is the right and duty to protect their minor children from the harm that could befall them from adult websites and pedophiles who use social media to meet and sexually groom kids.
well, here´s a 15 yr olds opinon on this, im kinda in the middle, i think it could help with their mental health a little bit, however, like many have stated, how would they even do this?😂 like, online you can just lie about your age, and if they made something like a face scanner to get into an app, i garentee you kids could easily find a way around this.
it just doesn't work, and its quite stupid
Sounds bad to me, since you are just limiting their experiences especially when exposure to the internet is important in knowing how to handle it. It is the parent's job to regulate what kinds of experiences they have and how much, but also to teach them how to handle themselves. That goes for anything.
Not sure I agree with it but at the same time I can see the validity in it because I mean just look at what social media has done to younger generation/kids.
But I feel like it's more the parents reasonability to limit kids time on social media and not the governments.
I don't care either way.
I see it as a bad habit that is best not started at all.
Banning it will make it seem more attractive and kids will want it even more in order to feel adult. Think of it like the "forbidden fruit" effect.
I do agree that there should be more regulation related to teen accessing the internet. The WWW is nothing like it use to be; however, I have serious doubts as to how the government will regulate that access. Also it brings concern about the criminalization of parents that let their early teen childs access the internet.
Unfortunately it will probably be a failurie. There is no preventing program in their plans, only criminalization.
As someone working in education I gotta say there needs to be a law. Kids who are problematic mostly have one thing in common: terrible parents. There are so many cases where it would be better to not let the parents do their own stuff (or better: a psychological test to see who is "worthy" to get kids and dont allow kids when they fail the test)
It's tough. On one hand I agree with the sentiment, on the other parents should not be interfered with by the government.
It's unfortunate that so many parents are so ignorant and incompetent that they allow the issue in the first place. Single parent households are much worse too.
While I generally agree with the governments idea I can't agree with the government overreach
Ron DeSantis vetoed the Bill.
With all the internet Pedophiles and problems of Children at school with only fans porn pages. There is really no need for Children to have Internet. It's become totally worthless for education with so much misinformation everywhere.
We do regulate harmful and dangerous behavior, such as drinking, smoking, driving, firearms purchase, getting a tattoo/piercing, movie attendance (R and X rated).
I think it can be demonstrated the horrific effect social media is having on our youth.
The reason the world is fucked up is tribalism caused by social media. A law, no. But the parents have to step in and not allow social media to corrupt the child brain. Kids don't have a childhood anymore.
Banning social media for kids is like banning books for kids from 30 years ago. Business and the world is run on social media now.
Just more Big Government. One side does it one way, the other does it another way, and both suck.
You mean Republicans are hypocrites?
I am shocked. Shocked I say.
Social media like Facebook was already supposed to be age restricted. Corporations don't give a shit about such laws obviously.
The government and schools should stay out of it, its up to the parents what to block and what not to block.
Unfortunately too many parents aren't doing their job at home with their kids and somebody has to attempt to get the job done.
It’s legit. Children under 16 can’t go see a movie rated R. Why aren’t rated R movies questioned?
The bill allows for a third party service to verify the user. If a parent really wants their 10 year old kid to be on an addictive website, they would just let their kid use the account they have shown their face to verify. In this sense it helps to protect children.
Rated R movies have often have intense violence, foul language and sex scenes so comparing it to YouTube and Facebook is ridiculous.
Nope it’s not ridiculous. The entire idea that intense content can be harmful to a child is their brain is still forming and not fully able to process or cope with the content.
This is a big problem with addictive websites because already we see a huge rise in mental issues related to depression and anxiety in the youth of the country and scientists are typing a direct line between this increase and the addicting sm sites.
Rated R movies have existed for 100 years but only in the past 25 years have children been upticking in these stats. It’s because these sites rely on dopamine to hook children and it’s not healthy.
Do you think a 10 year old spending 3 hours a day a more scrolling on YouTube is healthy for our country? Other countries have already banned these sites from their children
Then it's the parents to regulate rules within their home, not government officials.
That's far too much power to dictate what someone can or can't watch. That's cancel culture 5.0 on steroids.
Lemme also add that kids used to have to leave their home to go and see a rated R movie (or try and sneak into it).. these sites are actually counteracting the authority parents have in their home as kids are choosing to watch their screens rather than interact with their parents. Obv parents are doing the same. So it’s another way they are hurting the parents authority and relationship in the home ; the sanctuary of a family that deserves to be safe secure.
What you said doesn't make any sense. If a parent can't rule their own household and children then that's not even a parent but the child buddy.
I just said that the bill (which I spent 20 minutes reading tonight) still allows parents to register for an online account on one of these websites which lets the parents still have say on what their child sees. Once the third party service (which must be a Florida based company) has verified the parent is over 16 it then deletes the parents face and that parent can give the creds to their child.
I say it’s a good thing and that it isn’t government doing it it’s an individual acting as Governor signing a bill. You aren’t always going to like the bills being signed into law
Teenagers would laugh at that law, just as they also laugh at old people, teenagers are much more intelligent than old people in every technological aspect.
Bad law. That should be left up to the parents not the government.
It’s a terrible idea. Infringes on the First Amendment.
That's when parents get to lazy to guide their children and to connect and communicate with them to build trust with each other. They put the responsibility on social medias instead.
I think there is so much toxicity on social media that young brains are better off without it. Unfortunately, some parents refuse to monitor their children's online behavior.
they r certain settings to control what kid would watch
I completely AGREE with this rule! Kids should NOT be on social media!! It's very harmful for them. (And dangerous, too!!)
Honestly, kids find loopholes. They’ll lie about their age to remain on social media.
States can do whatever they deem necessary, and children are not entitled to free speech
Good law. Its precisely because of Tiktok and social media that the youth of this country are falling vastly behind
You mean social interactions, where kids are supposed to learn how to be functioning human beings. Yeah, can't imagine how depriving them of the ability to learn social interactions could possibly backfire and produce a generation of adults incapable of forming meaningful relationships and working together. But sure, social interactions is wasted time for kids and teenagers.. totally.. Like what else are they supposed to do? Working in the mines?
And neither does posting dumb pictures of yourself on social media. Its called attention seeking.
If you want to “socialize” with somebody, get their phone number and start texting them
Pffft. You think texting someone is socializing but using social media is not? Wow.. Just wow.. Either way, social media is the new public forum and people need to learn how to navigate them or they will fall behind in society. It has become a crucial life skill so to speak simply because that is how we have started to use it.
Are you being serious right now? It is a forum, as in a meeting place of people and ideas. And as such people meet new friends, lovers, enemies, whatever and exchange ideas with them such as knowledge, news and such. The form it takes is less relevant, be it a marketplace everyone walks to or a social media site where people shitpost.
I would go as far as to say most of the activities those under the age of 16 partake in is probably organized and maintained through social media.
They can look for sugar mama daddy on internet
m laws didn't stop me at 16...
When will people learn
Good idea but unenforceable
It’s a good idea
Dumb and impossible
Good luck trying
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
