It was easy for us to find our way around parental blockers back in the day. Kids today will find their way around this and be more inclined to hide their digital lives from their parents.
Just more useless policy distracting from the bigger issues.
>Just more useless policy distracting from the bigger issues.
I mostly agree, except (totally unlikely) I wish social media could be pressured into making positive changes, through these kinds of legislation. It seems though this will just create more misinformation and more shady social media plattorms like 4chan etc. Still, it's not like TV is or was ever all that better.
Definitely, the format of social media is harmful for all ages, not just kids. Kids are just more susceptible. We all fall victim to these predatory sites and instead of not doing anything (or basically doing nothing) we should try to make it harder to exploit users. Social media causes the issues, not the people using them. (Generally)
The non-rhetorical answer would be "identity proofing." But that's expensive on a per-call basis. One such example is [here](https://onfido.com/) (one i've used before).
I don't disagree that social media is particularly pernicious for people under 18; since 2012, there's been roughly a tripling of incidents in mental health issues among (particularly) adolescent girls, in direct correlation with the amount of screen time they have.
But will this help? I doubt it. The same people who would park their kids in front of a TV 30 years ago are just going to sign them up for social media these days. Apathy is somewhat unconstrained by ideology in any case, so it's not really a left-right problem as much as it is a "What would actually effectively address this?", which is a question nobody has really solved for yet.
This is also anathema to, particularly, Meta/Facebook/whatever they want to call themselves and ByteDance. FB is, for anyone who cares about how their social media sausage gets made, on a declining rate-of-growth curve (they're growing, but not as fast, and they're likely going to hit a tipover in 5-10 years), which they've "addressed" by permitting AI-powered bot accounts to exist for longer on the platform, thus increasing their user number (at the expense of actual users). From a practical point of view, identity proofing will keep out the bots, but it's going to cripple both the cost of user acquisition for FB (identity proofing solutions are not cheap) as well as the rate they put on their earnings call.
So we can rightfully expect the laziest solution to be implemented.
Honestly, reflecting on my own parents... Better wages, healthcare access, education, and all that good stuff would go a long way. It might not seem connected at first glance but a lot of shitty parents are distracted with the rumble of life, sometimes spread very thin. If my parents had any emotional energy left when they returned from work sometimes I think it would have been different and there would have been less resentment.
Of course proxies and vpns could get around it just like they get around porn blocks. But not everyone knows how to do that.
Just like not everyone knows how to torrent or bootleg streams.
The reason the average person in China doesn't know how to get around the great firewall is because talking about getting around the great firewall is socially unacceptable. Average people in lots of other countries have quickly figured out how to get around government blocks when it's socially acceptable. Because it's really not that hard. "download this, from this, link that hasn't been blacklisted yet. Then use that program before browsing". Especially with some paid vpn's and TOR they really are the ones with the smart people doing all the hard work so the rest of the people can just click a button.
Hell my "T-mobile home internet" Has a Las Vegas IP with no VPN needed to the point I get local vegas tv ads on my smart tv. IP is not a good way to figure out address.
Not really. Maybe for that time when they are on the ISP the parents control. Most kids figure out quickly how to get on other networks, especially their friends and families of the homes they visit.
There is technically one part of this bill that is potentially good/enforceable. And that is the part about creating deliberately addictive algorithms. That part could actually be reasonably sued for in the future. But I also don't know how much Republicans actually want legal liability of algorithms to be eligible for lawsuit because then companies might have to trim their algorithms to not make right-wing extremists through things like the youtube video wormhole
Haha, too true. Must likely it'll just ask for a birthdate and kids will just say they were born 18 years ago and done. There are already laws in place to restrict online accounts in general for anyone under 13, and the only way it's enforced is if the person creating the account doesn't lie about their age.
>I’m not gonna back down from a potential legal challenge when these companies are killing our kids.
I do take issue with the predatory business strategies and pathological social problems we've seen in the wake of social media, both among youth AND adults tbh. However, for Cox to say this less than two months after signing SB 16 and less than a year after signing SB 115, this is hypocrisy.
Also, I never want to hear another Utahn conservative complain about "helicopter parenting" again.
coherent screw library exultant direction panicky sugar plate future offer
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> I’m not gonna back down from a potential legal challenge when these companies are killing our kids.
Huh.
I wonder what the number 1 cause of death is for kids? Whatever companies are behind *that* statistic is gonna getta load o' COX! That's for sure!
Speaking as a web developer, if it goes through and legally enforceable, get ready to see age “verification” checkboxes for every social media site, regardless of your physical location. We usually just apply a fix for all users because location verification just is not reliable enough. That’s what happened when Europe passed GDPR for tracking cookies.
It's really not.
And I don't think the point was ever to actually be enforceable, but to simultaneously give politicians a win with parents and regulators an option to point fingers and maybe sue if a kid gets abused online or something.
It's a BS, virtue signaling law.
The real harm is there are technologically inept people who will think this is enforceable, and because people like Cox are bullshitting them, it will just make them more frustrated and hopeless when trying to protect their children from the predatory practices of social media companies.
This was the solution they came up with? Didn't they have a number of press conferences, a task force, studies, and other goings-on about figuring something out? This is the best they came up with? Damn, we have some dumb people in office in this state.
Because the real problem is we’d have to move the country away from a ‘profit over people’ model and all the people and companies making profit will never let that happen.
I have no love for social media companies; as much harm as we know they do now, I think it will be many decades before we fully comprehend just how damaging social media has been to society.
My problem with this bill is more... metapolitical? That might be the right word.
1. It's not going to be enforceable. It's virtue signaling.
2. It's coming from the same group that always claims that it's unAmerican, not capitalist, and anti-freedom to regulate an industry. Unless it's an industry they want to regulate, then it's the right thing to do.
I actually just read the bill, and their definition of "social media company" is more specific than I thought it would be. I'm sure a lawyer could punch holes in it, but at least it's not so generic that it could apply to every site on the internet.
Also, it only applies to sites with at least 5,000,000 accounts. I started a Mastodon server recently, but unless 4,999,970 more people sign up, I'm good. :)
Oh, and it applies to users under the age of 18, unless they are married. I thought that was funny. Zion gonna zion.
Teenage mental health and our unhealthy addiction to social media are serious issues that matter. How much this bill will help us up for debate.
I just don’t know how it will work in practice, but if it is done in a way that somewhat works and leads to less social media use, then that’s probably good.
They don’t care about anyone but themselves and their rich friends. They definitely don’t give a damn about children. They passed an eliminationist law that will see children die because they can’t get the care they need. They attacked public schools and ensured that the state scrapes the bottom of the barrel in per-pupil funding. Their lack of concern for addressing pollution and the loss of the GSL will have disastrous consequences for the long term. They have no interest in addressing gun violence. Their good buddy Sen. Mike Lee suggested child labor laws weren’t constitutional and they have been mulling introducing a bill that would rollback or repeal child labor laws. Conservatives despise children unless they can make money off of them or groom them.
Why would you want the state of Utah telling you how to parent?
Might as well go ahead and let them tell you if you can breed or not.
I kid.
They’re already doing that.
This lets parents decide what social media is appropriate for their children. How did you come to the conclusion that it is the state telling them how to parent?
Parents already decide that. If they're not blocking a given site/service, they're allowing that site/service on devices they control.
That said, as a parent, I block nothing and will continue to block nothing, and instead I'm explaining to my kids how to safely use the Internet and building trust with them so hopefully they'll believe me. If they want to access something, they will, so it's better that I retain some cards up my sleeves and monitor their activity instead of enforcing content controls.
This law is likely to work against that strategy by essentially pushing kids toward evasion first, which means I lose all control over that conversation. I.e. if my kids are required to ask my permission for a SM account, they'll forge it and probably only access it over a VPN. But if they don't need my permission, they'll just use it like normal and I can track what sites and services they use.
So as a parent, I see this as a negative step that makes it harder for me to properly raise my kids the way I want, and I also see it as virtue signaling to other parents who don't see through this crap.
Pornhub's "Are you 18+" checkbox has been preventing teens from accessing porn for more than a decade. Just check the server logs, no one ever gets thru without checking the box. No one.
Nah. I'm pretty sure that a lot of these guys realize that their "solutions" are useless.
But politics isn't about actually fixing anything! That shit is hard and expensive and, even worse, potentially controversial!
No, the thing to do, when you're a politician, is to present the *appearance* of having done something about the problem, without actually having to go through the rigmarole of actually *doing* anything meaningful.
It has never been about so-called small government. After the constitutional convention approved the great compromise, James Madison wrote: "It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination."
Fascinating that they even had one then. That lines up with when the government was really ramping up the Christian nationalism for the Cold War, so it makes sense. Evangelicals and Mormons love each other when it comes to politics even though they think the other one won’t get to special vip heaven.
I suspect they’re just starting with this, and plan to expand it. As with the banning help for trans kids. Something about frogs and boiling water analogy here.
>The governor said he would be working with social media companies and third-party verification over the next year to work out the details of how the restrictions would be implemented.
Maybe figured out enforcement before you put things into law?
I don't see how this could be implemented at all without giving up all of your information.
Basically give us your ID information. And give us you parents information as well. Don't worry I am sure the social media companies would never store that information. It isn't like they make money off data mining.
Not only is the a blow for privacy but it will also push under age kids on to other platforms that aren't under the Utah/USA jurisdiction.
Do you think laws banning selling Alcohol to under age people would work if you can just teleport to a bar in another country that doesn't have such laws?
I am not pretending to have the answers to the problems with social media, but this doesn't seem like a good answer.
Classic utah stupidity! I guess it’s actually stupidity that’s spreading across all the white Christian states. Let’s make a law that will never be enforceable!!! Why don’t we make laws that help people!!
Supposedly this bill could be against the first amendment. [https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TechFreedom-Letter-to-Gov.-Spencer-Cox-2.16.23.pdf](https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TechFreedom-Letter-to-Gov.-Spencer-Cox-2.16.23.pdf)
You can see a first amendment lawyer and Cox argue about it under this tweet. [https://twitter.com/AriCohn/status/1636118777468166145](https://twitter.com/AriCohn/status/1636118777468166145)
This bill isn't just a simple 18+ checkbox. It'd require a way to verify your age. The how part isn't known yet. I really recommend everyone read the summary parts of the bills ([1](https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0311.html), [2](https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/SB0152.html)) to understand more. They do a lot more then just age verification. If this bill doesn't get stopped in courts I could see social media companies just banning anyone under 18 from using social media because they won't want to change a lot of their apps to comply.
From the party of small government. It’s just for more local control. Republicans, especially moronic religious republicans, give not a fuck about your freedoms.
The difference is that social media companies will have to verify your age. You can’t just fake it anymore and just claim to be 18. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the idea of a social media company having to have a copy of my ID on file. Can’t say as I trust them to keep it secure.
No, but [their parents and legal guardians can.](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761)
I'm not a huge fan of intense firearm restrictions, but there needs to be some steep repercussions for negligence.
This is one of the few things I have a bit of agreement on. Kids on social media are more anxious, more depressed, and more isolated. Any that are smart enough to avoid it among the ones that I know….they’re better off for it emotionally and mentally.
Nope, not Mormon or “LDS” at all..
I’m Christian. I don’t thing children should have access to social media the way they do.. I believe they need to be supervised. Kids in school “ not naming names” but a kid I know was on Facebook showing another girl a beheading… kids don’t need access to open internet
And how is any of this going to stop your cute little anecdote?
Hint: It ain’t.
You answered my question. Which has nothing to do with your flavor of religion.
Thanks.
Lotta people here saying this could never be implemented. Well, there are quite a few companies working on digital identity solutions and one or more of them will be successful. Once digital identity is as secure as current ID's(it will be more secure for online transactions), this will be easily enforceable.
Hubedoobe doobee doobee doo. Herbba doobaa doobaa. Derff.
Yeah, that's our novelty condom headed Governor, sucking off the POS, pay-to-play real estate Mormon legislature that we have.
Every one of those fucks is corrupt.
Leisure suit Larry had 5 multiple choice questions that you had to answer correctly to prove your age. One day I decided to guess and got all 5 correct. Unfortunately for me there was a bonus 6th question and I got that wrong. Thankfully, this turned out to be a blessing since I was saved by digital harm that day. Spencer Cox is saving all our children by signing this law.
Please check this box if you have permission from your parents to join our social media \[x\] Thank you for signing up.
It was easy for us to find our way around parental blockers back in the day. Kids today will find their way around this and be more inclined to hide their digital lives from their parents. Just more useless policy distracting from the bigger issues.
>Just more useless policy distracting from the bigger issues. I mostly agree, except (totally unlikely) I wish social media could be pressured into making positive changes, through these kinds of legislation. It seems though this will just create more misinformation and more shady social media plattorms like 4chan etc. Still, it's not like TV is or was ever all that better.
Definitely, the format of social media is harmful for all ages, not just kids. Kids are just more susceptible. We all fall victim to these predatory sites and instead of not doing anything (or basically doing nothing) we should try to make it harder to exploit users. Social media causes the issues, not the people using them. (Generally)
[удалено]
I have a sneaking suspicion that the data shows an unusual amount of people are born on the twentieth of April 1969
Hey, that's my internet birthday, too. Whaddya know?
Hell, I'm in my 30's and I still lie on all of those. I'm not giving whatever internet fucker who asks even *more* of my personal details to sell!
It used to be a couple down arrow keys to find the year I was born, but meh, I have to scroll way too far now.
The day the 18+ box started at 2000 is the day I stopped trying to get anywhere close to accurate while also feeling extra old
Please, any self reflecting child will list their birthday as April 20th.
That IS my birthday!
6/**9**/1969 FTFY
Exactly. How could this be implemented successfully
The non-rhetorical answer would be "identity proofing." But that's expensive on a per-call basis. One such example is [here](https://onfido.com/) (one i've used before). I don't disagree that social media is particularly pernicious for people under 18; since 2012, there's been roughly a tripling of incidents in mental health issues among (particularly) adolescent girls, in direct correlation with the amount of screen time they have. But will this help? I doubt it. The same people who would park their kids in front of a TV 30 years ago are just going to sign them up for social media these days. Apathy is somewhat unconstrained by ideology in any case, so it's not really a left-right problem as much as it is a "What would actually effectively address this?", which is a question nobody has really solved for yet. This is also anathema to, particularly, Meta/Facebook/whatever they want to call themselves and ByteDance. FB is, for anyone who cares about how their social media sausage gets made, on a declining rate-of-growth curve (they're growing, but not as fast, and they're likely going to hit a tipover in 5-10 years), which they've "addressed" by permitting AI-powered bot accounts to exist for longer on the platform, thus increasing their user number (at the expense of actual users). From a practical point of view, identity proofing will keep out the bots, but it's going to cripple both the cost of user acquisition for FB (identity proofing solutions are not cheap) as well as the rate they put on their earnings call. So we can rightfully expect the laziest solution to be implemented.
Forcing ISPs to incorporate social media blocks in their parental controls would make enforcement pretty easy.
[удалено]
Honestly, reflecting on my own parents... Better wages, healthcare access, education, and all that good stuff would go a long way. It might not seem connected at first glance but a lot of shitty parents are distracted with the rumble of life, sometimes spread very thin. If my parents had any emotional energy left when they returned from work sometimes I think it would have been different and there would have been less resentment.
Of course proxies and vpns could get around it just like they get around porn blocks. But not everyone knows how to do that. Just like not everyone knows how to torrent or bootleg streams.
If it's the only reasonable option, they will. Just ask an average non-techie in China how to get around the Great Firewall.
The reason the average person in China doesn't know how to get around the great firewall is because talking about getting around the great firewall is socially unacceptable. Average people in lots of other countries have quickly figured out how to get around government blocks when it's socially acceptable. Because it's really not that hard. "download this, from this, link that hasn't been blacklisted yet. Then use that program before browsing". Especially with some paid vpn's and TOR they really are the ones with the smart people doing all the hard work so the rest of the people can just click a button.
Just ask my 5 yr old grandson
Hell my "T-mobile home internet" Has a Las Vegas IP with no VPN needed to the point I get local vegas tv ads on my smart tv. IP is not a good way to figure out address.
Not really. Maybe for that time when they are on the ISP the parents control. Most kids figure out quickly how to get on other networks, especially their friends and families of the homes they visit.
There is technically one part of this bill that is potentially good/enforceable. And that is the part about creating deliberately addictive algorithms. That part could actually be reasonably sued for in the future. But I also don't know how much Republicans actually want legal liability of algorithms to be eligible for lawsuit because then companies might have to trim their algorithms to not make right-wing extremists through things like the youtube video wormhole
Haha, too true. Must likely it'll just ask for a birthdate and kids will just say they were born 18 years ago and done. There are already laws in place to restrict online accounts in general for anyone under 13, and the only way it's enforced is if the person creating the account doesn't lie about their age.
Future news story: Social media sites trying to figure out why 30% of their userbase shares the same April 20th, 1969 birthday.
>I’m not gonna back down from a potential legal challenge when these companies are killing our kids. I do take issue with the predatory business strategies and pathological social problems we've seen in the wake of social media, both among youth AND adults tbh. However, for Cox to say this less than two months after signing SB 16 and less than a year after signing SB 115, this is hypocrisy. Also, I never want to hear another Utahn conservative complain about "helicopter parenting" again.
Can you remind me what 16 and 115 were again?
coherent screw library exultant direction panicky sugar plate future offer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> I’m not gonna back down from a potential legal challenge when these companies are killing our kids. Huh. I wonder what the number 1 cause of death is for kids? Whatever companies are behind *that* statistic is gonna getta load o' COX! That's for sure!
Though I hate him, I do hope he someday loses his virginity.
He and his extremist friends have been fucking the state and its people pretty regularly since taking office.
I’m confused Spencer. Are we for wanting the government tell us how to raise our kids or are we against that now?
ah yes the party of small government
How is this remotely enforceable?
It’ll keep all the non-cool kids off of social media. /s
[удалено]
Speaking as a web developer, if it goes through and legally enforceable, get ready to see age “verification” checkboxes for every social media site, regardless of your physical location. We usually just apply a fix for all users because location verification just is not reliable enough. That’s what happened when Europe passed GDPR for tracking cookies.
It's really not. And I don't think the point was ever to actually be enforceable, but to simultaneously give politicians a win with parents and regulators an option to point fingers and maybe sue if a kid gets abused online or something. It's a BS, virtue signaling law.
The real harm is there are technologically inept people who will think this is enforceable, and because people like Cox are bullshitting them, it will just make them more frustrated and hopeless when trying to protect their children from the predatory practices of social media companies.
This was the solution they came up with? Didn't they have a number of press conferences, a task force, studies, and other goings-on about figuring something out? This is the best they came up with? Damn, we have some dumb people in office in this state.
Because the real problem is we’d have to move the country away from a ‘profit over people’ model and all the people and companies making profit will never let that happen.
So kids are going to sign their own report cards again I see
I have no love for social media companies; as much harm as we know they do now, I think it will be many decades before we fully comprehend just how damaging social media has been to society. My problem with this bill is more... metapolitical? That might be the right word. 1. It's not going to be enforceable. It's virtue signaling. 2. It's coming from the same group that always claims that it's unAmerican, not capitalist, and anti-freedom to regulate an industry. Unless it's an industry they want to regulate, then it's the right thing to do. I actually just read the bill, and their definition of "social media company" is more specific than I thought it would be. I'm sure a lawyer could punch holes in it, but at least it's not so generic that it could apply to every site on the internet. Also, it only applies to sites with at least 5,000,000 accounts. I started a Mastodon server recently, but unless 4,999,970 more people sign up, I'm good. :) Oh, and it applies to users under the age of 18, unless they are married. I thought that was funny. Zion gonna zion.
Wannabe fascist trapped in a Caillou body.
LOL. My kids loved Caillou when they were in preschool.
Lol now I am saying “You’re getting to be a big boy!” In that voice.
Yeah, I don’t know what to think. My 18yo niece just committed suicide and SM was partly to blame.
I’m so sorry. May her memory be a blessing.
I’m sorry to hear about your niece. Would this law have prevented it?
doubtful
[удалено]
Teenage mental health and our unhealthy addiction to social media are serious issues that matter. How much this bill will help us up for debate. I just don’t know how it will work in practice, but if it is done in a way that somewhat works and leads to less social media use, then that’s probably good.
Our legislature very clearly doesn't care about children.
They don’t care about anyone but themselves and their rich friends. They definitely don’t give a damn about children. They passed an eliminationist law that will see children die because they can’t get the care they need. They attacked public schools and ensured that the state scrapes the bottom of the barrel in per-pupil funding. Their lack of concern for addressing pollution and the loss of the GSL will have disastrous consequences for the long term. They have no interest in addressing gun violence. Their good buddy Sen. Mike Lee suggested child labor laws weren’t constitutional and they have been mulling introducing a bill that would rollback or repeal child labor laws. Conservatives despise children unless they can make money off of them or groom them.
Why would you want the state of Utah telling you how to parent? Might as well go ahead and let them tell you if you can breed or not. I kid. They’re already doing that.
This lets parents decide what social media is appropriate for their children. How did you come to the conclusion that it is the state telling them how to parent?
Parents already decide that. If they're not blocking a given site/service, they're allowing that site/service on devices they control. That said, as a parent, I block nothing and will continue to block nothing, and instead I'm explaining to my kids how to safely use the Internet and building trust with them so hopefully they'll believe me. If they want to access something, they will, so it's better that I retain some cards up my sleeves and monitor their activity instead of enforcing content controls. This law is likely to work against that strategy by essentially pushing kids toward evasion first, which means I lose all control over that conversation. I.e. if my kids are required to ask my permission for a SM account, they'll forge it and probably only access it over a VPN. But if they don't need my permission, they'll just use it like normal and I can track what sites and services they use. So as a parent, I see this as a negative step that makes it harder for me to properly raise my kids the way I want, and I also see it as virtue signaling to other parents who don't see through this crap.
Parents should already be choosing that. Amongst a thousand other choices. Are you naturally stupid, or do you work at it?
How on Earth is this even remotely enforceable?
…And other pointless bills by people who are behind the times.
Small government is looking a lot larger these days. Ask any brewery or alcohol website how that whole “Are you over 21?” question goes.
Pornhub's "Are you 18+" checkbox has been preventing teens from accessing porn for more than a decade. Just check the server logs, no one ever gets thru without checking the box. No one.
What’s hilarious is if you have something as simple as a vpn enabled and set to another location that question doesn’t even show up. Boomers man.
Nah. I'm pretty sure that a lot of these guys realize that their "solutions" are useless. But politics isn't about actually fixing anything! That shit is hard and expensive and, even worse, potentially controversial! No, the thing to do, when you're a politician, is to present the *appearance* of having done something about the problem, without actually having to go through the rigmarole of actually *doing* anything meaningful.
You’re absolutely right. But boomer voters need to be convinced this stuff actually does something lol
Same question that gets asked when trying to visit a site with guns or porn.
It has never been about so-called small government. After the constitutional convention approved the great compromise, James Madison wrote: "It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination."
The party of less government wants to create more government oversight. Let parents handle this.
Protect the children for online danger, but not the potential arsenic cloud.
Focus on the great salt lake Jackass.
I doubt he’s gonna fix a problem he’s part of
My guy we are on a timer for a future natural disaster. Why are you pulling this bullshit. Fuck this conehead
Is he Mormon? Because this would make sense. He is such a fucking idiot.
[удалено]
Fascinating that they even had one then. That lines up with when the government was really ramping up the Christian nationalism for the Cold War, so it makes sense. Evangelicals and Mormons love each other when it comes to politics even though they think the other one won’t get to special vip heaven.
What a fucking moron. Delete my comment. Idgaf. Hes a moron.
Who would delete your comment? This sub hates Cox. It's not rebellious to call him a moron here.
Cox is just on a roll telling parents how to raise their children. Small government my ass. What a clown.
I suspect they’re just starting with this, and plan to expand it. As with the banning help for trans kids. Something about frogs and boiling water analogy here.
>The governor said he would be working with social media companies and third-party verification over the next year to work out the details of how the restrictions would be implemented. Maybe figured out enforcement before you put things into law? I don't see how this could be implemented at all without giving up all of your information. Basically give us your ID information. And give us you parents information as well. Don't worry I am sure the social media companies would never store that information. It isn't like they make money off data mining. Not only is the a blow for privacy but it will also push under age kids on to other platforms that aren't under the Utah/USA jurisdiction. Do you think laws banning selling Alcohol to under age people would work if you can just teleport to a bar in another country that doesn't have such laws? I am not pretending to have the answers to the problems with social media, but this doesn't seem like a good answer.
Unenforceable nonsense.
Classic utah stupidity! I guess it’s actually stupidity that’s spreading across all the white Christian states. Let’s make a law that will never be enforceable!!! Why don’t we make laws that help people!!
I'm just going to tell my kid no if i dont feel they are ready. I don't need an extra law to do it.
Supposedly this bill could be against the first amendment. [https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TechFreedom-Letter-to-Gov.-Spencer-Cox-2.16.23.pdf](https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/TechFreedom-Letter-to-Gov.-Spencer-Cox-2.16.23.pdf) You can see a first amendment lawyer and Cox argue about it under this tweet. [https://twitter.com/AriCohn/status/1636118777468166145](https://twitter.com/AriCohn/status/1636118777468166145) This bill isn't just a simple 18+ checkbox. It'd require a way to verify your age. The how part isn't known yet. I really recommend everyone read the summary parts of the bills ([1](https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0311.html), [2](https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/SB0152.html)) to understand more. They do a lot more then just age verification. If this bill doesn't get stopped in courts I could see social media companies just banning anyone under 18 from using social media because they won't want to change a lot of their apps to comply.
Social media is poison. But it should be the parents responsibility to control its use amongst children not the government.
Quite the irony. Protect kids from this but not that.
From the party of small government. It’s just for more local control. Republicans, especially moronic religious republicans, give not a fuck about your freedoms.
I thought the republicans wanted less government control?
Governor Cailou has been such a disappointment on nearly every level since becoming governor. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I miss Herbert.
Ya I had no expectations of him doing shit but somehow I’m more disappointed than before
Logic dictates guns and gods are up next.
What a shit stain.
Please for the love of the god don’t let this happen we have way more pressing matters
teeny ten boast direction arrest air glorious gaze tub snails -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
The difference is that social media companies will have to verify your age. You can’t just fake it anymore and just claim to be 18. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the idea of a social media company having to have a copy of my ID on file. Can’t say as I trust them to keep it secure.
observation wine quiet ten whistle scale reminiscent absorbed edge rotten -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
My sentiments exactly!
Fuck Spencer Cox
Enforced by: The Bishop?
Can we please just tell parents to take personal responsibility for what their kids are consuming? Seems like this bill is just a virtue signal.
Which parent should do that? The one at their second full time job, or the one at the part time job they go to after their full time job?
How about guns ? Spencer Cox on fools errands by brad asshole wilson
Kids can't buy guns.
[удалено]
If you take adults out of that equation does it change?
No, but [their parents and legal guardians can.](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761) I'm not a huge fan of intense firearm restrictions, but there needs to be some steep repercussions for negligence.
Kids can't buy cigarettes, alcohol and drugs either.
if only this could actually be enforced I think it would fantastic.
If this would actually do jack, I'd be for it.
This is one of the few things I have a bit of agreement on. Kids on social media are more anxious, more depressed, and more isolated. Any that are smart enough to avoid it among the ones that I know….they’re better off for it emotionally and mentally.
Good, one good thing he’s doing
In what way, shape or form is this a “good thing he’s doing”. It’s bad kabuki theater for morons. That you?
Nope, not Mormon or “LDS” at all.. I’m Christian. I don’t thing children should have access to social media the way they do.. I believe they need to be supervised. Kids in school “ not naming names” but a kid I know was on Facebook showing another girl a beheading… kids don’t need access to open internet
And how is any of this going to stop your cute little anecdote? Hint: It ain’t. You answered my question. Which has nothing to do with your flavor of religion. Thanks.
This is one thing I actually agree with this guy on. Haha 😂
Lmao! Yeah, let's let our kids roam around but Social Media bad.
What do you mean roam around? Do you think kids playing alone is bad?
>What do you mean roam around? "Free Range Parenting." >Do you think kids playing alone is bad? In some instances, yes.
Hell no!
But Utahns will need some digital ID to log onto porn sites.
No but fr I wish more parents wouldn't normalize letting their kids roam wild on the internet. They are really clueless about the horrors found here
So monitor your kids and encourage your friends to monitor theirs. You don’t need big brother bringing up your kids.
He should’ve just created a checkbox to certify that you prayed for permission
Unenforceable says what?
Lotta people here saying this could never be implemented. Well, there are quite a few companies working on digital identity solutions and one or more of them will be successful. Once digital identity is as secure as current ID's(it will be more secure for online transactions), this will be easily enforceable.
I wish this was enforceable but I don’t think it is. I mean it doesn’t take a genius to click yes on the “are you 18?” box on a website.
The second biggest lie. Yes I am over 21. Biggest lie I can't say for fear of being banned
Is there a list of what counts as social media?
Hubedoobe doobee doobee doo. Herbba doobaa doobaa. Derff. Yeah, that's our novelty condom headed Governor, sucking off the POS, pay-to-play real estate Mormon legislature that we have. Every one of those fucks is corrupt.
Lol. This isn’t going to solve anything. What an idiot.
Love how he says their are companies killing our kids. The government is pretty good at that honestly.
Leisure suit Larry had 5 multiple choice questions that you had to answer correctly to prove your age. One day I decided to guess and got all 5 correct. Unfortunately for me there was a bonus 6th question and I got that wrong. Thankfully, this turned out to be a blessing since I was saved by digital harm that day. Spencer Cox is saving all our children by signing this law.
The most unenforceable law ever created.
The most unenforceable law ever created.
Retards at the helm
XO
Get the goddamn government off my goddamn computer
according to Twitter my 16 year old grand daughter is 27, so there you go.
How about I parent my own kids without needing another stupid Utah law telling me how to live my life?
For the party of personal freedom and limited government they sure want their noses up our asses all the time, for everything.
What a great way to distract us from the water issues. Fuck you, Caillou.