Ron DeSantis signs bill requiring parental consent for kids under 16 to hold social media accounts

[Nomad4Ever]

Ron DeSantis signs bill requiring parental consent for kids under 16 to hold social media accounts

The governor vetoed an earlier bill with less parental consent.

www.theverge.com

The bill requires social media platforms to prevent kids under 14 from creating accounts, and delete existing ones. It also requires parent or guardian consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to create or maintain social media accounts and mandates that platforms delete social media accounts and personal information for this age group at the teen’s or parent’s request.

The bill also requires many commercial apps and websites to verify their users’ ages — something that introduces a host of privacy concerns. But 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.

NetChoice — an association representing major social media platforms that’s already embroiled in a Supreme Court battle with the state over a separate social media law — said before HB 3 was signed that it “in effect will impose an ‘I.D. for the Internet’ on any Floridian who wants to use an online service—regardless of their age.”

Incredible, he's actually done it. Back when China started requiring ID verification to stop minors from getting on social media a few years ago I laughed at how comically authoritarian the CCP is and felt lucky I lived in America. Because of course to prevent minors getting on you don't just need to ID minors but you need to force adults to prove they are adults with ID too.

Obviously from a privacy standpoint this is a complete disaster. And there is also the massive burden of administrative costs this will place on social media companies where even the largest are barely profitable and will basically make it so new competitors can't afford to enter the market.

Most likely the majority of companies will just block access to Florida because this law is nearly impossible to comply with and the part where you can sue makes the risk of having a FL user far greater than any revenue they will get. Financially it just makes sense to not do business in FL at all.

Looks like increasingly US citizens will be joining the Chinese counterparts in becoming society wide proficient in using VPNs.

 

[Napoleon]

Why do you think it is “authoritarian” to require that minors have parental consent to access and become a commodity for online environments in which they are targeted with advertisements, malicious content, and by predators? I’m not buying your privacy gripe - you sign your privacy away when you join a social media platform.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Why do you think it is “authoritarian” to require that minors have parental consent to access and become a commodity for online environments in which they are targeted with advertisements, malicious content, and by predators?

You do realize this means everyone needs to provide ID right? Not just minors? Because you have to prove you aren’t a minor.

This means everyone will need to provide a state issued ID.

I’m not buying your privacy gripe - you sign your privacy away when you join a social media platform.

You sign their privacy agreement and nothing more. I have multiple anonymous social media accounts with different sites like Reddit that aren’t tied to my real identity in any way.

The state has no business forcing anyone to use a government ID to access a large part of the internet.

But my privacy argument is largely meaningless because this is impossible to comply with so social media companies will just block access in Florida instead.

 

[Ikari]

I don't know, this doesn't seem like the worst thing DeSantis has ever done.

 

[PoS]

I dont agree with this. It ought to be up to the parents to determine what their kids do on the net. DeSantis does good, but he also does bad, this is the latter.

 

[yankintx]

"Nations crumble from within when the citizenry asks of government those things which the citizenry might better provide for itself."

Ronald Reagan

A REAL Republican

 

[Slartibartfast]

I support this legislation. There is evidence at this point of the addictive nature and mental health related developmental issues caused by this type of product. Its the same reasoning as cigarettes or alcohol.

 

[ClaraD]

Ron DeSantis signs bill requiring parental consent for kids under 16 to hold social media accounts

The governor vetoed an earlier bill with less parental consent.

www.theverge.com

Incredible, he's actually done it. Back when China started requiring ID verification to stop minors from getting on social media a few years ago I laughed at how comically authoritarian the CCP is and felt lucky I lived in America. Because of course to prevent minors getting on you don't just need to ID minors but you need to force adults to prove they are adults with ID too.

Obviously from a privacy standpoint this is a complete disaster. And there is also the massive burden of administrative costs this will place on social media companies where even the largest are barely profitable and will basically make it so new competitors can't afford to enter the market.

Most likely the majority of companies will just block access to Florida because this law is nearly impossible to comply with and the part where you can sue makes the risk of having a FL user far greater than any revenue they will get. Financially it just makes sense to not do business in FL at all.

Looks like increasingly US citizens will be joining the Chinese counterparts in becoming society wide proficient in using VPNs.

has he passed any law not ruled unconstitutional? I thought he was all about letting parents decide? lmao...its more about he thinks he has the right to decide...not the parents. I guess he thinks minors do not have any Constitutional rights?

 

[ClaraD]

Why do you think it is “authoritarian” to require that minors have parental consent to access and become a commodity for online environments in which they are targeted with advertisements, malicious content, and by predators? I’m not buying your privacy gripe - you sign your privacy away when you join a social media platform.

um, even with parental consent...he has required parental consent for 15 and up.....under 14 it is prohibited even with parental consent...that is the issue....parents have that choice not him.

 

[roguenuke]

Why do you think it is “authoritarian” to require that minors have parental consent to access and become a commodity for online environments in which they are targeted with advertisements, malicious content, and by predators? I’m not buying your privacy gripe - you sign your privacy away when you join a social media platform.

This is a privacy nightmare and a huge potential avenue for identity theft. As others pointed out, it also undermines parental authority, control over their kids, making decisions for their children.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

I don't know, this doesn't seem like the worst thing DeSantis has ever done.

Not the worst thing he's tried to do.

But if it isn't struck down in court it would probably be one of the most harmful things he's actually been able to do.

 

[samiam5211]

My main complaint is that he didn't put the cutoff at 18 or even 21.

I'd prefer the limit be raised to 150.

 

[Slartibartfast]

My main complaint is that he didn't put the cutoff at 18 or even 21.

I'd prefer the limit be raised to 150.

I think we need to open social media companies up to product liability laws in terms of the mental health effects of their product and let the courts work it out.

 

[samiam5211]

Alternatively, social media companies can make their algorithms less malicious and avoid the issue.

They could, but it would be less profitable.

Capitalism is the root of the problem, but most of us don't want to address that.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

I support this legislation. There is evidence at this point of the addictive nature and mental health related developmental issues caused by this type of product. Its the same reasoning as cigarettes or alcohol.

I promise you the real outcome will just be a large portion of the internet being inaccessible to Floridians. Unless it is heavily subsidized by the state even large social media companies like Meta will just block access in Florida completely.

But even if that wasn't the case and the economics of it magic poof away there is a laundry list of privacy, legal, and technical issues. There are better ways of protecting kids from social media.

This solution is like solving the problem by unplugging the internet.

 

[Slartibartfast]

They could, but it would be less profitable.

Capitalism is the root of the problem, but most of us don't want to address that.

I revised my thoughts per the post your quoted, but yes it would lessen their profits.

I think we need to open social media companies up to product liability laws in terms of the mental health effects of their product and let the courts work it out.

 

[samiam5211]

I revised my thoughts per the post your quoted, but yes it would lessen their profits.

I think we need to open social media companies up to product liability laws in terms of the mental health effects of their product and let the courts work it out.

Yea, i'd be fine with that since it would essentially put most of them out of business.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I promise you the real outcome will just be a large portion of the internet being inaccessible to Floridians. Unless it is heavily subsidized by the state even large social media companies like Meta will just block access in Florida completely.

But even if that wasn't the case and the economics of it magic poof away there is a laundry list of privacy, legal, and technical issues. There are better ways of protecting kids from social media.

This solution is like solving the problem by unplugging the internet.

If the state maintained an oauth, saml, or other auth method that is linked to people's ages during account creation, then poof, verification is taken care of. Its not unsolvable from a technical perspective and does not require the that sites maintain and secure identity information.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

They could, but it would be less profitable.

Capitalism is the root of the problem, but most of us don't want to address that.

How would you address the open source and decentralized social media sites like Mastodon? You can't even shut that down really without raiding the homes of thousands of people who self host nodes. And there is no profit or capitalism involved.

 

[samiam5211]

How would you address the open source and decentralized social media sites like Mastodon? You can't even shut that down really without raiding the homes of thousands of people who self host nodes. And there is no profit or capitalism involved.

Why would we need to address ones that pretty much no one uses?

 

[Lursa]

I support this legislation. There is evidence at this point of the addictive nature and mental health related developmental issues caused by this type of product. Its the same reasoning as cigarettes or alcohol.

I understand, at least somewhat, the reason for this.

But if parents arent really aware, or dont care, or dont think it matters much, then they just authorize the kid's signup and that's the end of it...the kid has access again.

IMO if parents were concerned about the sm their kids were on, they'd be actively "policing" it already.

Question tho...if parents do authorize their kid's access, does this remove all liability from the sm org. for anything that happens to the kid? Like running off with a predator, suicide, bullying, etc?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

If the state maintained an oauth, saml, or other auth method that is linked to people's ages, then poof, verification is taken care of. Its not unsolvable from a technical perspective.

The unsolvable part is someone just making their account in a state or country that doesn't have this law.

But the larger problem is it is unenforcable from the side of the social media companies. A Florida user would be a net risk instead of a profit so they (Facebook, Reddit, X, instagram, etc) would just block access to everyone in Florida unless the state subsidized the costs in some way.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I understand, at least somewhat, the reason for this.

But if parents arent really aware, or dont care, or dont think it matters much, then they just authorize the kid's signup and that's the end of it...the kid has access again.

You have parents that let their kids drink or don't secure their alcohol as well.

IMO if parents were concerned about the sm their kids were on, they'd be actively "policing" it already.

Question tho...if parents do authorize their kid's access, does this remove all liability from the sm org. for anything that happens to the kid? Like running off with a predator, suicide, bullying, etc?

I would support that these companies also be subject to product liability laws and rely on the court to construct legal tests on how all that would work.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Why would we need to address ones that pretty much no one uses?

I suspect more people would use it when other options didn't exist anymore.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The unsolvable part is someone just making their account in a state or country that doesn't have this law.

True. People can just use a VPN to get around stuff, but the pursuit of the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

But the larger problem is it is unenforcable from the side of the social media companies. A Florida user would be a net risk instead of a profit so they (Facebook, Reddit, X, instagram, etc) would just block access to everyone in Florida unless the state subsidized the costs in some way.

IMHO, the biggest loss here would be small businesses who rely on companies like facebook for marketing, not kids or parents (who would probably be better off, generally)