> A North Texas Republican wants to ban social media for Texans under the age of 18.
But wait, there's more:
> State Rep. Jared Patterson, R-Frisco, filed House Bill 896 this week that would require social media users to show two forms of photo identification to verify their age.
Now all services considered social media would have to collect two forms of photo ID from all users, if they didn't want to be illegal in Texas?
This might not only be about protecting the children.
> This might not only be about protecting the children.
Sadly, it never is about protecting the children. It's always about pushing other agendas that are, at best, tangentially aimed at protecting children.
For example, holding back Texan teens (aka Gen Z, who had a huge impact on the recent midterms) from being a part of the broader political discussion; from informing themselves before they're able to vote.
Not that I support this bill because turning over ID documents is dumb and there will be ways around it and I don't see how it is enforceable, but I am just curious if the context of content on the app motivates your opinion. Are there limits you believe in? Like take for example 8chan if it still existed. Would you be ok with Gen Z going on there to inform themselves?
I'm amused by the idea that developing brains in particular are being informed, rather than misinformed, by social media. Where did that come from in the age of misinformation and filter bubbles? Adult brains are misinformed by these bubbles, teenage brains are even more vulnerable.
Informing themselves, or getting indoctrinated by an app partially owned by the Chinese Communist Party? (When you put it that way, it's an insane idea that we've permitted things to get this far.)
That's right. Since Austin is a big city and left-leaning, the clear and logical thing to do is to take away all representation and agency from its residents. /s
This article is incorrect. What the bill says is you need to provide a photo ID, and then you need to provide a photo of yourself to prove you're the person on the ID (presumably like those tinder verify features where you take a picture of yourself doing a silly pose to prove you're the person in the photos you uploaded).
That said this bill is being proposed, so it's expected to change, particularly on implementation. It's basically a rough draft
"Man's got a point. Two is no good. Let's make it three photo ids." - Texas Legislator Tex
"Hole up there son, we don't want to have to revisit this every year to patch holes. Let's put in a safety margin: Five photo ids." - Texas Legislator Champ
* State-issued ID card (aka the lesser equivalent to a driver's license card)
* Federal-issued passport
* Federal-issued passport card (yes, these are a thing)
For some informal examples (if they have a photo):
* Company ID card/documentation
* Library card
* Medical card
----
Everyone always has access to a state-issued ID card (or driver's license) and a passport issued by the federal government. Most people satisfy the "two forms of identification" requirement found in many situations with them.
It's a WHATTABOUT. You go "Hey, children are starving to death..."
Then they respond: "WHATABOUT the drag shows!"
It has nothing to do with the children, it's just attempting to avoid the fact that they don't want to do anything about all the other actual problems.
Alternatively, those without identification (who are most often marginalized individuals and groups) won't be able to use these platforms with this requirement.
I agree with the premise of this bill — that social media are harmful to young people — but disagree with the conclusion that therefore there must be a law. There are lots of things that can be harmful to children, like television, busy streets, caffeinated sugary sodas, and weight training, and we trust parents and other adults to guide children through those dangers, teaching them wise self-restraint along the way. I don't see that social media belong to a different category of danger that requires legislation.
Parenting is hard, and not everyone succeeds, but that doesn't mean that we need to legislate away all danger, especially at the cost of privacy and potentially beneficial engagement with friends and family.
These are the same busybody nanny-staters who tell us that it is "illegal" for our kids to drink, drive cars, buy guns, or share pornographic pictures of themselves.
But seriously - if you think social media is harmful to children, I don't see why you would oppose making it illegal. It would be illegal, neglect, for example, to let your children wander into a busy street. Why should it be legal to let your children come to harm in other ways?
I'm not actually sure that social media is harmful, or how harmful, or what qualifies as social media or as "use" - but if we grant that it is harmful, it should be illegal. Doing otherwise just adds another advantage to children with good parents. Making it illegal will, hopefully, reduce the amount of harm done to those who do not have the maturity to decide things for themselves.
I'm not sure it ought be "neglectful" or "illegal" to let kids wander in a busy street. Every day I see a huge swarm of kids, including 5th and 6th graders in elementary school, walk home without parents from school. That includes crossing intersections and commercial venues. I don't think that as neglectful activity.
In Japan there's a popular TV show where kids (max age 6-7) wander around their town to do shopping chores. Despite the fact that this is a TV show and thus there are going to be employees secretly posted around with cameras, it still displays a cultural sensibility on when children should begin to be trained to be independent.
Now, should kindergarteners cross a very busy street alone? Probably not. But in the city I'm talking about each family makes their own choices and the sum of all this is one of the safest places in the world. Police cars do not regularly patrol around and the community is very, very prosperous and optimistic.
Meanwhile we have a recent story of a mom who got charged for child endangerment and convicted and sentenced because she let her kids walk alone.
You're missing an important distinction that I may not have made clear: a lot of activities that can be harmful to children can also be valuable. There's a lot of harmless fun on television, walking alone to the park or a neighbor's house fosters a healthy sense of independence, weight training done safely can help build strength and confidence and sugary caffeinated sodas in moderation are… tasty? (Not sure about the benefit on that last one.)
Like these activities, social media can have their benefits even for young people: contact with friends and family far away, connection with others with similar interests, and a broader view of the world, among others. With guidance, kids can experience those benefits without too much of the harm.
In most of the cases you point out — drinking, driving, buying firearms, and sharing pornographic pictures of themselves — any good there may be is vastly outweighed by the dangers. I don't believe the harm so disproportionate with social media, but I suppose others might disagree.
I agree with you except that weight training/exercise has not only been shown to be safe, but also healthy in kids with normal health and development. There are extremes for sure, but the old adage that weight lifting will hurt you if you’re too young hasn’t held up to current research on the topic.
Proper weight training won’t hurt. But I got (and a lot of kids into sports/athletics get) hernia(s) because teenage hormones and physical reality are often at odds.
That may well be. I was trying to illustrate the broad range of activities in which we accept some risk to children, and may have been ambitious beyond my knowledge.
The definition of social media in this bill defines all websites with comment sections as social media. This means they don't want your kids to even have access to the news on the web.
I also can't believe how many other comments (not yours) in the comments on this post are like "this is a good idea" and "we should consider this" and etc.
I'm amazed. Most of the people on here responding as such are, I'm guessing, are people from my generation: "millenials" who grew up natively on the internet, probably even hung out on Slashdot and etc when that was big. Slashdot had a lot of problems (so does this site, not gonna lie) but OMG I can't imagine a post like this appearing on 2005 era Slashdot and 1/3 of the people being like "but why not this probably is a good idea".
I thought when my generation grew up and had kids, we'd try to stand up for digital rights as being important for the next generation, because we experienced why it was important ourselves. I am depressed by just how wrong I was.
> I thought when my generation grew up and had kids, we'd try to stand up for digital rights as being important for the next generation,
Yeah, but the internet we had has kids is far different than what we have today.
IMO the biggest difference is that it used to cost things to be on the internet: time and/or money. Sites weren't just GUI/WYSIWYG. You had to spend time building them. You had to have initiative. People's goals were different (I feel) than today. Knowledge and transfer of that knowledge was a big deal.
Now it seems like everything is about making a buck. You can't just let kids go wild online. There is some seriously dark stuff and it doesn't take a lot to get there. Hell, you can't even open some apps on a default install of something like macOS without the risk of pornography showing up.
In California, the definition includes any online forum and majority of sites allowing user-submitted content. (Granted, California has a minimum revenue requirement.)
Under a similar definition, this block anyone under 18 from having any accounts on the vast majority of popular sites.
Also, if you squint at it, this could equally apply to any video game company allowing communication between players.
> (1) "Social media platform" means an Internet website or application that is open to the public, allows a user to create an account, and enables users to communicate with other users for the primary purpose of posting information, comments, messages, or images. The term does not include:
>> (A) an Internet service provider as defined by Section 324.055;
>> (B) electronic mail; or
>> (C) an online service, application, or website:
>>> (i) that consists primarily of news, sports, entertainment, or other information or content that is not user generated but is preselected by the provider; and
>>> (ii) for which any chat, comments, or interactive functionality is incidental to, directly related to, or dependent on the provision of the content described by Subparagraph (i).
> (2) "User" means a person who posts, uploads, transmits, shares, or otherwise publishes or receives content through a social media platform. The term includes a person who has a social media platform account that the social media platform has disabled or locked.
Not to mention, what does it mean to use? Is passively consuming content without contributing or even creating an account using? Because, if so.... this means that YouTube gets turned upside down in this case.
Presumably, to use a platform is to be a user of that platform, where a user is "a person who posts, uploads, transmits, shares, or otherwise publishes or receives content through a social media platform" [0].
Since YouTube is unambiguously a social media platform by Texas law (it primarily consists of user-generated content), the bill as written would prohibit receiving YouTube videos without logging in with an age-verified account. I strongly doubt the bill will go anywhere.
This would make it harder to make a social media account, make it harder for people to try out new platforms thereby cementing the monopoly of the current ones, make it impossible to make an account without giving your real name to the social media platform — something which people will also be especially reluctant to do with new platforms.
This is a terrible proposal in it's intent and it's even worse in how it could be implemented. I see everyone here boldly claiming that a particular type of website is "bad" (???) for people but I've never seen that causal link backed up in any reputable journal. What does "bad" (???) even mean?
Websites are not drugs. Websites do not directly manipulate incentive salience and throw the brain's motivations out of wack like, say, cocaine or methamphetamine or tobacco do. Websites have to actually be enjoyable intrinsically before they alter your motivations. This is very unlike drugs. Trying to pass legislation like this that pretends people are without volition signals a far deeper danger: that the state no longer considers people to have volition and that it will force them to make the "correct" decisions. That's appropriate re: some drugs but entirely unjustified here.
Is this a real thing even worth discussing or just some silly performative stunt? Nobody is seriously considering this as a real thing we want to implement in society right? Right??
The negative effects of social media on children are absolutely something we should be discussing. Kids spend an unbelievable amount of time online in these networks, and it's having a real consequences. We already require by law blocking access to kids under 13 in certain situations, so it's not without precedent.
Why would you think this is something that is so far outside the reasonable to not warrant discussion here or in govt?
> We already require by law blocking access to kids under 13 in certain situations
The COPPA age-gating on 13 years old is trivially bypassed by most 13 year olds. It definitely won't keep teens off social media. But adding ID verification to enforce it is dystopian.
The issue is real, but the bill is a stunt. It's not actually going to pass or even get any real time in committee. It won't make it out of committee; if somehow it did, it would be voted down.
It gets people talking about the issue, and it puts the guy on the social calendar for talking with other people about the issue. That's how politics works: people talking with each other. The actual votes are only the final stage, and really the least important.
Lots of things are silly performative stunts until they aren't. The Governor of Texas has also formally declared that the state is subject to an invasion (in the military sense) and that he intends to act independently of the federal government with regard to the Mexican border.
This…actually seems like a good idea, at least in principle. Pretty much all research seems to be more or less unanimous that social media, as bad as it is, is even worse for younger users.
My key concern would be that this legislation could effectively outlaw any anonymous account on any website.
I can see the argument, but in TX social media/The Internet are pretty much the only way that many marginalized people have to socialize with each other, as well as the first exposure people get to ideas outside of their parents beliefs.
You might want to cite some decent quality research for that, so far the only things I have seen are vague association studies or anecdotal examples...
The BBCs conclusions:
>It’s clear that in many areas, not enough is known yet to draw many strong conclusions. However, the evidence does point one way: social media affects people differently, depending on pre-existing conditions and personality traits.
>As with food, gambling and many other temptations of the modern age, excessive use for some individuals is probably inadvisable. But at the same time, it would be wrong to say social media is a universally bad thing, because clearly it brings myriad benefits to our lives.
> This…actually seems like a good idea, at least in principle.
Let parents do the banning. No reason for government to dictate that.
Make laws which ensure moderation on social media so that children aren't abused, groomed. If mental health is a concern - which it rightly is - spend more on mental health so that every kid has access to mental health practitioners.
Readit News
But wait, there's more:
> State Rep. Jared Patterson, R-Frisco, filed House Bill 896 this week that would require social media users to show two forms of photo identification to verify their age.
Now all services considered social media would have to collect two forms of photo ID from all users, if they didn't want to be illegal in Texas?
This might not only be about protecting the children.
Sadly, it never is about protecting the children. It's always about pushing other agendas that are, at best, tangentially aimed at protecting children.
For example, holding back Texan teens (aka Gen Z, who had a huge impact on the recent midterms) from being a part of the broader political discussion; from informing themselves before they're able to vote.
I live in TX, and it is many people's greatest fear that their kids might start to think differently than their parents.
Here's another recent hit:
https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/state-rep-for-frisco-has....
That's right. Since Austin is a big city and left-leaning, the clear and logical thing to do is to take away all representation and agency from its residents. /s
I have one valid photo ID. Most people have only one valid photo ID. How is this supposed to work?
That said this bill is being proposed, so it's expected to change, particularly on implementation. It's basically a rough draft
"Hole up there son, we don't want to have to revisit this every year to patch holes. Let's put in a safety margin: Five photo ids." - Texas Legislator Champ
* State-issued ID card (aka the lesser equivalent to a driver's license card)
* Federal-issued passport
* Federal-issued passport card (yes, these are a thing)
For some informal examples (if they have a photo):
* Company ID card/documentation
* Library card
* Medical card
----
Everyone always has access to a state-issued ID card (or driver's license) and a passport issued by the federal government. Most people satisfy the "two forms of identification" requirement found in many situations with them.
Or Apple or Twitter could proactively show how it's done. The app is already 17+ in the App Store.
Then they respond: "WHATABOUT the drag shows!"
It has nothing to do with the children, it's just attempting to avoid the fact that they don't want to do anything about all the other actual problems.
When you have verified name and address of every user you can charge a lot more for ads.
>Under HB 896, social media sites would also be forced to verify a user’s age with a photo ID
Throw the bill in the garbage.
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00896I....
Dead Comment
Parenting is hard, and not everyone succeeds, but that doesn't mean that we need to legislate away all danger, especially at the cost of privacy and potentially beneficial engagement with friends and family.
But seriously - if you think social media is harmful to children, I don't see why you would oppose making it illegal. It would be illegal, neglect, for example, to let your children wander into a busy street. Why should it be legal to let your children come to harm in other ways?
I'm not actually sure that social media is harmful, or how harmful, or what qualifies as social media or as "use" - but if we grant that it is harmful, it should be illegal. Doing otherwise just adds another advantage to children with good parents. Making it illegal will, hopefully, reduce the amount of harm done to those who do not have the maturity to decide things for themselves.
In Japan there's a popular TV show where kids (max age 6-7) wander around their town to do shopping chores. Despite the fact that this is a TV show and thus there are going to be employees secretly posted around with cameras, it still displays a cultural sensibility on when children should begin to be trained to be independent.
Now, should kindergarteners cross a very busy street alone? Probably not. But in the city I'm talking about each family makes their own choices and the sum of all this is one of the safest places in the world. Police cars do not regularly patrol around and the community is very, very prosperous and optimistic.
Meanwhile we have a recent story of a mom who got charged for child endangerment and convicted and sentenced because she let her kids walk alone.
Like these activities, social media can have their benefits even for young people: contact with friends and family far away, connection with others with similar interests, and a broader view of the world, among others. With guidance, kids can experience those benefits without too much of the harm.
In most of the cases you point out — drinking, driving, buying firearms, and sharing pornographic pictures of themselves — any good there may be is vastly outweighed by the dangers. I don't believe the harm so disproportionate with social media, but I suppose others might disagree.
I'm amazed. Most of the people on here responding as such are, I'm guessing, are people from my generation: "millenials" who grew up natively on the internet, probably even hung out on Slashdot and etc when that was big. Slashdot had a lot of problems (so does this site, not gonna lie) but OMG I can't imagine a post like this appearing on 2005 era Slashdot and 1/3 of the people being like "but why not this probably is a good idea".
I thought when my generation grew up and had kids, we'd try to stand up for digital rights as being important for the next generation, because we experienced why it was important ourselves. I am depressed by just how wrong I was.
Yeah, but the internet we had has kids is far different than what we have today.
IMO the biggest difference is that it used to cost things to be on the internet: time and/or money. Sites weren't just GUI/WYSIWYG. You had to spend time building them. You had to have initiative. People's goals were different (I feel) than today. Knowledge and transfer of that knowledge was a big deal.
Now it seems like everything is about making a buck. You can't just let kids go wild online. There is some seriously dark stuff and it doesn't take a lot to get there. Hell, you can't even open some apps on a default install of something like macOS without the risk of pornography showing up.
What rights specifically do you have mind?
In California, the definition includes any online forum and majority of sites allowing user-submitted content. (Granted, California has a minimum revenue requirement.)
Under a similar definition, this block anyone under 18 from having any accounts on the vast majority of popular sites.
Also, if you squint at it, this could equally apply to any video game company allowing communication between players.
> (1) "Social media platform" means an Internet website or application that is open to the public, allows a user to create an account, and enables users to communicate with other users for the primary purpose of posting information, comments, messages, or images. The term does not include:
>> (A) an Internet service provider as defined by Section 324.055;
>> (B) electronic mail; or
>> (C) an online service, application, or website:
>>> (i) that consists primarily of news, sports, entertainment, or other information or content that is not user generated but is preselected by the provider; and
>>> (ii) for which any chat, comments, or interactive functionality is incidental to, directly related to, or dependent on the provision of the content described by Subparagraph (i).
> (2) "User" means a person who posts, uploads, transmits, shares, or otherwise publishes or receives content through a social media platform. The term includes a person who has a social media platform account that the social media platform has disabled or locked.
[0] https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BC/htm/BC.120.htm
Presumably, to use a platform is to be a user of that platform, where a user is "a person who posts, uploads, transmits, shares, or otherwise publishes or receives content through a social media platform" [0].
Since YouTube is unambiguously a social media platform by Texas law (it primarily consists of user-generated content), the bill as written would prohibit receiving YouTube videos without logging in with an age-verified account. I strongly doubt the bill will go anywhere.
[0] https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BC/htm/BC.120.htm
Websites are not drugs. Websites do not directly manipulate incentive salience and throw the brain's motivations out of wack like, say, cocaine or methamphetamine or tobacco do. Websites have to actually be enjoyable intrinsically before they alter your motivations. This is very unlike drugs. Trying to pass legislation like this that pretends people are without volition signals a far deeper danger: that the state no longer considers people to have volition and that it will force them to make the "correct" decisions. That's appropriate re: some drugs but entirely unjustified here.
Why would you think this is something that is so far outside the reasonable to not warrant discussion here or in govt?
The COPPA age-gating on 13 years old is trivially bypassed by most 13 year olds. It definitely won't keep teens off social media. But adding ID verification to enforce it is dystopian.
It gets people talking about the issue, and it puts the guy on the social calendar for talking with other people about the issue. That's how politics works: people talking with each other. The actual votes are only the final stage, and really the least important.
https://www.borderwall.texas.gov
My key concern would be that this legislation could effectively outlaw any anonymous account on any website.
(Am LGBT raised and living in TX)
It would. First line of the article: State Rep. Jared Patterson wants social media sites to require photo identification for users.
The BBCs conclusions:
>It’s clear that in many areas, not enough is known yet to draw many strong conclusions. However, the evidence does point one way: social media affects people differently, depending on pre-existing conditions and personality traits.
>As with food, gambling and many other temptations of the modern age, excessive use for some individuals is probably inadvisable. But at the same time, it would be wrong to say social media is a universally bad thing, because clearly it brings myriad benefits to our lives.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180104-is-social-media-...
Let parents do the banning. No reason for government to dictate that.
Make laws which ensure moderation on social media so that children aren't abused, groomed. If mental health is a concern - which it rightly is - spend more on mental health so that every kid has access to mental health practitioners.