I am shocked that so many people in this thread are okay with this. This is a terrifying bill. This will create the stage for it to be acceptable for companies to ask for ID to create an account.
This will end up with the death of anonymity on the internet.
Signal will require an ID.
Hacker News will require an ID.
Reddit will require an ID.
Stack Overflow will require an ID.
4chan will be illegal to operate.
Your google account may eventually require an ID
This is a really slippery slope. Maybe I am overly paranoid, but this seems like really dangerous legislation.
I agree that social media is pretty harmful in its current instantiation, but lets start with banning phones at school rather than removing anonymity for every site that "could harm kids".
Nope, you are not paranoid, that’s exactly what will happen, since the patriot act, both “Terrorism” and “not the children” are the main excuses to undermine and attack privacy online, soon you won’t be able to use any online services without attaching your ID, but that’s only temporary until they make the digital ID -in Canada there’s already a bill about it (1)-, hence the push for it especially after covid digital passports and how they can be used to attack such privacy (2), and making the process of violating this anonymity easier, but the worst part in my opinion isn’t just the online side, but the offline one, as soon as such digital ID is implemented, the gap between the online usage and offline one will vanish, your bank account and taxes are linked to what you post online for example, and just a single query on your name and all what you do online and offline is on screen.
Too many parents hate such bans—or even just heavier restrictions—a whole bunch.
Otherwise, districts would already do this. Most of the educators would really, really rather phones were banned or their use heavily restricted, and those restrictions enforced. It's a fucking mess in schools right now, as far as phone use goes. Distractions, cheating, kids taking creep-shots of their peers (or of teachers....) or using photos or videos captured in what should be a safe environment to magnify the effects and scope of bullying (think: the difference between accidentally wearing a stained shirt to school one day and getting laughed at, and the same thing happening but also you become a "meme" image shared around the rest of your school career, as the Stained Shirt Kid—now consider all the things that might apply to beyond a stained shirt, and let that sense of dawning horror sink in).
Parents are the ones preventing bans—things aren't the way they are because schools want it to be that way.
>I am shocked that so many people in this thread are okay with this. This is a terrifying bill. This will create the stage for it to be acceptable for companies to ask for ID to create an account.
I mean, between the solid decade of right-wing propaganda against social media and HN's general cynical contempt for modernity it shouldn't be surprising. Plenty of people here would gleefully welcome any degree of authoritarianism so long as it hurts social media.
Of course if it's any platform trying to stop child porn or racism or violence against gay and trans people, Hacker News always stands united in the name of absolute freedom, regardless of the consequences. But social media? Burn it all down and salt the earth.
This is a real ID system for everybody. Because how these companies such as Meta have trackers in most commercial web pages, it will mean more definite attribution of site visitors.
The silver lining is this could encourage more people to use the fediverse which has no ID requirement other than an email address and no tracking.
Since it is controlled by the GOP, I wonder if this is a way to find out who does not "support" the party or start a Social Score like the CCP did a few years ago.
More and more it seems that party is loosing its original outlook.
> More and more it seems that party is loosing its original outlook.
The original outlook was never free speech absolutism. Both sides have always agreed there are limits on free speech, but just have different metrics for where the line should be drawn. Many on the Democratic side would be OK with stricter rules against using "deadnames" or incorrect pronouns deliberately against trans people; while the GOP would be strongly opposed. Likewise, the GOP would likely not rule the Satanic Temple to have any free speech on school campuses if possible, whereas the Democratic side would call that inconsistency.
Depends on when you define "original" I guess but this wouldn't be out of place in their playbook during my entire life, at least. They're at least as much for consolidating and wielding state power against individuals as the democrats are they just have much better branding around it.
Australia has had three major data breaches in the past year all leaking ID documents and now many people are facing serious and ongoing issues with identity theft.
Forcing more companies to collect ID is going to increase cases of identity theft which can cause extreme suffering and in some cases even suicide. Unfortunately this is never considered when a government mandates ID verification. “Protect the children at any cost even if we have no evidence it will work” seems to be the mantra across the world.
You have to present ID to buy tobacco or alcohol in the states. These places do not store any information on your ID. They glance at it to verify your birthdate, then you put the ID back in your wallet.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell I am giving my government ID to a social media company that will undoubtedly store that info in their database.
It isn’t about showing an ID but rather storing it, do they take a photocopy of my ID if I buy cigarettes? Nope. Additionally, that ID system won’t stop on social media which I’m personally ok with to kill it, but basically all internet usage will be linked to that ID.
Utah just passed the bill this is based on. I'm sure it will in court for awhile.
> If an account holder is a minor, the social media company
33 shall confirm that a minor has consent under subsection (a) of this section
34 to become a new account holder, at the time an Arkansas user opens the
35 account.
I don't see any text about how they're suppose to verify that consent.
It's fairly interesting to me that a lot of People seem to be against the idea of showing ID to use social media, but companies like Meta have verification badges that require a Government Issued ID and a Payment Details to further verify your identity, Twitter (which does not seem to require gov ID) and Meta have both said that verified creators will be shown more, while this will obviously de-boosting non-paying, and subsequently non ID verified, users which essentially incentivizes giving these Platforms your personal information in order to actually use them properly.
An excerpt from a Meta Article on the matter reads: "At this time, Meta Verified will only support your real name on your profile. Once your profile is verified, you can’t change the profile name, username, date of birth, or photo on your profile without going through the Meta Verified subscription and verifications application process again."
If paid users are being boosted, more people are led to believe they need to pay the monthly fee to be seen, the user base of ID verified users increases, and Social Media basically becomes ID Verified, without the need for any laws to pass.
There are people who use social media without the desire to be "seen" or recommended to random people via an algorithm.
But beyond that the difference is that with the Arkansas law, users don't have the _choice_ to remain anonymous. With verification, a user can simply sacrifice broader reach to maintain that anonymity.
That is an opt-in process at the level of the organization. If FB, TWTR, etc decide to push ID verification, we will see how users feel about it. It is a free-market.
However, if the govt decides to push ID verification, the user loses all choice because this will be applied to all social media platforms (like HN).
> The A.C.L.U.’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology project sent me a statement that said the Utah bill and many like it around the country would “restrict the ability of teenagers to explore and make up their own minds about everything..."
Does the ACLU realize they are walking right into a trap? Is their position really going to be that parents don't have the right to parent their kids? This is not a position you will ever convince mom's to agree to. And I think we all know who has been swinging elections lately.
There has been a very strange desire by some to get direct access to kids and to influence them without parental approval or supervision. And here the ACLU is putting into broad daylight this idea that kids have complete agency. They do not.
For the entire history of parenting, parents have tried to control what their kids are exposed to and most importantly, who they are exposed to. You know, the whole "bad influences" thing? And although I personally believe overprotecting kids is ultimately bad for them and that reality is something they need to understand, I respect that other parents may have different limits.
> There has been a very strange desire by some to get direct access to kids and to influence them without parental approval or supervision.
I’ve noticed this as well. One recent instance is opposition to the proposed Parents Bill of Rights Act in the US, which would require elementary schools to obtain parental consent before a minor child’s gender pronouns or preferred name is changed. That seems like a pretty reasonable rule to me.
> And although I personally believe overprotecting kids is ultimately bad for them and that reality is something they need to understand, I respect that other parents may have different limits.
This is also a more bipartisan issue on the ground than we'd like to admit. Both conservative parents and many "radical feminists", for example, both agree pornography should not be used as a tool for teaching oneself about sex. But if you take the ACLU literally here (because of how broad their position is), they think that's just a necessary evil. I think it is not unreasonable as a parent to strongly, strongly disagree with that idea.
> Is their position really going to be that parents don't have the right to parent their kids?
Parents can parent all they want without this law. I am a parent, and this law would not help me in my parenting of my kids online. In fact, I would prefer my kids be able to sign up for accounts without having to share any private information about themselves, including their age.
> There has been a very strange desire by some to get direct access to kids and to influence them without parental approval or supervision.
You're veering off into "pizza basement" levels of conspiracy here.
At this point... I'm actually ready to play advocate for such a ban. I'm also not convinced that it would be unconstitutional, as that would call ID for gun purchases, alcohol purchases, and similar into question. And some might say as well that social media isn't a physical threat, but that's assuming that threats to children's mental health are less of a priority than physical threats.
As for enforceability, or "they'll just use a VPN!" I don't really care. It's still a crime to speed even if 25% of the road speeds, and it would still be worse without Speed Limits. Criminals sometimes obtain guns, but it doesn't mean I don't want Gun ID laws.
It's not difficult to show a compelling state interest in the regulation of weapons and intoxicants, but regulating media companies is a whole different question that deserves at least intermediate scrutiny. In this case specifically, I think the government would have difficulty demonstrating state interest given the carve-outs in the bill: it's hard to understand how Facebook is uniquely toxic but Youtube, LinkedIn, all multiplayer video games, and platforms with less than $100mm in annual gross revenue are exempt (plus a kind of tossed-out exemption for news that looks like a half-assed attempt to get around the controlling "ink-tax" 1A case law).
I'd rather we just outlaw the creepy, dangerous, dragnet forever-memory spying at the core of their business model and see how the whole landscape adjusts after that happens, before deciding if further regulation is necessary.
But I'd settle for anything else that hurts them, at this point.
It's absolutely ridiculous that:
1) most social coordination happens on private corporate servers
2) we'll soon be unable to use those servers without showing our "papers"
The constitutional best alternative to banning social media. My only concern is its implication for anonymity... which Big Tech has already shredded anyway.
[+] [-] LatticeAnimal|2 years ago|reply
This will end up with the death of anonymity on the internet.
Signal will require an ID. Hacker News will require an ID. Reddit will require an ID. Stack Overflow will require an ID. 4chan will be illegal to operate. Your google account may eventually require an ID
This is a really slippery slope. Maybe I am overly paranoid, but this seems like really dangerous legislation.
I agree that social media is pretty harmful in its current instantiation, but lets start with banning phones at school rather than removing anonymity for every site that "could harm kids".
[+] [-] AHOHA|2 years ago|reply
(1) https://citizenlab.ca/2021/04/bill-c-11-explained/
(2) https://www.biometricupdate.com/202206/canada-us-officials-s...
[+] [-] yamtaddle|2 years ago|reply
Too many parents hate such bans—or even just heavier restrictions—a whole bunch.
Otherwise, districts would already do this. Most of the educators would really, really rather phones were banned or their use heavily restricted, and those restrictions enforced. It's a fucking mess in schools right now, as far as phone use goes. Distractions, cheating, kids taking creep-shots of their peers (or of teachers....) or using photos or videos captured in what should be a safe environment to magnify the effects and scope of bullying (think: the difference between accidentally wearing a stained shirt to school one day and getting laughed at, and the same thing happening but also you become a "meme" image shared around the rest of your school career, as the Stained Shirt Kid—now consider all the things that might apply to beyond a stained shirt, and let that sense of dawning horror sink in).
Parents are the ones preventing bans—things aren't the way they are because schools want it to be that way.
[+] [-] krapp|2 years ago|reply
I mean, between the solid decade of right-wing propaganda against social media and HN's general cynical contempt for modernity it shouldn't be surprising. Plenty of people here would gleefully welcome any degree of authoritarianism so long as it hurts social media.
Of course if it's any platform trying to stop child porn or racism or violence against gay and trans people, Hacker News always stands united in the name of absolute freedom, regardless of the consequences. But social media? Burn it all down and salt the earth.
[+] [-] sharemywin|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kornhole|2 years ago|reply
The silver lining is this could encourage more people to use the fediverse which has no ID requirement other than an email address and no tracking.
[+] [-] commandlinefan|2 years ago|reply
If this passes, they'll expand it to internet access in general.
[+] [-] jmclnx|2 years ago|reply
More and more it seems that party is loosing its original outlook.
[+] [-] gjsman-1000|2 years ago|reply
The original outlook was never free speech absolutism. Both sides have always agreed there are limits on free speech, but just have different metrics for where the line should be drawn. Many on the Democratic side would be OK with stricter rules against using "deadnames" or incorrect pronouns deliberately against trans people; while the GOP would be strongly opposed. Likewise, the GOP would likely not rule the Satanic Temple to have any free speech on school campuses if possible, whereas the Democratic side would call that inconsistency.
[+] [-] giraffe_lady|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shortcake27|2 years ago|reply
Forcing more companies to collect ID is going to increase cases of identity theft which can cause extreme suffering and in some cases even suicide. Unfortunately this is never considered when a government mandates ID verification. “Protect the children at any cost even if we have no evidence it will work” seems to be the mantra across the world.
[+] [-] palmotea|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] circuit|2 years ago|reply
There is not a snowball's chance in hell I am giving my government ID to a social media company that will undoubtedly store that info in their database.
[+] [-] AHOHA|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gjsman-1000|2 years ago|reply
https://www.medpagetoday.com/psychiatry/generalpsychiatry/10...
General teenage happiness also took a beating post-2012.
https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/the-sad-state-of-happi...
[+] [-] comrh|2 years ago|reply
> If an account holder is a minor, the social media company 33 shall confirm that a minor has consent under subsection (a) of this section 34 to become a new account holder, at the time an Arkansas user opens the 35 account.
I don't see any text about how they're suppose to verify that consent.
[+] [-] trulynissin|2 years ago|reply
An excerpt from a Meta Article on the matter reads: "At this time, Meta Verified will only support your real name on your profile. Once your profile is verified, you can’t change the profile name, username, date of birth, or photo on your profile without going through the Meta Verified subscription and verifications application process again."
If paid users are being boosted, more people are led to believe they need to pay the monthly fee to be seen, the user base of ID verified users increases, and Social Media basically becomes ID Verified, without the need for any laws to pass.
[+] [-] ignormies|2 years ago|reply
But beyond that the difference is that with the Arkansas law, users don't have the _choice_ to remain anonymous. With verification, a user can simply sacrifice broader reach to maintain that anonymity.
[+] [-] LatticeAnimal|2 years ago|reply
However, if the govt decides to push ID verification, the user loses all choice because this will be applied to all social media platforms (like HN).
[+] [-] nemo44x|2 years ago|reply
Does the ACLU realize they are walking right into a trap? Is their position really going to be that parents don't have the right to parent their kids? This is not a position you will ever convince mom's to agree to. And I think we all know who has been swinging elections lately.
There has been a very strange desire by some to get direct access to kids and to influence them without parental approval or supervision. And here the ACLU is putting into broad daylight this idea that kids have complete agency. They do not.
For the entire history of parenting, parents have tried to control what their kids are exposed to and most importantly, who they are exposed to. You know, the whole "bad influences" thing? And although I personally believe overprotecting kids is ultimately bad for them and that reality is something they need to understand, I respect that other parents may have different limits.
[+] [-] bangkoksbest|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lumb63|2 years ago|reply
I’ve noticed this as well. One recent instance is opposition to the proposed Parents Bill of Rights Act in the US, which would require elementary schools to obtain parental consent before a minor child’s gender pronouns or preferred name is changed. That seems like a pretty reasonable rule to me.
[+] [-] gjsman-1000|2 years ago|reply
This is also a more bipartisan issue on the ground than we'd like to admit. Both conservative parents and many "radical feminists", for example, both agree pornography should not be used as a tool for teaching oneself about sex. But if you take the ACLU literally here (because of how broad their position is), they think that's just a necessary evil. I think it is not unreasonable as a parent to strongly, strongly disagree with that idea.
[+] [-] ok_dad|2 years ago|reply
Parents can parent all they want without this law. I am a parent, and this law would not help me in my parenting of my kids online. In fact, I would prefer my kids be able to sign up for accounts without having to share any private information about themselves, including their age.
> There has been a very strange desire by some to get direct access to kids and to influence them without parental approval or supervision.
You're veering off into "pizza basement" levels of conspiracy here.
[+] [-] comrh|2 years ago|reply
I think their position is more children have 1st amendment rights too.
[+] [-] tick_tock_tick|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gjsman-1000|2 years ago|reply
As for enforceability, or "they'll just use a VPN!" I don't really care. It's still a crime to speed even if 25% of the road speeds, and it would still be worse without Speed Limits. Criminals sometimes obtain guns, but it doesn't mean I don't want Gun ID laws.
[+] [-] HillRat|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1970-01-01|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hexo|2 years ago|reply
Can't wait.
[+] [-] yamtaddle|2 years ago|reply
But I'd settle for anything else that hurts them, at this point.
[+] [-] tuetuopay|2 years ago|reply
Adult sites are also supposed to check that, and we all know how effective this is.
[+] [-] barbazoo|2 years ago|reply
Actually I don't know if that's effective at all and I couldn't find any data on that either, care to share?
[+] [-] localplume|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aschearer|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] krunck|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sbaiddn|2 years ago|reply