Sen. Hawley Wants To Create Legal Age To Be Allowed on Social Media (nbcnews.com) 143
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., intends to make his focus in the current Congress a legislative package aimed at protecting children online -- including by setting the age threshold to be on social media at 16. From a report: In an interview with NBC News, Hawley detailed some top lines of what his agenda will include, such as:
1. Mandating social media companies verify the age of their users.
2. Providing parents a right to demand that tech companies delete their kids' data.
3. Commissioning a wide-ranging congressional mental-health study on the impact social media has on children.
"For me, this is about protecting kids, protecting their mental health, protecting their safety," Hawley said. "There's ample evidence to this effect that big tech companies put their profits ahead of protecting kids online." Since his election to the Senate in 2018, Hawley has made scrutinizing the tech industry core to his political brand and has pushed for breaking up the tech giants and curtailing the reach of TikTok.
1. Mandating social media companies verify the age of their users.
2. Providing parents a right to demand that tech companies delete their kids' data.
3. Commissioning a wide-ranging congressional mental-health study on the impact social media has on children.
"For me, this is about protecting kids, protecting their mental health, protecting their safety," Hawley said. "There's ample evidence to this effect that big tech companies put their profits ahead of protecting kids online." Since his election to the Senate in 2018, Hawley has made scrutinizing the tech industry core to his political brand and has pushed for breaking up the tech giants and curtailing the reach of TikTok.
Good! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the ramifications.
How do you verify age? By showing ID.
How do you verify ID? By giving over yet another form of ID.
How do you verify their ID wasn't stolen? Perform the above steps at a regular interval.
Pretty soon you'll have banks or central monitoring authorities like Palantir acting as identity providers just to offload this problem.
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're not opposed to the regulations in general, just "How will we be able to do it?"
On the three points listed in the summary:
Mandating social media companies verify the age of their users.
They should have been doing this from the beginning. How isn't my problem or your problem - it's their problem. Let them figure it out if they're so damn smart.
Providing parents a right to demand that tech companies delete their kids' data.
Why the HELL isn't this already an option. Kids, being minors, cannot legally consent, so fuck the data whores.
Commissioning a wide-ranging congressional mental-health study on the impact social media has on children.
This is a waste of time - every study not pushed by special interests shows negative mental and physical effects on kids. Just do it already. About time parents have to accept at least a minimal level of both social and LEGAL responsibility for turning over the running of their kids' lives to data-harvesting corporations and predators.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, because I have a few ways this can be done. But they DON'T want to do anything that will result in minors not being able to access their services without parental consent because MONEY.
Besides, if they want me to solve it for them, let them damn well pay me to. One of the solutions is cheap and easy. But as I said, if they're so smart, why can't they figure it out ... it's because of MONEY. Not that it's hard to do. It's actually pretty damn trivial (I figured out how with another project I was
Re: (Score:3)
Why the HELL isn't this already an option. Kids, being minors, cannot legally consent, so fuck the data whores.
You are misinformed. Depending on age and subject what you so arrogantly call "kids" _can_ legally consent to things. For example, most of Europe has a legal age of consent of 16, so they _can_ legally agree to having sex at that age with some exclusions (sex work usually requires you to be 18). If you look at the US, legal age of consent varies by state, but in some cases goes down to 13 (!) with some Romeo&Juliet provisions.
Hence I recommend you stop shitting all over "kids".
Re: (Score:2)
You just proved my point. Even in Europe, minors below 16 can't consent. Also, there is no legal consent, even between adults, when one party has a position of power and authority over the other.
So they have to figure it out. I had to figure out an easy cheap method of user verification for another project. If I could, why can't these smartasses?
Re: (Score:2)
Just regulate it like we do a whole bunch of other stuff that isn't suitable for kids.
Re: (Score:2)
How isn't my problem or your problem - it's their problem. Let them figure it out if they're so damn smart.
Same solution a financial institution might use, just apply USA PATRIOT Act, signed into law by Bush Jr, to social media sites, loosely defined as most of the internet. Collect name, address, date of birth, social security number, and a scan of a government issued photo ID. They'll just run it through a quick LexisNexis check that is definitely not free, and you can continue posting on /.
I don't see a problem with this, I bet it will go swimmingly.
Re: (Score:2)
But on a related topic - trust in general.
My internet host has my personal and banking details - I trust them, they trust me.
Microsoft knows I'm a real person because I bought MSFS 2020 from their online store. Sure, the payment was via PKI, but in the event of fraud, one of the beauties of PKI is transactions can be traced by law enforcement.
My local compute
Re: (Score:2)
They should have been doing this from the beginning. How isn't my problem or your problem - it's their problem. Let them figure it out if they're so damn smart.
And if it's impossible, impractical, or has terrible side effects, your answer is that the nerds should just nerd harder?
Re: (Score:2)
The "terrible side effects" are that they'll lose unfettered access to kids as their parents put in controls.
It's really not that hard to do proper age verification if you think about it - problem is, it involves the parents, and data mining companies DON'T want that.
Like I said elsewhere, I figured out cheap effective user verification on another project - but again, it would involve the parents, and they DON'T want that, because it will mean less money.
Re: (Score:2)
If the penalties were high enough to compensate people for their loss of privacy from a data breach, t
Re: Good! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook and Google each make about $10-$15 a MONTH selling user data of users in the US and Canada (much less for users elsewhere). The people they sell the data to obviously make more, or they wouldn't be paying for the data in the first place.
Cost isn't the factor - greed is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EU already has regulations against that, and they mostly work.
Re: (Score:2)
I have in fact read the relevant regulations. They specifically forbid that which parent refer to AND the put some pretty hefty fines behind the legislation to ensure that data isn't "warehoused" outside EU. In fact, most of the fines so far were for accidental backend configuration fuck ups, and they were pretty hefty.
So like I said, above, EU has regulations against that problem, and they mostly work.
Re: (Score:2)
Even Canada has similar laws. Why is the US so far behind other Western nations? Oh, right, libtard tech bros wanna make monAY!
As opposed to all the contard tech bros that don't?
I can't even...
Re: (Score:2)
Even Canada has similar laws. Why is the US so far behind other Western nations? Oh, right, libtard tech bros wanna make monAY!
As opposed to all the contard tech bros that don't?
I can't even...
Of course "you can't even". You're the one offering up a false dichotomy, not me. Not my problem.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess you aren't better than that. Sigh.
Can any of you self professed saviors speak without insults, dog whistles, and elaborate adjectives?
This word salad doesn't lend you any credibility, it just makes you look stupid and obsessed.
Re: (Score:2)
COPPA isn't being enforced to bar children from the internet and you know it. You're arguing dishonestly.
And the problem isn't limited to those under 13. Simply put, minors cannot give valid consent. End of story.
User verification can be done cheaply without requiring government IDs. I was able to figure out how for another project. The libertarians running silly valley simply don't want to do so, or they would have figured it out by now. And no, if they want my solution, pay me, motherfuckers. And I'l
Re: Be careful what you wish for, you might get it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? I don't know what to think of this yet but simply requiring a drivers license or state ID to be entered would work just fine. Will some kids get around this by using their parents IDs? Sure but they will but it likely wont be in meaningful numbers as parents typically don't let their kids use their IDs.
Re: (Score:2)
Will some kids get around this by using their parents IDs? Sure but they will but it likely wont be in meaningful numbers as parents typically don't let their kids use their IDs.
You underestimate kids. I knew where my parents wallets were and they're not locked in a box (and even if they were, I knew where the keys are).
On the other hand, I don't want social media companies to have my driver's license or passport. Maybe the big ones I'm willing to trust to keep that data safe (or at least I'll hear about any security breaches in the news). The rest? I can live without them. This will screw over all of the smaller websites because it'll be so much harder to get users to sign up.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you over estimate the likelihood of kids working around such things and under estimate the strong odds of them getting caught given how much time kids are prone to spend on social media.
After a few moments of thought I have come to a similar conclusion to you though that we don't need to be giving even more personal info to online companies. Never the less, I do think a drivers license requirement would work just fine in stopping the vast majority of kids from accessing social media.
Re: (Score:2)
If there are going to b
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
As we see every day, people in general, not just parents, are very irresponsible with internet use. Back when the internet first became a thing, the idea of letting a kid go online unsupervised was Just Not Done! Now, 2-year-olds are being babysat by iPads. That's just fucked up. Parental controls? The kids know how to get around them more than the parents know how to set them in the first place. Parents set them, kids bypass them, lock their parents out, much hilarity ensues.
Re: (Score:2)
Back when the internet first became a thing, the idea of letting a kid go online unsupervised was Just Not Done
You might think that... but it was generally the kids that got that stuff setup and working. Mom and dad couldn't even program the VCR. I had basically unfettered internet access from age 12 when I bought a computer w/ my paper route money, and got us on online. Downloaded HalfLife on IRC over a 56k modem - took like a 2 weeks to get the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I suspect the people making these comments weren't enterprising kids/teenagers back in the late 80s and early 90s. Most parents were far too preoccupied with MTV, the Simpsons, and eventually games like Mortal Kombat to even remotely be worried about the internet, assuming they even knew what it was at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
...And AIDS, and DRUGS! D.A.R.E to be different, just so no kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there wasn't that much interesting on it.
for a 12/13 year old boy? There was a *lot* of interesting stuff on the internet...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
I was dialing into BBSes playing LORD on my cobbled together 286 with a 1200 baud modem when I was like 10-12 years old. "Internet" access was pretty much limited to certain BBS gateway features but it was still there.
We did tell our kids when they were younger that we didn't want them getting sucked into social media. Having said that, our approach over the years has been much more about open communication and discussion rather than trying to control the content they accessed. Even though I'm far more capable than the average parent of locking things down, that plan always seemed like a losing proposition. Instead, we told them about 4chan/8chan and why they should be careful. We told them about how social media can screw with your emotions. We told them they *deserve* privacy and would have it from us so long as they didn't do anything that was unhealthy/dangerous/illegal. We talk regularly about law, politics, society, and morality. We watch Rick and Morty and play Cards against Humanity together. It hasn't been perfect, but given the stresses today's youth face I think they've done remarkably well and I'm really proud of them. I wouldn't do it differently.
Re: Good! (Score:2)
The iOS parental controls don't even work reliably. For instance: (1) From my phone I set my kid's iPad's downtime to be 1am-11pm and turn on content restrictions, (2) I wait for between 30mins and 1 week, (3) the iPad spontaneously removes its parental controls. This is when the iPad remained at my office in a locked drawer so I guarantee that no one touched it.
Also, every new iOS update on the iPad removes downtime and content restrictions as well.
(At least the Microsoft family controls work reliably on m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This law is just a normal reaction by old people and dumb people against technology. the WSJ published a letter full of inaccuracies written by a pathetic old man in his florida hotel, but it is twitter and Facebook that are getting called to congress.
Back many years ago Beavis and Butthead were being attacked because kids were doing stupid
Re: (Score:2)
Is enforcement perfect?
No, not at all.
I'll grant you, this is a bit easier to enforce with physical products you buy....
But we've seen studies showing that children are being harmed by todays social media. It was just a few months ago on TV they were showing studies about how young teen girls were being negatively affected by what they saw and tried to emulate on social
Re: (Score:2)
There have been many studies done concerning the negative effects of children going to church. There are dozens of kids molested every year. Yet children under 18 are allowed to attend without supervision.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cars can be driven at 16 in the mighty US of A.
But God forbid you have a beer before 21.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So I take it you're in favor of having to give the provider of a social media platform your real ID?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, you can legally fly a plane solo (!) at 16 and a glider solo (!) at 14. Yes, the glider only gets one attempt at landing and messing it up badly enough can kill you. The accident statistics say this is perfectly fine.
There already is one (Score:4, Insightful)
13, the age specified for COPPA, is the limit that applies right now, though not specifically because of social media.
Re:There already is one (Score:4, Funny)
13, the age specified for COPPA, is the limit that applies right now, though not specifically because of social media.
From what I've seen, people under the age of 100 are not ready to safely use social media. Though I may have underestimated that slightly.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, plenty of people are quite ready and capable of using social media. Until it was weaponized by the political right, circa 2015 or so, and become so toxic that lots of people started leaving; Facebook was fantastic for finding old friends with whom you'd lost touch, keeping in touch with friends you didn't often see in-person, coordinating groups of friends for specific endeavors like Burning Man camps, planning and inviting friends to parties and other get-togethers, promoting and finding local music a
Re: (Score:2)
And it is an entirely reasonable age. At 13, kids want to know about the world, but you can also explain things to them. And lying to them (as the religious fuckups like to do, for example) becomes a lot more difficult, because at least the smart ones have started to think for themselves.
Strong resistance in the House (Score:5, Funny)
Matt Gaetz has already declared his opposition to this measure.
Big government Republicans strike again (Score:4, Insightful)
As I said earlier [slashdot.org], Republicans believe the government is here to help you.
Remember when Republicans said it should be up to parents whether to vaccinate their kids, that it should be the parents responsibility, looks like Republicans don't trust parents to raise their kids.
Re:Big government Republicans strike again (Score:5, Funny)
There's ample evidence to this effect that big tech companies put their profits ahead of protecting kids online.
If there's one thing Republicans are known for, it's for going after big companies that put their profits over people's safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then, how about we require explicit parental consent for minors to be on social media?
That would put the ball back with the parent's decision, no?
Re: (Score:3)
If you think of the children constantly, chances are good you're a pedo.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahahaha. If you think everyone is a pedo, chances are good you are a pedo.
Re: (Score:2)
I would hope that not everyone is constantly thinking about children. I for one could very well do without them.
Nazi insurrectionist says what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come back with some actual moral authority, Senator.
Re:Nazi insurrectionist says what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps instead of regulating families, we should regulate businesses.
Make it illegal for Facebook to track minors. No catered content since there is no tracking. No algorithms designed to keep kids addicted, because of no tracking. They are allowed to know the kid's login, age, and friends list, since these are necessary for the kid to get value from the service. And that's it.
Kids should be free to communicate with each other online. Business should not be free to exploit them. Maybe my above proposal is full of holes. Maybe we could work out a better version. But surely, cutting kids off from so significant an aspect of our culture is not the only option available to us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Election stealing gaslighter says what?
Double plus good! (Score:2)
And to make sure there's no more trouble from these platforms, set the legal age at 99.
Yeah, ninety sounds about right. (Score:2)
Keeps out the riff-raff.
Almost, but not quite... (Score:3)
The rule should be that you have to behave as maturely as an average 16-year-old. But I guess Hawley doesn't want to ban himself.
Re: (Score:3)
The rule should be that you have to behave as maturely as an average 16-year-old. But I guess Hawley doesn't want to ban himself.
Josh Hawley? You mean Josh Hawley the coward [youtube.com]?
Internet ID, not for tracking, we promise! (Score:5, Interesting)
'member when Bill Clinton, during a State of the Union speech, held up an Internet access card, and Republicans were agin' it?
Good times.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's like I said, if "Team Red" proposes something then "Team Blue" is automatically opposed to it.
Likewise, if "Team Blue" proposes something then "Team Red" opposes it, even if it's the same thing thing that "Team Red" proposed in the past.
Either way we're screwed.
Re:Internet ID, not for tracking, we promise! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's always political (Score:2)
think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
"For me, this is about protecting kids, protecting their mental health, protecting their safety," Hawley said.
shouldn't you then be promoting universal healthcare and education instead of censorship and mass surveillance, you piece of shit?
Re: (Score:2)
"Mental health" is becoming a common talking point for certain politicians. Here in Texas it was the governor's sole reply to the Uvalde elementary school shooting last summer, since he wasn't allowed to criticize the 300 police officers who stood outside for 90 minutes, nor the total absence of gun control.
They can't talk about "healthcare" in general, since we all know where they stand on that. So they talk about "mental health". The proposition there seems to be increasing subsidies to for-profit psychia
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, American government, where its only power is handing-out money to make the problem 'disappear'. Since the US government never enforces metrics, or audits the 'deliverables', corporations can spend the money on anything and label their incompetence, a success.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Re: (Score:2)
Self-important outrage, much? Teenagers can still access voice-mail, SMS, email and all the public websites (eg. wikipedia, slashdot). Schools that have embraced cyber-space tend to operate a strictly moderated social network for students.
Blocking Facebook and its ilk, blocks the echo chambers they, create: A good thing for children who don't have the experience (and discipline) to ignore conspiracy theories and cyber-bullies. Sites popular with schoolgirls, such as Omegle providing video-chat to rand
Now, the hard part... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Naaa, we are all antisocial here. Maybe if there was a prohibition against being on antisocial media...
The Republican party's all about parent's rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not a peep about this guy [thedailybeast.com] or this guy [businessinsider.com] or this guy [cnbc.com] amidst all that talk of "groomers".
Re: (Score:2)
The republicans are basically fanatics these days that cannot tolerate anything that deviated from their screwed-up ideas of how reality should be. Fanatics in government (or currently close to it) are a sure sign of a society in decline. Of course, fanatics typically think the rules only apply to others and they themselves are so incredibly virtuous overall that raping a few children, taking a few bribes or lying pathologically is perfectly fine when they do it.
The fanatics aren't really the problem (Score:2)
It's people who listen to what politicians say and don't pay attention to what they do that worries me.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they're all about banning me from taking my kid to a drag show
You don't actually do that, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're also of course promoting a plan to have kids aged 14 work full time. So they'll be able to work but not post.
Which of course is handy because they won't be able to complain about mistreatment at work.
What an idiot (Score:2)
The only way this would work would be no smartphones and no other computer access for under-16 year olds. The only effect this would have is that the ones ignoring this insane idea would get a significant advantage in life.
The last person we should (Score:2)
Senator Hawley is absolutely the last person we should be looking to for moral guidance.
He's the kind of man who likely has enough same sex porn retained that he wants to ban it.
Finally! A government notices! (Score:2)
I may get downvoted into oblivion, labeled as a "troll", commented on like I'm some kind of a lunatic... all for telling the truth.
Children should not be allowed near social media. This includes all social media, not just facebook, but also twitter, whatsapp, snap, etc.
Children should learn to play with their friends in real life first. Sure, teach them about computers and the internet, but don't allow them near social media. Social media can introduce all kinds of problems in the youngster's life.
Just in c
Re: (Score:2)
If Hawley was interested in kids mental health (Score:2)
No one in mental disease knows a more pernicious cause of delusions, illusions and incompetent reasoning than religion.
So why let them run loose?
eh (Score:2)
I don't know if it's a bad idea; social media is pretty toxic, and kids are typically hit hardest. On the other hand, Hawley is a sniveling right-wing sociopath so I'm sure children's health isn't something he really cares about.
Parents are the problem (Score:2)
Parents are the problem. Even if you create a system that requires age+ID verification, mommy will just create a second account for "mommy & jr" to "share"; but in fact it'll just be junior's account.
No. (Score:2)
Just no.
Unconstitutional (Score:2)
The Supreme Court already ruled that online age verification requirements are unconstitutional. See https://mediashift.org/2009/01... [mediashift.org] (there are many others, too) for more information.
OK - as long as it's older than Josh Hawley (Score:3)
I'm cool with this (Score:2)
horrible idea. Seriously (Score:2)
What is needed is to control who gets access to what. In order to do that, we need an identification that is secured and does not give up all of
Hawley has hubris (Score:2)
Maybe there needs to be a minimum age for aiding and abetting a violent insurrection.