Florida Braces For Lawsuits Over Law Banning Kids From Social Media (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0173390261
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/03/26/1956249/florida-braces-for-lawsuits-over-law-banning-kids-from-social-media
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/03/florida-braces-for-lawsuits-over-law-banning-kids-from-social-media/
> On Monday, Florida [1]became the first state to ban kids under 14 from social media without parental permission. It appears likely that the law -- considered one of the most restrictive in the US -- [2]will face significant legal challenges , however, before taking effect on January 1. Under [3]HB 3 , apps like Instagram, Snapchat, or TikTok would need to verify the ages of users, then delete any accounts for users under 14 when parental consent is not granted. Companies that "knowingly or recklessly" fail to block underage users risk fines of up to $10,000 in damages to anyone suing on behalf of child users. They could also be liable for up to $50,000 per violation in civil penalties. [...]
>
> DeSantis' statement noted that "in addition to protecting children from the dangers of social media, HB 3 requires pornographic or sexually explicit websites to use age verification to prevent minors from accessing sites that are inappropriate for children." This suggests that Florida could face a legal challenge from adult sites like Pornhub, which have been suing to block states from requiring an ID to access adult content. Most recently, Pornhub blocked access to its platform in Texas, arguing that such laws "impinge on the rights of adults to access protected speech" and fail "strict scrutiny by employing the least effective and yet also most restrictive means of accomplishing Texas's stated purpose of allegedly protecting minors."
>
> According to [4]the Guardian , [Florida House Speaker Paul Renner, who spearheaded the law] expected that social media companies would "sue the second after" HB 3 was signed. So far, no legal challenges have been raised, but Renner seemingly expects that the law's focus on "addictive features such as notification alerts and autoplay videos, rather than on their content" would ensure that the law defeats any constitutional concerns potentially raised by social media companies. "We're going to beat them, and we're never, ever going to stop," Renner vowed.
[1] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/03/25/169243/desantis-signs-bill-requiring-parental-consent-for-kids-under-16-to-hold-social-media-accounts
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/03/florida-braces-for-lawsuits-over-law-banning-kids-from-social-media/
[3] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/BillText/er/PDF
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/26/ron-desantis-florida-social-media-ban-children
It's also a porn age verification law (Score:2)
In the last discussion people were so hung up on debating on the appropriateness of social media for teenagers that the attached porn site age verification requirements flew entirely under the radar. This is Florida's way of joining Utah and Texas in getting people to search for "What's a VPN?"
Re: (Score:3)
> In the last discussion people were so hung up on debating on the appropriateness of social media for teenagers that the attached porn site age verification requirements flew entirely under the radar. This is Florida's way of joining Utah and Texas in getting people to search for "What's a VPN?"
If “parents” are more than willing to hand a 13-year old child a 24/7 hardcore porn surfing device (also known as a “smartphone”) and justify that action under the guise of “safety”, then there’s not much more to say here regarding porn exposure or addiction. Parents are literally enabling that for their own children.
Like a fucking VPN is going to fix the root cause of that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
> If “parents” are more than willing to hand a 13-year old child a 24/7 hardcore porn surfing device (also known as a “smartphone”)
They can certainly be configured to not operate as "hardcore porn surfing devices", but that's not good enough to the parents (and probably also some non-parents) who feel their ideas of what is appropriate for teenagers should have the force of law behind it.
Yup - logical. /s (Score:2)
Gotta keep those youngsters away from social media during their formative years to keep them from getting information and their own ideas before they're old enough to vote. Though this hardly seems like a good way to win them over.
Ok (Score:2)
And those companies can just ignore the fines. Florida has no power to actually compel any of those companies to pay any of those fines. Just like Texas doesn't have the power to compel xHamster to pay their dumb porn fines.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, ignoring Florida's idiocy is a good idea even if you're not a social media company.
eh (Score:2)
Getting kids off of social media is good for them, but it shouldn't be paired with Florida running it's already-pitiful educational system into the ground. The politicians doing this are purely doing it because they can't control social media the way they can the school systems.
Re: eh (Score:1)
Florida is one of the few states with school vouchers, if parents want to, they can get their kids in private schools. They expanded this program to include all income levels, not just the lowest levels, so this will improve overall education quality in short order.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL ... only for those that can afford private school. I will ultimately make the public schools with less money and only for the poor. So, yeah that is a great idea...
An educated populous is important for the US to retain it's tech industry. If the government were smart they would be making schooling cheap and easy to obtain.
Legal standing ... (Score:2)
... to represent my children? Tech groups (whatever that means)? I don't think so. I could understand Child Protective Services getting involved. But I think they have real problems to deal with.
If parents want to add their children to some class action suit to fight this, I suspect that they'd be the ones who would grant their kids permission to use social media anyway.
Simple workaround (Score:2)
Don't live in Florida. It's not like this would be the only argument, especially given all the weather events and how the state's being run and draconian their government seems to be -- to a wide variety of people, who are unlike the governor.
Re: Simple workaround (Score:1)
Where are you going to move to? Because various states already have or are mulling restrictions, including left-wing states (California wants to put it at 18yo as does New York) from the current Federal limit of 13 under COPPA which is mirroring EU policy which also sets the limit at 13.
states rights (Score:2)
If Floridians want this then they should get it, of course there may be consequences like additional hassle for facebook users in Florida but it seems pretty benign to me provided they give the companies enough time to adapt.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes because providing government IDs to random companies on the internet is perfectly OK. What could go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not spread fear and doubt on this. There are already websites online offer age verification and this is in the actual bill that these kinds of services may be used. So you can sign up to ONE site, get your stuff verified and that site will tell the rest of the Internet for you. This was in the summary of the other article posted about this same topic on the front page.
Re: (Score:2)
It means all Florida social media users would have to provide some form of identification that indicates their age. Not just kids. It's the only way they can comply with a law this draconian. I believe the law is well meaning but in true Florida fashion it fails in execution.
This is similar to laws requiring backdoors into encryption implementations for law enforcement. By making it easier for law enforcement you make it monumentally easier for criminals as well. In this case, it means companies who've mad
Re: (Score:2)
Commerce Clause -if the transaction crosses state lines, then regulation is a Federal matter.
Wasting money (Score:2)
DeSantis is no stranger in wasting taxpayer money. He wasted more than $17 million picking a fight with Disney. [1]https://newrepublic.com/articl... [newrepublic.com]
How much can he waste now on social media?
[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/175810/ron-desantis-culture-war-laws-cost-taxpayers
Re: (Score:2)
It's basically "Don't Say Gay 2.0: Electric Boogaloo". Remove the books from the schools, then kick the teenagers off social media. Problem solved! Now there's no way for your kids to catch teh gay! /s
I'm still trying to figure our how I ended up gay growing up in the 90s. No "woke" shows, no TikTok, no queer influencers on YouTube. According to Republican theories, I should be straight.
Similar to existing Federal law (Score:2)
According to COPPA, which has been federal law for 10 years
> After July 1, 2013, operators must:[42]
> * Post a clear and comprehensive online privacy policy describing their information practices for personal information collected online from persons under age 13;
> * Make reasonable efforts (taking into account available technology) to provide direct notice to parents of the operator's practices with regard to the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from persons under 13, including notice of any material change to such practices to which the parents have previously consented;
> * Obtain verifiable parental consent, with limited exceptions, prior to any collection, use, and/or disclosure of personal information from persons under age 13;
> * Provide a reasonable means for a parent to review the personal information collected from their child and to refuse to permit its further use or maintenance;
> courts may fine violators of COPPA up to $50,120 in civil penalties for each violation
Any legal challenged are almost certainly going to be a waste of money given this law is hardly any different in reach or impact than the existing federal law. Effectively all social media sites are already required to meet the same consent requirements. The only difference will be that they will check for a birthday a couple years less recent than they were already doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Federal law is 13, Florida's idiotic law is 14 or 15 with parent's permission, otherwise 16+.
The really annoying part though, is the attached porn site age verification requirements, which will lead to the same situation as Utah and Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Counting down for the first test case of someone using a VPN in Florida to skirt the law, and the provider being held in for that. The only solution will be to demand that kind of intrusive identification across the country.
Understand the objective here - if they can't get federal action against social media, they'll compel it via other means. These people are far from dumb.
trading morality for freedom (Score:2)
The problem isn't restricting kids under 14, many people are likely for that in concept. The problem is rather requiring an adult to prove that they are an adult (or over 13) and doing that in an inherently trackable way.
Yes, restrictions exist for other things, but most of those are in-person purchases where the verification is human eye visual and not stored in some database so your purchases can be tracked. Plus other apparent filters made by a person, is this bearded man under 14? unlikely.
The other a
I'm just glad to hear Fl has no other problems (Score:2)
and can spend tens of millions of dollars on legal battles. I'm also glad they completely solved that whole [1]child hunger thing [feedingamerica.org] and did not, in fact, have their Federal Representatives vote against meals for kids while also blowing millions of dollars on a "think of the children" political stunt designed to raise their governor's national profile for a now futile presidential run in 2028.
What they really need now is to send their national guard to the Texas boarder for a few billion dollars a year.
[1] https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/florida
Republican Insanity (Score:2)
Remember when Hillary Clinton's book, "It Takes A Village" caused a stir among Republicans because she suggested that the government had a role to play in raising children?
And now, it turns out Republicans - with only the vaguest notions of "harm" as their basis - are attempting to do just what Hillary suggested. To take the reins of parenthood away from parents and substitute them with the state.
As a parent, I don't want the state parenting my children, because if Republicans have told us anything -
What's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Age restrictions exist for a lot of things. Why should social media, a service that can easily become detrimental to an individual, especially a youth or teenager, not be age restricted? Gives the kids a chance to learn about social media, it's addictive qualities, and how to mitigate/deal with the negative consequences of social media.
Re: What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because you can't institute such age verification without collecting everyone's PII.
Re: (Score:2)
> Because you can't institute such age verification without collecting everyone's PII.
Translation: You can’t institute an age verification program without taking money out of executive bonus coffers.
Age verification isn’t a technical challenge today. Let me know why we’re making excuses for Greed not to spend money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>> Because you can't institute such age verification without collecting everyone's PII.
> Translation: You can’t institute an age verification program without taking money out of executive bonus coffers.
Your translation is inaccurate. Since you don't seem to know this, PII is " [1]Personal Identifiable Information [ibm.com]." You are apparently quite naïve about privacy concerns, but you should be aware that having such personal identifiable information floating around the internet is a bad idea. Quoting the [2]Department of Labor [dol.gov]: "The loss of PII can result in substantial harm to individuals, including identity theft or other fraudulent use of the information."
> Age verification isn’t a technical challenge today.
Correct. Collecting PII is not the technical challenge.
[1] https://www.ibm.com/topics/pii
[2] https://www.dol.gov/general/ppii
Re: (Score:3)
Well then it sure is a good thing this Florida bill has a section that specifically says that age can be verified by a third party website and that website doesn't need to retain the data after verification. This solves both problems.
Re: (Score:1)
They don't need to retain the information that "age verification was requested for Sam Smith on 1/2/24". In order to service the request, they have to always have "Sam Smith => 23yo".
Re: (Score:2)
> Well then it sure is a good thing this Florida bill has a section that specifically says that age can be verified by a third party website and that website doesn't need to retain the data after verification. This solves both problems.
As long as your definition of "solves the problem" means "hides the problem".
Re: (Score:2)
> Well then it sure is a good thing this Florida bill has a section that specifically says that age can be verified by a third party website and that website doesn't need to retain the data after verification. This solves both problems.
Oh you naive person. Jut a perfect forever anonymous solution. Sorry, all of that can and will be traced back to you. And don't forget they like to ban books as well, So you'll soon have to give them your data to buy a copy of Oryx and Crake - to protect the children of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there penalties for retaining this data?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's more that any company doing the verification is not trusted enough to safeguard and not collect and sell the information passed to them.
Re: (Score:2)
You forget all the money to be made in providing a now mandatory service. Just look at last time and the rather lucrative market for 'age verification'. Its like running a credit card processor without all that pesky paying out,
Re: (Score:2)
>> Because you can't institute such age verification without collecting everyone's PII.
> Translation: You can’t institute an age verification program without taking money out of executive bonus coffers.
> Age verification isn’t a technical challenge today. Let me know why we’re making excuses for Greed not to spend money.
Of course, we have many ways to verify age. Name number social, drivers license, We can collect all of that, and hardly a big thing.
The problem is, what are the things that some people might want to keep children from seeing - it isn't all just naked people. There are fully clothed people in non sexual situations that some people do not want anyone under 18 to ever see.
Political content. People who are not CIS. Forbidden literature. The people who want your info might be interested if you read "The
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you already have to be 13 to have a Facebook account?
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't you already have to be 13 to have a Facebook account?
I think that's a restriction imposed by Meta itself. If so, there's a difference between a company doing that on its own platform and the government mandating it. The latter, most likely, falling under the 1st Amendment ...
Re: (Score:3)
No, its a US law that prohibits collecting the information of children under 13 without their parents' consent. However, you just have to have a checkbox asking the user to confirm they are over 13.
Re: (Score:2)
> No, its a US law that prohibits collecting the information of children under 13 without their parents' consent. However, you just have to have a checkbox asking the user to confirm they are over 13.
Thanks. That was also in the back of my mind, but couldn't pull it forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, much in the same way you have to "be over 21" to go on www.crownroyal.com. Even the least enterprising 17 year old on the Internet will be able to sleuth their way past that "age verification". Seems that this is adding some "teeth" to that check, putting the liability back on Facebook et. al. in actually verifying ages instead of just booting someone if they are reported.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Are you 21?" prompts on alcohol company webpages are absolutely hilarious. A web page can't get you drunk, and teenagers really don't think they're getting away with anything by looking at pictures of booze. I'm convinced the real reason they ask for your birthday is so they can obtain marketing demographics.
Yes, I realize they're not supposed to be marketing to kids, but alcohol is already so pervasive in our culture it's like expecting kids to be ignorant of the fact that cars exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you fully appreciate the difference between marketing and "being made aware of". You'd hope the billions of dollars companies spend on both improving their ability to influence decision making, and analyzing the performance of their marketing mandates would clue people in to the fact that the vast majority of advertising is not designed to "make you aware" of a product, let a lone a whole class of products as per your analogy.
Re: What's the problem? (Score:1)
That is an EU regulation, it does not apply to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't you already have to be 13 to have a Facebook account?
Yes, but that is easy to bypass.
My daughter created her own Facebook account when she was eight.
I only found out about it when she friended me.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is kind of like saying you found out that Starbucks will sell caffeinated drinks to minors, after you let your your underage kid use the car to drive there.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Age restrictions exist for a lot of things.
And yet there is no age restriction on reading the Bible with its drunkness, incest, rape, murder, infanticide, and genocide.
Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss
Re: (Score:2)
I was running my own damn dial-up BBS at 13, back in the early 90s. Kids mature at different rates and ultimately it should be up to the parents to decide. That's ostensibly what this bill allows, except if your kid is 13 (in which case the parents probably have to lie about their kids age and break the state law if they feel it is unjust).
Also, lest anyone forgot what WWW stands for, the internet is a world-wide thing. It's a little absurd expecting sites to comply with some absurd patchwork of state re
Re: (Score:2)
It is in no way absurd for a company to learn the laws of the market place they are operating in. In fact, that's called being in business. Florida, as well as the other 49 states, are all individual market places and they have individual laws that must be followed by businesses that wish to sell products and services in their borders.
A great example is California's pork law. We have some pretty hefty animal rights for how we expect pork sold in our state to be raised. If you want to sell pork here, you nee
Re: (Score:2)
Give it a try. Put up a simple web page. Now ask yourself, are you fully compliant with the laws in Luxembourg? How about Belarus?
Enforcement is the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
the only way to enforce this is to force you to give up your identity via a state issued Id every time you sign up for any online service.
That end anonymity on the internet. And that data can easily be abused by law enforcement and the right wing government of Florida (who have shown a penchant for doing so in the past).
Post something Ron DeSantis doesn't like online? Expect to get [1]a visit from his goons [miamiherald.com]
[1] https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article285215567.html
Re: (Score:2)
This small government philosophy sure does call for an awfully big government. Maybe they can get some Evangelicals to do the censorship for free.
Small enough to drown in a bathtub (Score:2)
that's the phrase the right wing uses.
They're not nor have they ever been small government conservatives. Though they do like using those words to trick actual conservatives
What they want is local government they can use their unlimited cash to control. Then they roll that up to a large federal government for anything they can't force through on the local level.
You know there's a law on the books making it a crime to transfer anything across state lines that could be used for an abortion? I can t
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah.. when they say 'small government', they are referring to 'minority rule'
Re: (Score:2)
> the only way to enforce this is to force you to give up your identity via a state issued Id every time you sign up for any online service.
I think I've actually had a Facebook account long enough that they should be able to figure out I'm an adult that way - my account is nearly 15 years old.
It's cute that you think they care (Score:2, Insightful)
they don't give a shit about your kids. If they did they'd stop blocking programs to feed them at school. What they care about is making you give up your identity so that you'll obey.
When you get right down to it that's what the Republican party and the right wing are all about. Obedience. Anyone above you on the totem pole gets to tell you what to do and you get to tell anyone below you what to do. Then you keep a powerless minority at the bottom for the next rung up to shit on for fun and to feel bett
Re: (Score:2)
I think you replied to the wrong post. I was mostly just saying that Zuck should be able to figure out I'm one of the olds just by my account creation date. I'll be a bit miffed if I have to otherwise prove that I'm older than 15. Some of my similarly-aged friends already have adult children.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that's bad, did you know the ISPs in UK are going to start blocking access to porn for everyone? [1]https://www.wired.com/story/po... [wired.com]
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/porn-block-uk-wired-explains/
Re: (Score:2)
Enforcing the law would defeat its purpose. It is much more effective not only for a chilling effect, but political leverage. Avoiding prosecution becomes a matter of keeping on the good side of the administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Post something Ron DeSantis doesn't like online?
Yeah, nobody has every done that before under their public name. *rolls eyes*
Re: (Score:2)
> Gives the kids a chance to learn about social media, it's addictive qualities, and how to mitigate/deal with the negative consequences of social media.
Sorry, but no. Kids aren’t going to “learn” from warning labels or bans. There’s a reason we call them kids, both literally and legally. Let’s try and remember why we do instead of assuming addictive tech somehow bestowed wisdom.
Re: (Score:2)
> Age restrictions exist for a lot of things. Why should social media, a service that can easily become detrimental to an individual, especially a youth or teenager, not be age restricted? Gives the kids a chance to learn about social media, it's addictive qualities, and how to mitigate/deal with the negative consequences of social media.
I think that every page you go to on the internet should require you give your name, address and date of birth.
Then once a week, your spouse, employer and Law enforcement should receive a report of every website you visited during the week.
There is more than just pictures of naked people that can harm children - in order to not harm children we should make the net not only non-anonymous, we must scour it, and protect children from anything we don't want them to see. Pro Trans, Democrat and liberal as
Re: (Score:2)
It also restricts the voice of the youth on political issues. Youth can't vote*, but they can express their opinions, and youth are overwhelmingly liberal until at least age 16
*In a handful of cities, including, yes, you guessed it, SF, youth citizens can vote at 16 in local elections, and public high schools are polling stations, so most youth in those areas have already been voting for 2 years before they leave public schools
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say you're removing their voice in a connected world. There are bad things about social media, but there are plenty of good things too. In addition if it has to be "Actual age verification" not just put in a DOB which will be easily faked you need to collect even more personal information than before ....