Submitted 2 days ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to technology@lemmy.world
A federal judge ruled today that Florida cannot enforce a law that requires social media platforms to block kids from using their platforms. The state law “is likely unconstitutional,” US Judge Mark Walker of the Northern District of Florida ruled while granting the tech industry’s request for a preliminary injunction…
They’ll reverse the decision when those teens start saying “Stop Genocide” on social media.
100% guaranteed.
I saved a screenshot of this to post when it happens, if you give your permission
Perhaps it would have been smarter to prevent these predatory behaviors from social networks in the first place. Because it is probably constitutionally more sound to ban some behaviors rather than outright ban social networks altogether.
Right. This shouldn’t be about restricting children; but rather, this should be about restricting corporation’s bad behaviors. It’s also not just children that are impacted. Mining online dopamine-junkies for data by placing money extractors right on their weak spots is unethical, like selling someone crack, or phone scamming the elderly.
How weird is it that the left doesn’t make these connections and press it when we see people like Zuckerberg standing with Republicans while Republicans push for the laws.
The left uses critical thinking. They need to actually engage with information and verify it before choosing to adopt it. This takes time.
The right are scared children and adopt whatever their TV parent or religious politician tells them out of fear. This takes zero time.
More people need to coorinate and work together on the left. That’s the missing link
The right has group chats, and online communities for all kinds of stuff that I’m surprised the left hasn’t built much of yet
Weird constitution.
Weird country
The main difficulty is defining social media in a way that doesnt restrict other modern communication, education, idea publication, operating a business, shopping, sharing ideas, etc.
Should such laws block Etsy, your family’s Nextcloud, a school ran web forum that only students/parents/faculty can access, Crash Course on YouTube, encrypted communication between your family, etc?
The other difficulty is defining the term “children” consistently. Many US states have simple categories that go all the way to 18, if not later.
Should there be a difference in laws for access for toddlers, elementary ages, and adolescents?
If you think this is an easy question I suggest you look at the dialog around the UK’s Online Safety Act who is having to answer these questions after the fact.
How else are they gonna indoctrinate people to be anti privacy, right wing, anti capitalist…?
it is simply preventing laws from banning a modern bulletin board billboard hybrid tech that teenagers use because it would restrict access to bulletin boards for adults and minors.
The founding fathers intended for kids to use tik tok
Just imagine if the eloquent words of the founding fathers were the norm of the type of content you see on tik tok. If that were the case, I would have joined a long time ago.
Fr
I think it’s funny how Republicans keep trying to push forward unconstitutional laws left and right and somehow they’re constituents just keep on thinking that this is the right idea
It’s because they’re Republicans, therefore whatever they do is right.
“We gotta do something about kids on brain rotting social media!”
”but sir, then we can’t scrape data from them!”
”THA CONSTITITUTUION”
Good. Fuck the baby bonus parents who need the government to do their job.
pineapplelover@lemm.ee 10 hours ago
Tread on me harder daddy