Can we discuss laws and impact on states without getting “politically”? New FL law requiring age verification for adult sites. (3 Viewers)

[DA RAIDERS]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

 

[Osaurus]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

VPN companies are standing by

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

I know everybody is hung up on the porn part of this, and that's a halfway decent analogy to kids buying booze. Maybe we don't really care if a 16 year-old has a few beers at a party, but we wouldn't want that same kid to be knocking back a boilermaker before homeroom every morning. So we age-restrict alcohol, under no illusions that it's airtight. That's fine.

The social media part is much more interesting and important to me. Maybe this is too optimistic, but I think you can actually make a lot of headway here just by breaking up the network effects. If a few kids work around it with a VPN (again, lol), no problem. The important thing is that their entire peer group isn't online. That tremendously reduces the peer pressure draw that exists today, and would make it easier for parents like @moops to hold the line in their own households.

I have no data to back this up, but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids this age than Pornhub. Not that Pornhub isn't terrible for people who are still processing their own sexuality, but look at the rates of mental illness among kids. I don't think social media/phones is the only thing going on here, but these both started at roughly the same time, and the causal mechanism is intuitively obvious. We all know from first-hand experience that social media is a toxic environment, even for fully-grown, self-actualized adults. This isn't a "get off my lawn" thing, thought I'm sure it will get written off that way.

 

[Rich Conway]

I'll start by suggesting that I'm not a fan of the nanny state. That said, there is a compelling government interest in restricting certain things to adults. I'm not going to wade into the debate about whether social media qualifies as one of those things other than to say that my answer might hinge on how any particular legislation defines "social media". For instance, would FBG Forums qualify? How about YouTube, Reddit, or to pick an app I use at random, let's say, AquaMail user forums ( https://www.aqua-mail.com/forum/index.php?topic=8450.30 )? I'd be hard pressed to consider the last harmful to anyone in any possible way, yet the technology in use is more or less identical to that of FBG Forums or Reddit.

As pointed out earlier, I do think the privacy aspect makes the "costs" of social media restriction significantly greater than the costs of restricting alcohol or tobacco. There's not really a significant privacy issue with requiring an ID check at checkout in a retail store, but there is a very significant privacy cost when an organization (private or public) is not just checking, but actively logging, visits by legal adults to certain sites. That log is now taking the form of some organization recording the timestamp, location, and device used for each and every visit to the site. That info is already being recorded by the site owner, of course, but prior to age/ID verification, it's not being actively matched to a driver's license or other form of ID. That is, without ID verification, the logs could be kept anonymous if the user chose to do so. Losing that anonymity is a significant change, one that comes with a high cost, IMO.

The question, of course, is whether the benefits of restricting outweighs those costs? I don't know the answer, but I think we all need to acknowledge that the privacy costs are real as opposed to just hand-waving them away.

 

[TennesseeJed]

but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids

How are you defining "social media"?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids

How are you defining "social media"?

I'm not sure. I'm thinking primarily stuff like TikTok and Twitter/X, but I'm open to persuasion on how broad a ban we should be talking about here. For example, suppose we simply "banned" anybody under the age of 16 (?) from accessing any site on the internet. I'm not advocating that*, and I doubt it would be especially workable, but I feel extremely confident that that such a restriction would pass any conceivable cost-benefit calculation. There is very little benefit to be gained by allowing a 13 year-old to scroll through Reddit, for example, but there is a lot of potential and unquantifiable harm from allowing that same kid unfettered access to the Mental Health Crisis Machine.

*Seriously, I know this is too much. I'm putting this out there as an extreme example to make a point about the relative costs and benefits of allowing kids access to the internet. Aside from a few streaming services and highly-curated educational sites, I think it's pretty obvious that the internet provides negative value for children. It's great for adults, and it would be better for all parties if we could remove kids from this particular picture. And besides, I'm an incrementalist by nature and I'd like to find a relatively light-touch way of handling this if at all possible, preferably one that doesn't put adults out too much. It's just that we've tried my most-preferred approach of "Do nothing and hope for the best," and that didn't work.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Are there any "nudges" we can use for this before we use a law?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I know everybody is hung up on the porn part of this, and that's a halfway decent analogy to kids buying booze. Maybe we don't really care if a 16 year-old has a few beers at a party, but we wouldn't want that same kid to be knocking back a boilermaker before homeroom every morning. So we age-restrict alcohol, under no illusions that it's airtight. That's fine.

Thanks to folks for keeping this non political and good discussion. Hoping it can stay that way.

I think. @IvanKaramazov has an important point, the fact something isn't airtight doesn't mean it won't help at all and isn't worth doing.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

That people figure out how to circumvent laws is no reason to not have them at all.

Why should we have speed limits when people still speed?

 

[Ilov80s]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

Sure but I had to work pretty hard to get my hands on weed when I was 15 and 75% of my efforts failed. We've now lifted many of the regulations on marijuana and it's become easier than ever for kids to get their hands on it- especially in nearly impossible to trace edibles and vapes. Of course some kids are going to find ways around any restriction but we should at least consider some restrictions so we don't flood the market so much that they become ubiquitous. Obstacles will prevent some people from accessing either because they can't figure it out or because it's enough effort to get them to reconsider. On a very simply term, think of it like an adult with a drinking problem. It's probably a good idea they dump out all their bottles of liquor. Sure at any point they can get in their car and go buy a bottle but that little extra effort and the fact the bottles aren't just staring at them in the kitchen is often enough of a barrier to keep people a little more sober.

 

[Ilov80s]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

That people figure out how to circumvent laws is no reason to not have them at all.

Why should we have speed limits when people still speed?

Yes, if we expect any law or regulation to have 100% effectiveness than we might as well just give up on society.

 

[SWC]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

That people figure out how to circumvent laws is no reason to not have them at all.

Why should we have speed limits when people still speed?

thats what i said but you used a lot less words and punctuation and stuff take that to the bank bromigo

 

[dkp993]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

Sure but I had to work pretty hard to get my hands on weed when I was 15 and 75% of my efforts failed. We've now lifted many of the regulations on marijuana and it's become easier than ever for kids to get their hands on it- especially in nearly impossible to trace edibles and vapes. Of course some kids are going to find ways around any restriction but we should at least consider some restrictions so we don't flood the market so much that they become ubiquitous. Obstacles will prevent some people from accessing either because they can't figure it out or because it's enough effort to get them to reconsider. On a very simply term, think of it like an adult with a drinking problem. It's probably a good idea they dump out all their bottles of liquor. Sure at any point they can get in their car and go buy a bottle but that little extra effort and the fact the bottles aren't just staring at them in the kitchen is often enough of a barrier to keep people a little more sober.

I stated this upstream so hate to repost it but the point hasn’t been addressed. The booze and weed restrictions arguments are natural parallels, on the surface. But in reality are not similar at all. The restrictions on those actually have teeth because it requires a in-person age verifiable purchase. So of course any reasonable person can and should get behind them. As we all know that’s simply not the case online. Therefore any restrictions are going to be far far less effective and orders of magnitude easier to circumvent. Is a restriction that comes with all the downsides (privacy, id safety, more government intervention, etc etc) really worth a sieve like law so we can feel like we’re “doing something”?

 

[massraider]

This is much more complicated than seat belts or speeding limits. The only unintended consequence with seat belts was your cousin with the story about how his friend was thrown clear of the wreck, and seat belts woulda killed him.

No one is really even pretending it's gonna work very well, you have privacy concerns that are completely valid (oh hey, kid scan YOUR FACE on the phone), and kids can just be awful to each other on video games or Snapchat.

It's a symptom, not the problem. Does it make it worse? Yeah.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

This is much more complicated than seat belts or speeding limits. The only unintended consequence with seat belts was your cousin with the story about how his friend was thrown clear of the wreck, and seat belts woulda killed him.

No one is really even pretending it's gonna work very well, you have privacy concerns that are completely valid (oh hey, kid scan YOUR FACE on the phone), and kids can just be awful to each other on video games or Snapchat.

It's a symptom, not the problem. Does it make it worse? Yeah.

I don't think anyone (not anyone here anyway) is saying that the solution is simple.

The speed limit example was used to refute the idea of "why try if some are going to figure out a work around".

Further, I refute the idea of "well it's really difficult, so why bother"?

I will agree that a blank edict of "this legislation states that kids under X years old can't do activity Y" has no teeth and doesn't accomplish much. But that doesn't mean the idea can't be fleshed out in order to.

I like you @massraider , but there's no need for a belittling lol emoji.

 

[Max Power]

but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids

How are you defining "social media"?

I'm not sure. I'm thinking primarily stuff like TikTok and Twitter/X, but I'm open to persuasion on how broad a ban we should be talking about here. For example, suppose we simply "banned" anybody under the age of 16 (?) from accessing any site on the internet. I'm not advocating that*, and I doubt it would be especially workable, but I feel extremely confident that that such a restriction would pass any conceivable cost-benefit calculation. There is very little benefit to be gained by allowing a 13 year-old to scroll through Reddit, for example, but there is a lot of potential and unquantifiable harm from allowing that same kid unfettered access to the Mental Health Crisis Machine.

*Seriously, I know this is too much. I'm putting this out there as an extreme example to make a point about the relative costs and benefits of allowing kids access to the internet. Aside from a few streaming services and highly-curated educational sites, I think it's pretty obvious that the internet provides negative value for children. It's great for adults, and it would be better for all parties if we could remove kids from this particular picture. And besides, I'm an incrementalist by nature and I'd like to find a relatively light-touch way of handling this if at all possible, preferably one that doesn't put adults out too much. It's just that we've tried my most-preferred approach of "Do nothing and hope for the best," and that didn't work.

There have been studies that show social media is harming children. I think the devil is in some of the algorithms that social media companies use and we can even point to direct ways they harm kids, but there is no accountability to be had because these companies aren't the parents.

My personal feeling is that parenting is getting softer and weaker and the collective American way of life wants some sort of easy button from the government to keep their kids safe and healthy. I don't find idea to be realistic and think the accountability needs to start at home.

I'm in no way a perfect parent with my kids and social media. My two oldest are boys (16,18) and they never took much interest to social media. I was also never overly concerned about what they would get into. My two youngest are girls (14,12), and neither are allowed to have facebook, tiktok or snapchat, but they find ways around it. Its very hard to stay on top of them, but it's needed. There are some common sense rules parents can put in place to monitor kid's online usage, but a lot of them are too lazy or busy to do it.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Can somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.

I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.

 

[massraider]

I like you @massraider , but there's no need for a belittling lol emoji.

The emoji was for the urban myth surrounding the uproar about seat belts.

The only person belittled there was my cousin the liar. If you are indeed my cousin, I am sorry.

The speed limit example was used to refute the idea of "why try if some are going to figure out a work around".

Further, I refute the idea of "well it's really difficult, so why bother"?

And I didn't say why bother.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I like you @massraider , but there's no need for a belittling lol emoji.

The emoji was for the urban myth surrounding the uproar about seat belts.

The only person belittled there was my cousin the liar. If you are indeed my cousin, I am sorry.

The speed limit example was used to refute the idea of "why try if some are going to figure out a work around".

Further, I refute the idea of "well it's really difficult, so why bother"?

And I didn't say why bother.

Well okay. Then the thoughts are intermingling a bit where intent wasn't clear.

Reset button pushed.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

I know everybody is hung up on the porn part of this, and that's a halfway decent analogy to kids buying booze. Maybe we don't really care if a 16 year-old has a few beers at a party, but we wouldn't want that same kid to be knocking back a boilermaker before homeroom every morning. So we age-restrict alcohol, under no illusions that it's airtight. That's fine.

The social media part is much more interesting and important to me. Maybe this is too optimistic, but I think you can actually make a lot of headway here just by breaking up the network effects. If a few kids work around it with a VPN (again, lol), no problem. The important thing is that their entire peer group isn't online. That tremendously reduces the peer pressure draw that exists today, and would make it easier for parents like @moops to hold the line in their own households.

I have no data to back this up, but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids this age than Pornhub. Not that Pornhub isn't terrible for people who are still processing their own sexuality, but look at the rates of mental illness among kids. I don't think social media/phones is the only thing going on here, but these both started at roughly the same time, and the causal mechanism is intuitively obvious. We all know from first-hand experience that social media is a toxic environment, even for fully-grown, self-actualized adults. This isn't a "get off my lawn" thing, thought I'm sure it will get written off that way.

I said nothing about porn. I made an obvious joke that this will not be a deterrent to any kid that wants to visit XYZ website.

Do you have kids? My daughter was the last one to get a phone in her age group. She was the last one to get any/all of the socials. And once she had them I monitored her activity like the Politboro. I age restricted everything much to her annoyance. Until she proved to me that she was responsible enough to not be monitored. SOCIAL MEDIA IS THE WORST. I’d argue that it’s just as bad for adults than kids. My wife doesn’t have it. I barely use it. I do lurk too much the only reason I have any of it, was to keep tabs on my daughter.

This 100% falls on the parents. What’s next? The government forbids dating until 18? * Because teenage breakups my friend, are the WORSTEST.

*this is another obvious (I hope) joke

 

[Rich Conway]

Can somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.

I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.

I wouldn't make that argument myself. I would, however, consider the ease of undermining any particular rule in the overall calculation of costs and benefits. As a completely made up example, if we know for a fact that 98% of all users would be able to easily circumvent the language filter legislation, one might suggest that the perceived benefits of the legislation (preventing users from harming themselves) aren't nearly as great as one might think, given that most users can continue to harm themselves if they so choose.

 

[dkp993]

Can somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.

I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.

Well my argument at least isn’t that we shouldn’t try, it’s that this isn’t the right solution. We haven’t found the right solution yet. But I think if we are going to result to government intervention, i.e. them having more control over our lives, then we need to be incredibly diligent and thoughtful about any law that does that. Government by and large is incredibly inefficient and easily corruptible. I personally don’t want to give them any more control than we absolutely have to.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

That people figure out how to circumvent laws is no reason to not have them at all.

Why should we have speed limits when people still speed?

I’m curious as to what the penalty is for violating this law. Will there be internet police giving out tickets?

And I agree with your statement. I just think this is a ridiculous law that has no teeth. The internet is here to stay. that toothpaste is out of the tube. The government regulating it effectively can really only be done with a heavy hand. Which I don’t think/hope anyone wants.

 

[massraider]

it’s that this isn’t the right solution.

That's all.

 

[thecatch]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

I know everybody is hung up on the porn part of this, and that's a halfway decent analogy to kids buying booze. Maybe we don't really care if a 16 year-old has a few beers at a party, but we wouldn't want that same kid to be knocking back a boilermaker before homeroom every morning. So we age-restrict alcohol, under no illusions that it's airtight. That's fine.

The social media part is much more interesting and important to me. Maybe this is too optimistic, but I think you can actually make a lot of headway here just by breaking up the network effects. If a few kids work around it with a VPN (again, lol), no problem. The important thing is that their entire peer group isn't online. That tremendously reduces the peer pressure draw that exists today, and would make it easier for parents like @moops to hold the line in their own households.

I have no data to back this up, but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids this age than Pornhub. Not that Pornhub isn't terrible for people who are still processing their own sexuality, but look at the rates of mental illness among kids. I don't think social media/phones is the only thing going on here, but these both started at roughly the same time, and the causal mechanism is intuitively obvious. We all know from first-hand experience that social media is a toxic environment, even for fully-grown, self-actualized adults. This isn't a "get off my lawn" thing, thought I'm sure it will get written off that way.

I could not agree more. I was just listening to a podcast with Jonathan Haidt about the mental health crisis among young people that has developed in the last 12 or so years that have grown up with social media. He cites to a lot of data on this. I'm not generally someone who applauds aggressive regulation but this phenomenon needs to be addressed, and I think there's a collective action problem with just relying solely on individual parents to do so (though I'll certainly be doing my best as a parent of young kids).

 

[DA RAIDERS]

it’s that this isn’t the right solution.

That's all.

Agreed

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Is there data/studies that show why 16 is the appropriate age for being able to use social media? I get that younger = not good for them, but why 16? Is it a result of compromise?

I'm on the side of letting parents decide, not the government, but I'm open to data driven reasoning. We set age restrictions for driving, alcohol and tobacco, etc.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Can somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.

I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.

I would assume it's just a matter of upping the nuisance factor while accomplishing little to nothing. Do you really want to have to have your ID next to you while using the internet, scanning it into the webcam every so often? This already exists in Utah. It's very annoying at times.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids

How are you defining "social media"?

I'm not sure. I'm thinking primarily stuff like TikTok and Twitter/X, but I'm open to persuasion on how broad a ban we should be talking about here. For example, suppose we simply "banned" anybody under the age of 16 (?) from accessing any site on the internet. I'm not advocating that*, and I doubt it would be especially workable, but I feel extremely confident that that such a restriction would pass any conceivable cost-benefit calculation. There is very little benefit to be gained by allowing a 13 year-old to scroll through Reddit, for example, but there is a lot of potential and unquantifiable harm from allowing that same kid unfettered access to the Mental Health Crisis Machine.

*Seriously, I know this is too much. I'm putting this out there as an extreme example to make a point about the relative costs and benefits of allowing kids access to the internet. Aside from a few streaming services and highly-curated educational sites, I think it's pretty obvious that the internet provides negative value for children. It's great for adults, and it would be better for all parties if we could remove kids from this particular picture. And besides, I'm an incrementalist by nature and I'd like to find a relatively light-touch way of handling this if at all possible, preferably one that doesn't put adults out too much. It's just that we've tried my most-preferred approach of "Do nothing and hope for the best," and that didn't work.

There have been studies that show social media is harming children. I think the devil is in some of the algorithms that social media companies use and we can even point to direct ways they harm kids, but there is no accountability to be had because these companies aren't the parents.

My personal feeling is that parenting is getting softer and weaker and the collective American way of life wants some sort of easy button from the government to keep their kids safe and healthy. I don't find idea to be realistic and think the accountability needs to start at home.

I'm in no way a perfect parent with my kids and social media. My two oldest are boys (16,18) and they never took much interest to social media. I was also never overly concerned about what they would get into. My two youngest are girls (14,12), and neither are allowed to have facebook, tiktok or snapchat, but they find ways around it. Its very hard to stay on top of them, but it's needed. There are some common sense rules parents can put in place to monitor kid's online usage, but a lot of them are too lazy or busy to do it.

I'm pretty sure there are studies showing that social media is harming adults as well...

FWIW, I believe Facebook requires parental consent to create an account under a certain age. I'm not sure if you can get around that by just lying about your age or if there's any verification, but any new laws would be just as easily surmountable via a VPN. I just used a VPN to create a Twitter account without having to enter a phone number (which is a USA only requirement) yesterday.

 

[Max Power]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

I know everybody is hung up on the porn part of this, and that's a halfway decent analogy to kids buying booze. Maybe we don't really care if a 16 year-old has a few beers at a party, but we wouldn't want that same kid to be knocking back a boilermaker before homeroom every morning. So we age-restrict alcohol, under no illusions that it's airtight. That's fine.

The social media part is much more interesting and important to me. Maybe this is too optimistic, but I think you can actually make a lot of headway here just by breaking up the network effects. If a few kids work around it with a VPN (again, lol), no problem. The important thing is that their entire peer group isn't online. That tremendously reduces the peer pressure draw that exists today, and would make it easier for parents like @moops to hold the line in their own households.

I have no data to back this up, but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids this age than Pornhub. Not that Pornhub isn't terrible for people who are still processing their own sexuality, but look at the rates of mental illness among kids. I don't think social media/phones is the only thing going on here, but these both started at roughly the same time, and the causal mechanism is intuitively obvious. We all know from first-hand experience that social media is a toxic environment, even for fully-grown, self-actualized adults. This isn't a "get off my lawn" thing, thought I'm sure it will get written off that way.

I could not agree more. I was just listening to a podcast with Jonathan Haidt about the mental health crisis among young people that has developed in the last 12 or so years that have grown up with social media. He cites to a lot of data on this. I'm not generally someone who applauds aggressive regulation but this phenomenon needs to be addressed, and I think there's a collective action problem with just relying solely on individual parents to do so (though I'll certainly be doing my best as a parent of young kids).

I think it's time to reinvest in our communities. The adults in the room are failing the younger generations for a variety of reasons. I've seen some horrific parents out there and generally feel bad for those kids. I think the best someone can do right now is address their home first and then help neighbors who may be struggling to navigate these issues.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Can somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.

I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.

I would assume it's just a matter of upping the nuisance factor while accomplishing little to nothing. Do you really want to have to have your ID next to you while using the internet, scanning it into the webcam every so often? This already exists in Utah. It's very annoying at times.

What sites, beyond the obvious, require age verification? I guess I don’t visit any when I’m in Utah skiing.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

I know everybody is hung up on the porn part of this, and that's a halfway decent analogy to kids buying booze. Maybe we don't really care if a 16 year-old has a few beers at a party, but we wouldn't want that same kid to be knocking back a boilermaker before homeroom every morning. So we age-restrict alcohol, under no illusions that it's airtight. That's fine.

The social media part is much more interesting and important to me. Maybe this is too optimistic, but I think you can actually make a lot of headway here just by breaking up the network effects. If a few kids work around it with a VPN (again, lol), no problem. The important thing is that their entire peer group isn't online. That tremendously reduces the peer pressure draw that exists today, and would make it easier for parents like @moops to hold the line in their own households.

I have no data to back this up, but my intuition is that plain old social media is much worse for kids this age than Pornhub. Not that Pornhub isn't terrible for people who are still processing their own sexuality, but look at the rates of mental illness among kids. I don't think social media/phones is the only thing going on here, but these both started at roughly the same time, and the causal mechanism is intuitively obvious. We all know from first-hand experience that social media is a toxic environment, even for fully-grown, self-actualized adults. This isn't a "get off my lawn" thing, thought I'm sure it will get written off that way.

I said nothing about porn. I made an obvious joke that this will not be a deterrent to any kid that wants to visit XYZ website.

Do you have kids? My daughter was the last one to get a phone in her age group. She was the last one to get any/all of the socials. And once she had them I monitored her activity like the Politboro. I age restricted everything much to her annoyance. Until she proved to me that she was responsible enough to not be monitored. SOCIAL MEDIA IS THE WORST. I’d argue that it’s just as bad for adults than kids. My wife doesn’t have it. I barely use it. I do lurk too much the only reason I have any of it, was to keep tabs on my daughter.

This 100% falls on the parents. What’s next? The government forbids dating until 18? * Because teenage breakups my friend, are the WORSTEST.

*this is another obvious (I hope) joke

Sorry -- I read your post in the context of several porn-related posts and read something into yours that wasn't there. My fault.

My kids are grown now, but I was always a fairly permissive parent, and I will admit that I did not see a lot of harm in smart phones ten years ago. I think I was mistaken about that. Nothing bad happened to either of my kids or anything. I don't want to make this sound like my personal house has been torn asunder and Something Must Be Done. It's just that you see it pretty unmistakably among undergraduates and young adults as a general population-level thing, with lots and lots of individual variation.

It's also not just kids. I have seen a bunch of my peers nationwide acknowledge that their attention span is significantly lower today than it was not that long ago. I've experienced that too myself. For me, it's NBD because I'm already over 50 and my work now involves spreadsheets and Word documents, not huge datasets and long single-spaced documentation manuals. But it comes down to this question: If I could go back in time and give 12-year-old me unfettered access to today's internet forever, would I choose to do so? Hell no. That would have been very bad for me.

 

[tymarsas]

FWIW, I believe Facebook requires parental consent to create an account under a certain age. I'm not sure if you can get around that by just lying about your age

The answer to this question is yes. People lie about their age to get on Facebook, though not as big of an issue now since Facebook isn't very popular among young people. But this also happens with dating apps, and I assume other social media.

 

[Max Power]

FWIW, I believe Facebook requires parental consent to create an account under a certain age. I'm not sure if you can get around that by just lying about your age

The answer to this question is yes. People lie about their age to get on Facebook, though not as big of an issue now since Facebook isn't very popular among young people. But this also happens with dating apps, and I assume other social media.

Very true. My kids are trying to get on Discord all the time. Its way worse than facebook.

 

[Bozeman Bruiser]

Can somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.

I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.

1. Kids in middle school learn what VPNs are because they are often necessary to get around restrictions that the school has set on their Chromebooks/iPads/wifi. Most kids probably already use a VPN to look at porn so that their parents can't see it if they monitor DNS logs or have parent filters setup on their home wifi.

2. Adults would now be forced to provide a government ID with their name, address, and photo that is likely going to be breached/leaked at some point if history is any indicator. Whether that just shows they had an account or it shows every search and video watched who knows. But that is some juicy blackmail/extortion material for hackers, government agencies, and foreign actors.

The goal may be worthy, prevent kids from becoming porn addicts before their brains have even developed. But the proposed method is nearly worthless at achieving that goal and in the meantime puts every adult who views porn at risk of embarrassment or extortion.

And if you want to put on your tinfoil hat, the next step would be to ban VPNs. Which would give corporations and the state free reign to collect every digital thought and action you have and add it to your profile as well as censor anything that questions the state. See Russia and China for example. (they technically allow state approved VPNs, )

I don't know if there is a government solution to the problem of kids and porn/social media.

 

[Rich Conway]

And if you want to put on your tinfoil hat, the next step would be to ban VPNs.

This doesn't require a tinfoil hat at all. Previous legislation (that did not come to pass, but was certainly debated in Congress) that proposed to ban TikTok also proposed banning VPNs.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

FWIW, in terms of tracking/tethering your kids on their devices, we've been using the Gryphon router for a number of years and it works pretty well. It's also got great security in general around malware and other attacks. They even have a service called Homebound that routes your kids' devices back through the router even when they are on different WiFi networks. We never used that feature but it sounds like it works pretty well.
For those looking for a way to better protect their kids other than State laws.

 

[Ilov80s]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

Sure but I had to work pretty hard to get my hands on weed when I was 15 and 75% of my efforts failed. We've now lifted many of the regulations on marijuana and it's become easier than ever for kids to get their hands on it- especially in nearly impossible to trace edibles and vapes. Of course some kids are going to find ways around any restriction but we should at least consider some restrictions so we don't flood the market so much that they become ubiquitous. Obstacles will prevent some people from accessing either because they can't figure it out or because it's enough effort to get them to reconsider. On a very simply term, think of it like an adult with a drinking problem. It's probably a good idea they dump out all their bottles of liquor. Sure at any point they can get in their car and go buy a bottle but that little extra effort and the fact the bottles aren't just staring at them in the kitchen is often enough of a barrier to keep people a little more sober.

I stated this upstream so hate to repost it but the point hasn’t been addressed. The booze and weed restrictions arguments are natural parallels, on the surface. But in reality are not similar at all. The restrictions on those actually have teeth because it requires a in-person age verifiable purchase. So of course any reasonable person can and should get behind them. As we all know that’s simply not the case online. Therefore any restrictions are going to be far far less effective and orders of magnitude easier to circumvent. Is a restriction that comes with all the downsides (privacy, id safety, more government intervention, etc etc) really worth a sieve like law so we can feel like we’re “doing something”?

All totally fair and I am not necesarily 100% in favor of legislation. I would need to see what it looks like first and have a debate. I am just offering food for thought on the idea that if a law can be circumvented that stands as a reason to not have the law. The big question does become by what means do you prove your age? And how do we handle the tracking of search history that comes with this? I really don't know. That is a big conversation. We currently have a problem though and need to do something about it.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Can somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.

I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.

Well my argument at least isn’t that we shouldn’t try, it’s that this isn’t the right solution. We haven’t found the right solution yet. But I think if we are going to result to government intervention, i.e. them having more control over our lives, then we need to be incredibly diligent and thoughtful about any law that does that. Government by and large is incredibly inefficient and easily corruptible. I personally don’t want to give them any more control than we absolutely have to.

How would they control life if all kids will just easily bypass it?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Where this really will apply is to a bigger audience on social media in general. Not just pornography sites.

Some are talking about seriously trying to limit access to social media for children. That's a big and important discussion.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Why isn't every liquor cabinet in every house in America required to have a combo lock or age verification?

Because it's the parent's house, the parent's children, and the parent's responsibility. That's why.

I'm not a tech guy, but maybe the fix to this is would be that adult sites can only be accessible through an app and not a website that one can get to easily. Then the app can only be downloaded by using some sort age verification like a drivers license. It's that possible or is the bell already rung?

 

[dkp993]

Can somebody walk me through the argument that kids will just get around this si we shouldnt try.

I mean if all kids can easily get around it, then whats the issue for the opposition? Your kids can still use it then.

Well my argument at least isn’t that we shouldn’t try, it’s that this isn’t the right solution. We haven’t found the right solution yet. But I think if we are going to result to government intervention, i.e. them having more control over our lives, then we need to be incredibly diligent and thoughtful about any law that does that. Government by and large is incredibly inefficient and easily corruptible. I personally don’t want to give them any more control than we absolutely have to.

How would they control life if all kids will just easily bypass it?

You’re being specific (which I answered with my first 2 sentences) but I’m also talking about a concept. How I feel about any law, including ones like this, is addressed via the concept I’m speaking too (which I addressed with the remaining sentences).

 

[Ilov80s]

Where this really will apply is to a bigger audience on social media in general. Not just pornography sites.

Some are talking about seriously trying to limit access to social media for children. That's a big and important discussion.

Yeah two different discussions really.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Where this really will apply is to a bigger audience on social media in general. Not just pornography sites.

Some are talking about seriously trying to limit access to social media for children. That's a big and important discussion.

Yeah two different discussions really.

I don't think so. Different subjects but the exact same question. How and if they are able to restrict people here may be totally related to how they restrict people from social media.

 

[Ilov80s]

Where this really will apply is to a bigger audience on social media in general. Not just pornography sites.

Some are talking about seriously trying to limit access to social media for children. That's a big and important discussion.

Yeah two different discussions really.

I don't think so. Different subjects but the exact same question. How and if they are able to restrict people here may be totally related to how they restrict people from social media.

How might be the same but whether they should or not sure seems like 2 very different discussions imo.

 

[the moops]

Where this really will apply is to a bigger audience on social media in general. Not just pornography sites.

Some are talking about seriously trying to limit access to social media for children. That's a big and important discussion.

Yeah two different discussions really.

I don't think so. Different subjects but the exact same question. How and if they are able to restrict people here may be totally related to how they restrict people from social media.

How might be the same but whether they should or not sure seems like 2 very different discussions imo.

Agree here. Not allowing kids on social media sites is a way different animal than not allowing kids on porn sites. The latter is like a 99% approval rate, the former has gotta be way closer to 50/50

 

[General Malaise]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

VPN companies are standing by

VPNs are essentially free, right? What's the revenue model for a VPN company?

 

[Ilov80s]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

VPN companies are standing by

VPNs are essentially free, right? What's the revenue model for a VPN company?

and in this realm, I know we older people think kids are all tech wizards. They are not. They know how to use Snapchat, filter and edit pictures for IG, have a sick run on Subway Surfers but most don't have a clue what a VPN is yet alone how to use one.

 

[General Malaise]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

VPN companies are standing by

VPNs are essentially free, right? What's the revenue model for a VPN company?

and in this realm, I know we older people think kids are all tech wizards. They are not. They know how to use Snapchat, filter and edit pictures for IG, have a sick run on Subway Surfers but most don't have a clue what a VPN is yet alone how to use one.

If a free piece of software is all that's needed for a horny teenager to crack the barrier to unlimited pr0n, you really think this will stump them? Kids have been circumventing adult imposed limits since the world started spinning.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Kids will never figure out a way around this. Just like they’re stumped on how to buy booze and weed.

VPN companies are standing by

VPNs are essentially free, right? What's the revenue model for a VPN company?

and in this realm, I know we older people think kids are all tech wizards. They are not. They know how to use Snapchat, filter and edit pictures for IG, have a sick run on Subway Surfers but most don't have a clue what a VPN is yet alone how to use one.

Yes they do. Or at least the ones I know