Louisiana Passes Bill Banning Kids From the Internet Without Parental Consent -...
source link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/23/06/08/217225/louisiana-passes-bill-banning-kids-from-the-internet-without-parental-consent
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Louisiana Passes Bill Banning Kids From the Internet Without Parental Consent
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror
Sign up for the Slashdot newsletter! or check out the new Slashdot job board to browse remote jobs or jobs in your area
As of publication, it's unclear how the state plans to enforce these new rules, but it calls on state entities to review the bill and provide feedback before it would go into effect. The Louisiana State Legislature passed the bill unanimously on Tuesday, sending it to Gov. John Bel Edwards' desk for final approval. The ban would go into effect August 1st of next year if he chooses to sign it. "We are hopeful that Governor Edwards will veto this bill. It violates First Amendment rights, takes away parental rights for their families and requires massive data collection on all Louisiana citizens," NetChoice vice president and general counsel Carl Szabo said in a statement Thursday.
"It's true that Big Tech's advertising model hurts kids and teens," Fight for the Future said in a call for people to tell their elected officials not to pass online age restrictions. "But age-gating all social media, for anyone under 18? That won't solve the problem, and it's a direct attack on millions of young people's First Amendment rights."
Further reading: Congress Shocked To Discover 10 Year Olds Check the 'I'm Over 18' Box Online [Not The Onion]
-
›
I hope they throw the book at those little critters when they don't obey their parents. 10 years in the slammer minimum.
-
No way! I'm totally moving to LA now! When my 10 year old is a teen and set's himself up with 100+ online services without my permission I'm suing EVERYONE!
-
-
Nobody is being 'deprived'. The kids can still have access IF a parent is involved. Why is that a bad thing?
BTW, kids and social media [nytimes.com] are not a good mix.
-
The problem is shifting the burden from controlling kids' use of social media from parents to every website, turning every site into a product no adult can now use without providing government issued id. If you need to be told why that's a bad thing, I don't even know what to say to someone with a 6-digit uid who hasn't seen enough to know where that leads.
-
-
-
-
-
Your pathetic attempts at humor displease me. Keep it up and you’ll be eaten.
-
-
-
Doesn't matter they have zero method or resources to enforce it. Since it's Louisiana what we'll see is selective enforcement, if any, in predominantly black neighborhoods. They'll just be able to knock on literally any door arrest or fine anyone with kids.
-
I think it just means parents can terminate the accounts as they're not giving parental consent, putting the power back in the hands of parents so that companies can't try to market around parents and use these services without their parents permission. I don't think the government is going to punish kids or parents, but rather make companies put in measures to ensure they have parental consent, and they're panicked because they can convince kids to simply sign up hand over information and influence them.
-
It's the opposite of "putting the power back in the hands of parents".
It's a stupid law from one of those parts of America that would be a failed state if they were forced to go it alone though, so at some point the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional and everyone will carry on pretending Louisiana is run by adults.
These people should be ashamed of themselves. They won't be though.
-
-
Burned at the stake.
-
-
Was was a minor ever held to a ToC contract to begin with? Isn't a minor unable to enter into a valid contract?
-
Exactly, this is why I say it's about direct access to peoples children to influence them with those platforms without parental guidance, or interference as they may view it.
-
In general children can enter into contracts but they can usually void the entire contract at will until they reach their majority. There are some exceptions, but the result is that no one wants to enter into contracts with them because as soon as it's inconvenient for the kid, they'll void it which can leave the other party in a fix.
-
-
I allow my child access to many things on the internet, but they do not have a right to ensure they have direct access to feed my child whatever content they want if they can convince kids that this social thing is where all the cool kids go so they can drown in whatever koolaide they're pushing at the time.
That's their fear. They're afraid of losing direct access to children who do not know better and are easily influenced without guidance to manipulate them on whatever content they want to push on their p
-
Your society started going downhill when both parents had to start working in the late 60s, and they relied on television to entertain/babysit the kids. The only thing thats changed is even less parent time now do to yet more work, and internet has replaced the TV as the babysitter.
-
Ouu gotcha, I don't live in the US.
I just happen to agree with their policy in this regards.
-
Yes, the good old days when women were expected to immediately leave the work force once married, so that men would never have to toil and slave away in the home in demeaning work...
You realize that the poorer classes very often had both sexes working, it's was an upper class thing to have women staying at home for being too delicate. The middle class always wanting to emulate those richer adopted this style when there were economic booms. This was a dark age, don't mistake it for a golden age of enlighte
-
-
No, decreases parental rights is correct. I'm also not going to speak on whether this is better or worse. You might prefer to have your rights restricted in this way, or may not consider it a restriction upon your rights. However, it still is one. You currently have the right to allow your child to sign up for those sites on their own. This would remove that right. It isn't granting you any rights, so as a whole it decreases your rights.
-
No I don't buy that, sounds like manipulation. Parent's are not going to be outraged that they had to give permission on the site as parental consent for something as potentially harmful a social media.
If I'm interpreting your point right, you're basically saying, "What if as a parent you may let your kids do whatever they want, and now you have to prove it, so it's taking away your rights"? Is that it?
All I'm seeing, this is people with a vested interest in manipulating and catching children with advertisi
-
No, it sounds like it's the truth. I'm sorry if that is considered manipulation by you.
Maybe not, but I explicitly said I wasn't speaking about how they would feel about it. However, I'll go further into how a parent could have a problem with it below.
I'm saying parents can currently choose to let their kids sign up for accounts online, without them having to approve it every time. Remember, this bill covers things like signing up for online platforms for video games, Some parents trust their child(technica
-
Isn't this forcing parents to provide ID in a manner that the various web sites can hoard that data until some crook figures out how to access it and do identity theft or worse? Sounds like a reduction in rights.
-
-
-
It takes away rights from the young. Wasn't that long ago that the age of maturity was 7 years old. Even now a kid can join the army but not use the internet how they choose (assuming that like most of America, the age of maturity is high there).
-
-
-
-
Louisiana will all meekly comply, delete their social media presence and submit to the will of their parents like good little rugrats.
-
They probably will pass a law lowering the age of gun ownership 10 and allow them to by AR's and AK's. Social Media bad... AK-47 with a 30 round clip.. Good!! Welcome to Magadonia.
-
All those guns are perfectly fine, since they can also ban any books that encourage critical thinking, and outlaw sex ed and abortion. The boom in birth rates will cancel out the school shootings.
Maybe the red states are onto something here-
-
Why, because they want to educate kids? Best way to molest kids and get away with it is to have ignorant kids. So pedophiles like you project and try there hardest to keep kids ignorant so they don't realize that a cock up there ass as punishment is wrong.
-
-
-
Itâ(TM)s not a troll if itâ(TM)s the truth
-
-
-
While I can’t really say that banning all kids from the internet is that bad, they should have at least done it on a case by case basis and asked the parents first.
-
And they should most likely want to follow the US constitution instead of blatantly ignoring it in an attempt to pander to voters. Of course this law will get overturned, and they know it. But this is the modern conservative movement: ignore the laws since laws are for people you disagree with, not for you and your buddies, freedom is only possible when you force everyone to live the way you want them to.
-
-
The kids have already known the internet and no stupid law will keep them from it. I doubt even their parents will give a rat's ass about some dumb law. Then there is the enforcement. Cops won't try to enforce something inherently unenforceable.
-
This is just more "think of the children" goodfeels bullshit that makes a politician "look good" and hopefully net a few extra votes.
Back in my day, kids used to watch R rated movies. As in physically going to the theater and sneaking in through the fire exits. This proposal will stop nothing.
-
-
First, 18 is old. Louisiana gives out out drivers licenses at 15 with ANY adult approval. You can buy a gun via a private sale at age 17, and carry one at any age if you have a permission note from your parent.
Second, no way to enforce it - unless you are going to be arresting the children that violate it and click the box that says "over 18?" Are you 'protecting' the kid or attacking them?
Third, stop trying to let the parents off easy by having the government do the parenting. It does not effectively parent, it does not make the parents job easier, and all too often you have a strict shmuck in charge yelling at the permissive parents, who outnumber the strict shmuck's followers 2 to 1.
-
The age of consent is 17 in Louisiana, so kids are allowed to have sex before being able to get a social media account.
-
Ah, but you're not thinking about it correctly. A True Conservative knows that kids won't even know sex exists without social media!
-
-
in short, there is already a system to do this. In louisiana you have a digital id card (la wallet) and you use that to "verify" you're over 18 by signing into the app and doing a 2 step verification if need be. makes looking at adult sites a pain in the ass. the solution? a vpn
-
First, that system sounds like something out of a distopia.
Second, I bet most kids use the same computer as their parents and can get into that app easily. Most parents probably just leave it open on their PC and expect the kids not to use their PC.
-
-
-
Kids are legally required (and forced) to be in school for several hours per day a for a majority of the year, for most of their youth. They are limited from drinking, marrying, and a host of other things. I'm not advocating for this, but not all of these limits are unreasonable, and given the recent statements like from the surgeon general and APA about social media use, I think it's not unreasonable to consider this type of limitation as well.
-
Have been saying this a long time now. It's not good for them and, the part I actually care about, it's not good for the internet. Age gates suck. Censorship "because of the kids" also sucks. In any case, stop making the net into a daycare.
-
-
Parents having to be parents? GTFO! Every time I've said that parents need to take some responsibility for what their children do on the computer I've been told that it's impossible, can't happen, there's too much pressure. Now there's a law essentially saying parents need to take responsibility for their children? I can't wait for the public backlash on this shit. Parents won't stand for it. There will be blood in the streets before they take responsibility for the people they've brought into the world and actually try to keep track of them.
But at least the outrage will be delicious.
-
Right? I don't get how they're saying it decreases parental rights, what, because you have to sign a permission form for your kids? Do you not have kids in school? You have to give written permission for tons of things, as there could be dangers associated with. Without a doubt, an absolute doubt, social media has dangers associated with it.
So why not have to give a permission slip for that too? It's absolutely the crowd who wants access to your children to manipulate without guidance who are going to cry o
-
Every time I've said that parents need to take some responsibility for what their children do on the computer I've been told that it's impossible, can't happen, there's too much pressure.
When I see the "it's impossible" comeback from a parent, it isn't because someone said "parents need to take some responsibility", it's because some wise guy claimed it's possible for parents to monitor their kids 100% of the time but are just too lazy/irresponsible/whatever to do it.
-
Anecdotally I usually see it in a response to some responsibility and the retort is 'We can't monitor them 100% of the time'. It'll be like kids who are out every night, stealing and getting into trouble or other such things, that some responsibility and monitoring would change, and the response is "Well we can't monitor them all the time". I often find it's use as a cop out. Now, of course you can't watch them 100% of the time, but it doesn't mean never is valid.
Also fault and responsibility are not tied
-
-
It sounds funny until you read the part where adults will need to submit photo IDs in order to open accounts on any of the affected services.
-
Since some one will ding me for it - you're right, that's not specific to the Louisiana law, but apparently for a bunch of the ones going around. Not a great trend in my book.
-
-
-
Great idea, but it doesn't go far enough. Needs to require parental consent for adults as well. The world would be a better place if no one had social media accounts.
-
Title is dramatically misleading. I initially laughed until I read the content and thought it's not a bad idea. But really, the better solution is just ban all social media from the Internet entirely.
-
I think the vast majority of users were under the age of 18. In that perspective, it seems weird to ban them from creating user accounts, even on gaming sites with games aimed at their demographic, without parental consent.
This really does come down to a situation where I think the parents are the ones who should be responsible and laying down rules on if they'll allow their kids to use social media or other Internet sites. I know that's not 100% enforceable in a world where the Internet is everywhere. But
-
Since persons less than 14 years-old can't create an account, this shouldn't be a problem. Well, it might be a problem for Pearson and schools who forced children into an having online identity for 'schoolwork'.
This affects the 14-17 year-olds who can have an online identity, which is now controlled by the ideology of their parents: It removes their right to association. On the one hand parents need to keep children away from, for example, pro-anorexia web-sites, on the other, it allows parents to isol
-
Ponder this for a moment: Kids have WAY more spare time at their hands than their parents. And they generally know WAY better how to deal with computers than their parents.
Now add that the social standing within your peer group as a teenager has always been boosted by knowing how to thwart and circumvent limitations the parents of your buddies put up and you should quickly realize that the whole law is pretty much useless.
-
louisiana apparently believes children don’t have constitutional rights. okay. you know these kids will grow up to be voters one day
-
What's the bloody point of coming up with a law that can't realistically be enforced unless we turn the country into a police state that would make the extinct Soviet Union look like a walk in the beach?
-
I think it goes like this...
No Johnny you may not access the internet today
Johnny browses internet and accidentally finds out that gay people exist
Parents sue website for not checking to see if Johnny had the right permissions
-
-
Teenagers can't drink.
Teenagers can't watch porn.And yet....
-
....keep your children off of the internet creep.
-
"The bill also goes as far as allowing parents to cancel the terms of service contracts their children entered into" - that is not far at all, it perfectly normal. My daughter is 10 yo and she can't legally enter into service contracts, if she click "I agree", that is void.
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK