America Politics: Utah’s New Social Media Laws

[The Black Forrest]

How would you know?

My parent in-laws would tell you dialup and AOL was great! They only recently updated to DSL and are surprised. Hell in the father-in-law just go a smart phone!

Good Wi-Fi is the bomb!

I would know because I live in Utah

Living there isn’t a mark of knowing if the Wi-Fi is good.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

How would you know?

My parent in-laws would tell you dialup and AOL was great! They only recently updated to DSL and are surprised. Hell in the father-in-law just go a smart phone!

Good Wi-Fi is the bomb!

I would know because I live in Utah

Goodbye, my friend.

[Countesia]

"or otherwise somehow harmed by a social media platform they have an account on."

So if i cyberbully kids from Utah they can sue Facebook or Twitter? Sounds like i'm doing them a favour

[Cannot think of a name]

How would you know?

My parent in-laws would tell you dialup and AOL was great! They only recently updated to DSL and are surprised. Hell in the father-in-law just go a smart phone!

Good Wi-Fi is the bomb!

I would know because I live in Utah

Have you experienced the internet in, like, Silicon Valley?

[Floofybit]

I would know because I live in Utah

Living there isn’t a mark of knowing if the Wi-Fi is good.

Then what is?

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

"or otherwise somehow harmed by a social media platform they have an account on."

So if i cyberbully kids from Utah they can sue Facebook or Twitter? Sounds like i'm doing them a favour

*sad Elon sounds.

[Cosmic79]

Think of the children type of law aimed at forcing people to register their ID so that they will have no anonymity online. The rest is scaremongering to make concerned parents comply with it.

[The Black Forrest]

Think of the children type of law aimed at forcing people to register their ID so that they will have no anonymity online. The rest is scaremongering to make concerned parents comply with it.

Meh. When the government goes transparent; so shall I.

[Ard al Islam]

Living there isn’t a mark of knowing if the Wi-Fi is good.

Then what is?

Right?

[Saiwana]

This is something that websites shouldn't be expected to oversee, but it is also probably true that it isn't reasonable to expect every parent out there to be technology literate. I'd configure my router to turn off all traffic for all devices (except mine) after 10 PM until 6AM on a school night/day if the need arised. If any trickery was done to try to bypass that like changing the time of the devices affected, this can be seen in the logs and I'm sure I could do more changes in response like putting up the equivalent of Net Nanny for all devices (except mine).

There is surely an IT solution because these situations have been done before and has been figured out.

I can foresee this being a problem for Max Barry and Nationstates at some point.

The easiest short term solution might be to simply block all network traffic coming from Utah, so as not to need to comply with what Utah wants. But in the long term if this policy isn't permanent, a scheme can be crafted or implemented that does what Utah wants when or if network traffic from Utah is detected.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

This is something that websites shouldn't be expected to oversee, but it is also probably true that it isn't reasonable to expect every parent out there to be technology literate. I'd configure my router to turn off all traffic for all devices (except mine) after 10 PM until 6AM on a school night/day if the need arised. If any trickery was done to try to bypass that like changing the time of the devices affected, this can be seen in the logs and I'm sure I could do more changes in response like putting up the equivalent of Net Nanny for all devices (except mine).

There is surely an IT solution because these situations have been done before and has been figured out.

Please stop. I'm genuinely feeling my brain cells dying.

[The Astral Mandate]

I feel like everything except the curfew is a step in the right direction.

[Saiwana]

The curfew is preposterous if it is supposed to apply to 18+ users as well. No website is going to say no to more traffic or agree to downtime that'd correlate with less profits. Especially not if there are users in different timezones during the 10 PM to 6 AM time frame. It'd be beneficial to the people that're still in K-12 if they have to go to sleep on time to be fully rested by 6 AM when school starts, because they got kicked off before they could stay up for too long.

There are a few contexts where people pull all nighters, like if they put off a project but did a rush job to finish it on time, that a curfew probably can't help if the work is offline or they find a way.

[Cannot think of a name]

So...maybe people don't remember because it wasn't a great movie, but in Ready Player One dude wins the whatzit and decides that on Tuesdays (and Thursdays?) the VR world would go dark to force people to interact with the real world and the first thing I thought was "Haha, fuck you people whose only free time is on Tuesday..."

The curfew isn't quite that, but...

[Neutraligon]

So umm, are they asking social media sites to get more personal information?

[Floofybit]

The curfew is dumb. Sometimes my only free time on weekends is after wrestling tournaments late at night. And I wake up early. If a kid is staying up too late playing video games or scrolling TikTok, that's the parent's problem

[Eahland]

Oh yeah, I feel the need to mention that, due to a late birthday, I was still 17 for a month and a half after I started college, living on my own almost a thousand miles from my parents.

My brother, who also has a late birthday, and additionally skipped a grade (I probably would have too, but we moved to a bigger school district more capable of handling me), started college at 16.

[Terra dei Cittadini]

I disagree with this.

It's just another Republican thing that will increase Fascism's grip on the states.

Like, let's say a child is questioning their sexual orientation, and frequently utilizes digital queer community resources (e.g., websites, social media groups, organizations like The Trevor Project, et al.) to assist themselves while they explore and research their sexuality; they know their parents would throw them into the yard and shoot them by the fence if they discovered this.

Now, let's say that this law passes, and aforementioned child lives in the state of Utah. The bill requires parents have access to their media accounts, and since said child's parents would literally kill them upon discovering their questioning status, that law is the doom of this already threatened child.

In conclusion, this would ultimately harm queer children and other threatened peoples, as their lives would be threatened by queerphobic forces.

Moreover, this simply curtails the 1st amendment, and would leave many minors without social media access.

Sources: ABC News

[Terra dei Cittadini]

So umm, are they asking social media sites to get more personal information?

I believe so, as they'd have to collect information on ages, relationships, etc. if they comply with this illiberal law.

[Floofybit]

I disagree with this.

It's just another Republican thing that will increase Fascism's grip on the states.

Like, let's say a child is questioning their sexual orientation, and frequently utilizes digital queer community resources (e.g., websites, social media groups, organizations like The Trevor Project, et al.) to assist themselves while they explore and research their sexuality; they know their parents would throw them into the yard and shoot them by the fence if they discovered this.

Now, let's say that this law passes, and aforementioned child lives in the state of Utah. The bill requires parents have access to their media accounts, and since said child's parents would literally kill them upon discovering their questioning status, that law is the doom of this already threatened child.

In conclusion, this would ultimately harm queer children and other threatened peoples, as their lives would be threatened by queerphobic forces.

Moreover, this simply curtails the 1st amendment, and would leave many minors without social media access.

Sources: ABC News

Why does this target LGBTQ? Why not EVERY OTHER COMMUNITY THAT USES THE INTERNET TOO?

[Necroghastia]

I disagree with this.

It's just another Republican thing that will increase Fascism's grip on the states.

Like, let's say a child is questioning their sexual orientation, and frequently utilizes digital queer community resources (e.g., websites, social media groups, organizations like The Trevor Project, et al.) to assist themselves while they explore and research their sexuality; they know their parents would throw them into the yard and shoot them by the fence if they discovered this.

Now, let's say that this law passes, and aforementioned child lives in the state of Utah. The bill requires parents have access to their media accounts, and since said child's parents would literally kill them upon discovering their questioning status, that law is the doom of this already threatened child.

In conclusion, this would ultimately harm queer children and other threatened peoples, as their lives would be threatened by queerphobic forces.

Moreover, this simply curtails the 1st amendment, and would leave many minors without social media access.

Sources: ABC News

Why does this target LGBTQ? Why not EVERY OTHER COMMUNITY THAT USES THE INTERNET TOO?

do you not understand what an "example" is or

[Floofybit]

Why does this target LGBTQ? Why not EVERY OTHER COMMUNITY THAT USES THE INTERNET TOO?

do you not understand what an "example" is or

Ah, my bad

[The Proud Transphobe]

I disagree with this.

It's just another Republican thing that will increase Fascism's grip on the states.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Like, let's say a child is questioning their sexual orientation, and frequently utilizes digital queer community resources (e.g., websites, social media groups, organizations like The Trevor Project, et al.) to assist themselves while they explore and research their sexuality; they know their parents would throw them into the yard and shoot them by the fence if they discovered this.

Now, let's say that this law passes, and aforementioned child lives in the state of Utah. The bill requires parents have access to their media accounts, and since said child's parents would literally kill them upon discovering their questioning status, that law is the doom of this already threatened child.

In conclusion, this would ultimately harm queer children and other threatened peoples, as their lives would be threatened by queerphobic forces.

This example is ridiculous on its face. It is the height of absurdity. Nowhere in the U.S. is anything like a theocratic dictatorship governed by Sharia law or a culture of honor killing, where either (a) virtually any parent would want to do that, or (b) if a parent did do that the state would not investigate them for murder. Frankly, such a "phobic" parent is far more likely to think they failed as a parent, fall into depression, and cause harm to themselves than do anything to hurt their own kid. No child is being put in danger by their parent having access to more information. And come on: the parents who actually care about this to the extent you are worried have already put systems in place to gain access.

Moreover, this simply curtails the 1st amendment, and would leave many minors without social media access.

Sources: ABC News

Should minors have unrestricted access to porn, in the name of the 1st amendment? Hmm? How is this any different?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Should minors have unrestricted access to porn

They already do. Porn sites can call themselves inappropriate for viewers under 18 all they like (not well versed enough on 1A limitations to know if they called themselves that of their own accord or it was compelled speech) but they don't actually stop minors from accessing porn.

As well, all the "deterrence" against hate crimes is no substitute for security. Same reason we have locks on our doors. We don't say "well we should deter crime better". Security will always be part of the solution no matter how much deterrence is involved.

Now, whether the Internet does more harm than good at that age (it's obviously a mixed bag) is another question, but let's not just dismiss this sort of scenario out of hand.

[The Proud Transphobe]

Should minors have unrestricted access to porn

They already do. Porn sites can call themselves inappropriate for viewers under 18 all they like (not well versed enough on 1A limitations to know if they called themselves that of their own accord or it was compelled speech) but they don't actually stop minors from accessing porn.

My point is that they are required to do so in an open attempt to limit the access minors have. Whether or not it is effective isn't really relevant to the application of the 1st amendment.