Support NeoGAF

[STARSBarry]

You know that thing about "Americans only go on about Freedoms they like, but get all authoritarian when they don't"

Yeah this is one of those... but being British I say ban the little shits.

 

[Lambogenie]

I've been over 100 years old since I started the internet, so....

 

[Rentahamster]

This isn’t a social media site, it’s a message board. Quite different intent purposes.

A forum isn't and never was considered "social media". This is a forum that you need authorization to actually register, it's a place with mods, there's no algorithms shaping whatever shows up in your screen, you never live in a bubble and forums were never a place that has influenced human perspective and behavior like social media has.

If you really don't see the difference between Neogaf and social media...i can't help you then.

This is how the bill defines "social media platform"

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/BillText/er/PDF

"Social media platform" means an online forum,74 website, or application that satisfies each of the following75 criteria:

1. Allows users to upload content or view the content or77 activity of other users;78
2. Ten percent or more of the daily active users who are79 younger than 16 years of age spend on average 2 hours per day or80 longer on the online forum, website, or application on the days81 when using the online forum, website, or application during the82 previous 12 months or, if the online forum, website, or83 application did not exist during the previous 12 months, during84 the previous month;85
3. Employs algorithms that analyze user data or86 information on users to select content for users; and87
4. Has any of the following addictive features:88 a. Infinite scrolling, which means either:89 (I) Continuously loading content, or content that loads as90 the user scrolls down the page without the need to open a91 separate page; or92 (II) Seamless content, or the use of pages with no visible93 or apparent end or page breaks.94 b. Push notifications or alerts sent by the online forum,95 website, or application to inform a user about specific96 activities or events related to the user's account.97 c. Displays personal interactive metrics that indicate the98 number of times other users have clicked a button to indicate99 their reaction to content or have shared or reposted the100 content. d. Auto-play video or video that begins to play without102 the user first clicking on the video or on a play button for103 that video.104 e. Live-streaming or a function that allows a user or105 advertiser to broadcast live video content in real-time.

Does NeoGAF fit the definition of a social media platform according to this law?

 

[gow3isben]

Is a NeoGAF account a social media account?

 

[Grildon Tundy]

This is how the bill defines "social media platform"

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/BillText/er/PDF

"Social media platform" means an online forum,74 website, or application that satisfies each of the following75 criteria:

1. Allows users to upload content or view the content or77 activity of other users;78
2. Ten percent or more of the daily active users who are79 younger than 16 years of age spend on average 2 hours per day or80 longer on the online forum, website, or application on the days81 when using the online forum, website, or application during the82 previous 12 months or, if the online forum, website, or83 application did not exist during the previous 12 months, during84 the previous month;85
3. Employs algorithms that analyze user data or86 information on users to select content for users; and87
4. Has any of the following addictive features:88 a. Infinite scrolling, which means either:89 (I) Continuously loading content, or content that loads as90 the user scrolls down the page without the need to open a91 separate page; or92 (II) Seamless content, or the use of pages with no visible93 or apparent end or page breaks.94 b. Push notifications or alerts sent by the online forum,95 website, or application to inform a user about specific96 activities or events related to the user's account.97 c. Displays personal interactive metrics that indicate the98 number of times other users have clicked a button to indicate99 their reaction to content or have shared or reposted the100 content. d. Auto-play video or video that begins to play without102 the user first clicking on the video or on a play button for103 that video.104 e. Live-streaming or a function that allows a user or105 advertiser to broadcast live video content in real-time.

Does NeoGAF fit the definition of a social media platform according to this law?

1 - Yes
2 - Unknown
3 - No (to my knowledge)
4 - Yes

So if it's not a "yes" to each of the four, then it's not considered a social media platform. Looks like Florida NeoGaffers aren't impacted.

 

[The Stig]

I like the idea in principle but I say leave it to the parents.

Also this isn't very "small government". Yet more Republican bullshittery. (do not take this as an endorsement of anything to do with any other party)

 

[near]

This is how the bill defines "social media platform"

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/3/BillText/er/PDF

"Social media platform" means an online forum,74 website, or application that satisfies each of the following75 criteria:

1. Allows users to upload content or view the content or77 activity of other users;78
2. Ten percent or more of the daily active users who are79 younger than 16 years of age spend on average 2 hours per day or80 longer on the online forum, website, or application on the days81 when using the online forum, website, or application during the82 previous 12 months or, if the online forum, website, or83 application did not exist during the previous 12 months, during84 the previous month;85
3. Employs algorithms that analyze user data or86 information on users to select content for users; and87
4. Has any of the following addictive features:88 a. Infinite scrolling, which means either:89 (I) Continuously loading content, or content that loads as90 the user scrolls down the page without the need to open a91 separate page; or92 (II) Seamless content, or the use of pages with no visible93 or apparent end or page breaks.94 b. Push notifications or alerts sent by the online forum,95 website, or application to inform a user about specific96 activities or events related to the user's account.97 c. Displays personal interactive metrics that indicate the98 number of times other users have clicked a button to indicate99 their reaction to content or have shared or reposted the100 content. d. Auto-play video or video that begins to play without102 the user first clicking on the video or on a play button for103 that video.104 e. Live-streaming or a function that allows a user or105 advertiser to broadcast live video content in real-time.

Does NeoGAF fit the definition of a social media platform according to this law?

In order to fit the bills definition it would need to meet all the listed criteria, and it doesn't.

1 - Yes
2 - Unknown
3 - No (to my knowledge)
4 - Yes

So if it's not a "yes" to each of the four, then it's not considered a social media platform. Looks like Florida NeoGaffers aren't impacted.

Threads are finite.

 

[The Stig]

This is not gonna fix absolutely nothing.

not gonna fix nothing? so what will it fix?

 

[The Stig]

I wholeheartedly agree with every single one of your points I've put in bold.
However, that's your decision to make as a parent.
It's not the government's decision to make for you with a blanket ban.

If a parent wants to give their children access to social media despite knowing the risks of doing so, that should be their prerogative. There's already a federal law that's supposed to protect children 13 and under by preventing them from signing up for online accounts without parental consent (Children's Online Privacy Act) and it has done little to prevent them from obtaining access. Florida's law is practically unenforceable without massive privacy implications.

Nikki Haley went on the record saying social media users should be identity verified and got absolutely destroyed by both sides of the political spectrum. This law effectively leads to the same thing because the only way to ensure minors under 14 are not using social media is to tie social media accounts/registration with verified identification.

Not directly related to your quote but after reading the text for HB3 (PDF), not only is this a full ban for anyone under 14, it adds a new requirement for parental consent for new accounts by anyone ages 14 to 15 (section 3(a)) and existing accounts by those 14 to 15 must be terminated until such consent is granted (section 3(b1)). So, effectively, anyone under 16 will have their accounts cut off.

this is a great post.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

In order to fit the bills definition it would need to meet all the listed criteria, and it doesn't.


Threads are finite.

Re-read #4. If it has ANY of the following, it applies. NeoGAF doesn't have infinite scrolling, but it does have push notifications (if you opt in) and offers "reactions":

"Displays personal interactive metrics that indicate the number of times other users have clicked a button to indicate their reaction to content or have shared or reposted the content".

 

[Romulus]

14 is a good start, but that's still too young. Social media is nothing but fucking filth, bullying, and covert flexing for kids anyway. They don't have the maturity to understand the damage they're doing to others.

 

[ProtoByte]

Ironic, considering the free speech warriors are implementing this.

DeSantis probably still has presidential ambitions. His last campaign torched his relationship with libertarian leaning people and the Trump wing, so this is likely red meat for the neocon types.

 

[near]

Re-read #4. If it has ANY of the following, it applies. NeoGAF doesn't have infinite scrolling, but it does have push notifications (if you opt in) and offers "reactions":

"Displays personal interactive metrics that indicate the number of times other users have clicked a button to indicate their reaction to content or have shared or reposted the content".

You're right. I didn't read it correctly.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

Can’t wait to have to sign in to every website with my ID to prove I’m old enough in the name of “safety”.

Sad to see rights get eroded by big government overreach.

If you don’t want your kids on social media, block it yourself and stop expecting the government to do your job.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

I would make it illegal to give them any unsupervised access to the internet at all, empower schools to throw any smartphone immediately into the trash.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I usually hate Florida's nanny state anti-freedom bullshit but this one seems kinda based. Social media access closely correlates with a spike in mental health issues in kids, especially anxiety and depression.

 

[Rentahamster]

In order to fit the bills definition it would need to meet all the listed criteria, and it doesn't.

You sure about that? This site fits 1, 3, and 4 well enough that any asshole with an agenda could apply pressure. Ambiguous laws are dangerous. For 2, they'd have to violate this site's private data to asses it.

 

[SoloCamo]

I usually hate Florida's nanny state anti-freedom bullshit but this one seems kinda based. Social media access closely correlates with a spike in mental health issues in kids, especially anxiety and depression.

Since when is Florida of all states a nanny run anti freedom state? Source - I live here and left NY

 

[Rat Rage]

Very good.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Since when is Florida of all states a nanny run anti freedom state? Source - I live here and left NY

All their book banning and vice signaling and and "morally policing" bullshit and making it an impossible place to be a teacher.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I'd rather not have the government restrict free speech, free expression, and free information to this extent.

Ironic, considering the free speech warriors are implementing this.

For kids under 14? Sure. Unlike half the country, I actually have a lot of confidence in Florida. I'm not for over reach so let's not go full hyperbole mode.

Kids were just fine before all the stupid internet.

 

[SoloCamo]

All their book banning and vice signaling and and "morally policing" bullshit and making it an impossible place to be a teacher.

All their book banning and vice signaling and and "morally policing" bullshit and making it an impossible place to be a teacher.

And yet my niece and nephew's educations are doing quite well focusing on... education.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Agree on the ban.

Now for any school boards promoting stupidity and politics get rid of that too.

If this was before Twitter and FB took off with personal politics, cancel culture, bullying etc.... I'd say it's ok. I never had Myspace, but from I read and saw it didn't seem like a battleground of idiocy. It seemed like people making their own page, having fun, upload some music clips or whatever and that's kind of it. Even Twitter, FB and such werent wacko at the beginning. But at some point (not sure exactly when) it really changed into politics, employees running the ship being weirdos and really commercialized.

 

[Nydius]

All their book banning and vice signaling and and "morally policing" bullshit and making it an impossible place to be a teacher.

I discussed this in my first post in the topic: It's not "book banning" to say they won't allow explicit material in government run educational systems. The books are still very much available for purchase within the state for parents who wish to provide them to their children on their own.

The state government runs public education, therefore they have every right to determine what content is permissible in those facilities.
In no way does that make it "impossible" to teach.

I don't even know when it became permissible in the first place because in my 13 years of public school education -- from 1982 to 1995 -- not a single "explicit" or "adult" (read: sexual) content book could be found in any of my school libraries. My Dad bought me copies of Playboy when I was 16; I don't know anyone who would argue that they should have been available behind the counter at my high school library.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I discussed this in my first post in the topic: It's not "book banning" to say they won't allow explicit material in government run educational systems. The books are still very much available for purchase within the state for parents who wish to provide them to their children on their own.

The state government runs public education, therefore they have every right to determine what content is permissible in those facilities.
In no way does that make it "impossible" to teach.

I don't even know when it became permissible in the first place because in my 13 years of public school education -- from 1982 to 1995 -- not a single "explicit" or "adult" (read: sexual) content book could be found in any of my school libraries. My Dad bought me copies of Playboy when I was 16; I don't know anyone who would argue that they should have been available behind the counter at my high school library.

What makes it impossible to teach is literally passing legislation that opens teachers to legal liability if parents get offended by something. In a state that already expects teachers to work for poverty wages. They've declared war on teachers and it's having real consequences in their inability to get qualified faculty.

We don't need to get into this really, it's beside the point. I'm not a fan of their legislature or their governor, they're media whores who care more about headlines than sound policy, but on the social media issue I agree.

 

[poppabk]

I discussed this in my first post in the topic: It's not "book banning" to say they won't allow explicit material in government run educational systems. The books are still very much available for purchase within the state for parents who wish to provide them to their children on their own.

The state government runs public education, therefore they have every right to determine what content is permissible in those facilities.
In no way does that make it "impossible" to teach.

I don't even know when it became permissible in the first place because in my 13 years of public school education -- from 1982 to 1995 -- not a single "explicit" or "adult" (read: sexual) content book could be found in any of my school libraries. My Dad bought me copies of Playboy when I was 16; I don't know anyone who would argue that they should have been available behind the counter at my high school library.

In the UK, when I was a kid, we got full frontal nudity and pictures of babies crowning in our sex education book. None of this tame cartoon blow job stuff people are freaking out about nowadays.

 

[poodaddy]

Not a fan of Desantis but this is good legislation here. My daughter has never experienced a shred of social media and she'll be a teenager soon. She's smart, well adjusted, healthy, and the only time she learns uncomfortable shit that I don't think she's ready for yet is from other kids at school, and those kids always apparently got this shit from tik Tok.

Fuck social media, it's a cancer and it's godawful for children and adults too. Cut this shit out of our society.

 

[Sakura]

I agree in theory with the idea, but this ultimately seems rather pointless. Kids already aren't allowed to make an account on social media if they are under 13, so what does raising the age by 1 year do?

 

[DrFigs]

I mean i had social media accounts at 14. A lot of us did surely. It is taking away freedom from young people.

 

[Moneal]

In the UK, when I was a kid, we got full frontal nudity and pictures of babies crowning in our sex education book. None of this tame cartoon blow job stuff people are freaking out about nowadays.

What grade was that in? I would guess in secondary school probably around grade 10. Florida laws wouldn't prevent that from happening in grades 9-12.

 

[GymWolf]

not gonna fix nothing? so what will it fix?

Not my english, that's for sure

 

[kurisu_1974]

Man and I thought this was the parent's job, not the government.

Nanny state here we gooooo!

 

[Hudo]

Is a NeoGAF account a social media account?

Half the forum would be gone.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

It sounds like a good idea until you realize that it means that adults will also have to provide ID verification when signing up for Youtube, Facebook, X, Instagram, Tiktok, etc etc. Even a forum like Neogaf could be classified as a social media platform.

What's going to happen then? Do you first have to sign up with a government site to prove you're an adult before you can add a dislike to the latest Disney movie trailer? This is the first step into a world where anonymity doesn't exist anymore.

I mean...good? At least for social media, it should never have been anonymous in the first place.

One of the reasons why social media is trash is the fact people can do and say anything to anyone without any drop of accountability whatsoever, because you don't have to "show your face". That's what's turning people into animals online. That's also why forums are mot controlled in that regard.

If every social media platform had to demand some sort of identification for each account created, that could even diminish bot accounts. Social media as it stands right now isn't doing anyone any good.

The good thing is X is losing its relevancy by the day. Facebook is basically old people yelling at clouds, conspiracy theories, memes and birthdays. Even Tik Tok as far as i know has peaked. So that's a plus.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

The idea is good. The problem is going to be how to enforce it.

Not just how to enforce it but what to offer children instead of the thing you are taking away. I'd say the first step to that would be more engaging education and after school social programs, to encourage interacting in real life. But that's an expensive and long term solution that most politicians wouldn't be willing to try. Certainly not someone like DeSantis.

Edit: another option to consider: making it more affordable for parents to spend more time raising their kids properly instead of working their asses off to make ends meet. This is possibly an even less popular solution.

 

[winjer]

Not just how to enforce it but what to offer children instead of the thing you are taking away. I'd say the first step to that would be more engaging education and after school social programs, to encourage interacting in real life. But that's an expensive and long term solution that most politicians wouldn't be willing to try. Certainly not someone like DeSantis.

How about just letting children play outside, like thousands of previous generations.

 

[ClanOfNone]

Banning/forbidding a teenager from doing a thing is a surefire way to get them to do said thing.
The internet is unavoidable, we use it for everything, and even if you steer clear of social media sites ads and other things creep in everywhere.
We’d be better served by teaching kids actual critical thinking skills so they can better parse out the bullshit.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

I would make it illegal to give them any unsupervised access to the internet at all, empower schools to throw any smartphone immediately into the trash.

Nah. But perhaps there could be a middle ground, like YouTube that has certain "kid friendly channels", where comments are disabled etc. There could be certain parts of the internet that are more strictly monitored and have stricter content guidelines and these would be open to children.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

How about just letting children play outside, like thousands of previous generations.

I'm all for returning that, but there are many reasons it won't just happen on its own if you ban social media.
The engagement I had in mind in schools and other programs should definitely encourage it, though! See, for example, the boy scouts.

 

[Z O N E]

Parental. Controls.

If you complain your child is spending too much time on Social Media, then do what you should be doing as a parent and...parent.

iPhones have parental controls and I'm sure Android phones have it too.

It sounds like a good idea until you realize that it means that adults will also have to provide ID verification when signing up for Youtube, Facebook, X, Instagram, Tiktok, etc etc. Even a forum like Neogaf could be classified as a social media platform.

What's going to happen then? Do you first have to sign up with a government site to prove you're an adult before you can add a dislike to the latest Disney movie trailer? This is the first step into a world where anonymity doesn't exist anymore.

THIS.

It's fine if you think of this very narrowly, but then you realise EVERYONE will have to sign up using an ID of sorts and that's where you start realising what's happening.

South Korea does this, where to sign up you have to use your ID number that every citizen has and people are getting sued for defamation for stating FACTS because Koreas defamation laws means, even if you tell the truth, you can still be sued.

Kids using social media is a PARENTING problem. Stop buying your kids $$$s phones and then not enabling parental controls. Also, hot take, phones should be banned in schools.

 

[killatopak]

I lived through that without problems so this should be fine.

My only issue if this will be a precedent for something I don’t agree with.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Parental. Controls.

If you complain your child is spending too much time on Social Media, then do what you should be doing as a parent and...parent.

iPhones have parental controls and I'm sure Android phones have it too.



THIS.

It's fine if you think of this very narrowly, but then you realise EVERYONE will have to sign up using an ID of sorts and that's where you start realising what's happening.

South Korea does this, where to sign up you have to use your ID number that every citizen has and people are getting sued for defamation for stating FACTS because Koreas defamation laws means, even if you tell the truth, you can still be sued.

Kids using social media is a PARENTING problem. Stop buying your kids $$$s phones and then not enabling parental controls. Also, hot take, phones should be banned in schools.

I think it's impossible to have this discussion without acknowledging that parenting has become increasingly challenging in recent decades, and at the same time work has demanded more and more of parent's time.

Parents need better guidance and more resources, chiefly more free time to do a proper job.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

How about this: government could enforce smartphone manufacturers to sell "child-approved" phones that are - by default - locked out of installing social media apps and other harmful apps (predatory video games would be high on my list, as a teacher!)
The phones would also be blocked from accessing certain websites (pornography, cult content, etc).

This makes a parent's job much easier - just ask for a locked phone when you buy it at the store. You don't have to be well versed in tech and up to date on what's potentially harmful to do that. And the list of blocked or otherwise inaccessible content could be regularly updated by a government body like a parental advisory board, similarly to how a virus list is regularly updated.

Crucially, every one of these blocks could be removed by a parent, but they'd have to dig into the phone's OS and specifically approve every website or app they wish to enable, and could revoke access from their own device if they desire.

Is there any country (or manufacturer) that already does this?

 

[Toots]

Florida man doing something sensible is a man bite dog headline if i ever saw one.

Anyway good for them not wanting to destroy their children with brainwashing stuff.

 

[AJUMP23]

How do you even enforce this law.

 

[Z O N E]

How about this: government could enforce smartphone manufacturers to sell "child-approved" phones that are - by default - locked out of installing social media apps and other harmful apps (predatory video games would be high on my list, as a teacher!)
The phones would also be blocked from accessing certain websites (pornography, cult content, etc).

This makes a parent's job much easier - just ask for a locked phone when you buy it at the store. You don't have to be well versed in tech and up to date on what's potentially harmful to do that. And the list of blocked or otherwise inaccessible content could be regularly updated by a government body like a parental advisory board, similarly to how a virus list is regularly updated.

Crucially, every one of these blocks could be removed by a parent, but they'd have to dig into the phone's OS and specifically approve every website or app they wish to enable, and could revoke access from their own device if they desire.

Is there any country (or manufacturer) that already does this?

There's a Japanese company that makes kid phones but it's only available in Japanese. Also, the older the kid gets, the more Kanji characters get added into the phone, so kids learn as they use it too.

キッズケータイ SH-03M | ドコモ キッズ | 製品 | NTTドコモ

2019年 冬モデル キッズケータイ SH-03Mは、落としても壊れにくい耐久性、子どもの成長にあわせて選べる機能で、長く使えるキッズケータイ。親子であんしんな機能も充実。

www.docomo.ne.jp

Obviously this is for really young kids, but it's better than buying them a phone that can install social media apps and what not at that age. The phone also comes with an alarm that activates when you pull the string off it, similar to those "rape alarms".

There are some "similar" phones on Amazon UK:

Amazon.co.uk : phone for kids

I think it's impossible to have this discussion without acknowledging that parenting has become increasingly challenging in recent decades, and at the same time work has demanded more and more of parent's time.

Parents need better guidance and more resources, chiefly more free time to do a proper job.

I mean, yes those are issues too, but it doesn't take long for people to just setup parental controls. Especially these days kids are going to be born from adults who were raised with this tech growing up, so there's no excuse now for not knowing about it.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Good.jpg

 

[Dacvak]

I don’t like that I agree with Ron Desantis about something.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

There's a Japanese company that makes kid phones but it's only available in Japanese. Also, the older the kid gets, the more Kanji characters get added into the phone, so kids learn as they use it too.

キッズケータイ SH-03M | ドコモ キッズ | 製品 | NTTドコモ

2019年 冬モデル キッズケータイ SH-03Mは、落としても壊れにくい耐久性、子どもの成長にあわせて選べる機能で、長く使えるキッズケータイ。親子であんしんな機能も充実。

www.docomo.ne.jp

Obviously this is for really young kids, but it's better than buying them a phone that can install social media apps and what not at that age. The phone also comes with an alarm that activates when you pull the string off it, similar to those "rape alarms".

There are some "similar" phones on Amazon UK:

Amazon.co.uk : phone for kids

I mean, yes those are issues too, but it doesn't take long for people to just setup parental controls. Especially these days kids are going to be born from adults who were raised with this tech growing up, so there's no excuse now for not knowing about it.

The Japanese example is a very interesting one, thanks for sharing it.

Regarding parents, I can tell you as a teacher that many kids understand their phones way better than the parents do. Which isn't that surprising considering how much time they spend on the devices.

Some parent understand locking their kids out of problematic apps or features, or limiting their screen time via OS controls, but I wouldn't say it's the majority of parents yet.

But my point was that a default lock on everything potentially harmful is something that is both easy to legislate and easy for manufacturers to build into phones so parents only have to concern themselves with removing locks. I think that's a more practical and effective way to accomplish the goal in question, without putting people's privacy at risk, or counting on busy parents to figure it out themselves.

 

[SoloCamo]

The Japanese example is a very interesting one, thanks for sharing it.

Regarding parents, I can tell you as a teacher that many kids understand their phones way better than the parents do. Which isn't that surprising considering how much time they spend on the devices.

Some parent understand locking their kids out of problematic apps or features, or limiting their screen time via OS controls, but I wouldn't say it's the majority of parents yet.

But my point was that a default lock on everything potentially harmful is something that is both easy to legislate and easy for manufacturers to build into phones so parents only have to concern themselves with removing locks. I think that's a more practical and effective way to accomplish the goal in question, without putting people's privacy at risk, or counting on busy parents to figure it out themselves.

That's a problem that needs to be handled by the parents, not government. If you can't take the minuscule amount of time it takes to research something like this that's on you. If you are willingly giving them a device you can't understand yourself, or at least know what it has access to, you are failing your child.