Althouse: "Mr. DeSantis had vetoed a previous bill that would have banned social media accounts for 14- and 15-year-olds even with parental consent."

March 26, 2024

"Mr. DeSantis had vetoed a previous bill that would have banned social media accounts for 14- and 15-year-olds even with parental consent."

"The governor said the earlier bill would impinge on parents’ rights to make decisions about their children’s online activities. The new Florida measure is almost certain to face constitutional challenges over young people’s rights to freely seek information and companies’ rights to distribute information."

From "DeSantis Signs Social Media Bill Barring Accounts for Children Under 14/A new Florida law also requires apps like TikTok and Snapchat to obtain a parent’s consent before giving accounts to 14- and 15-year-olds" (NYT).

22 comments:

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Protecting Children.
That bastard!; 3/26/24, 10:43 AM
Dude1394 said...: Sounds like a pretty reasonable restriction to me. Parents are RESPONSIBLE for their children until they are 18 years old, period. Having them RESPONSIBLE means they get to take responsibility for what their children do.; 3/26/24, 10:45 AM
Achilles said...: Wow. Using the government to protect children. What could go wrong?

What other things is the government going to protect us from? This is really F'ing stupid. Desantis hired stupid people to advise him and the Republican party is hell bent on just being as stupid as possible.

How do you even enforce this? How are new accounts going to prove they are 18 years old?

This bill assumes that parents need the government to help them raise their kids. This is the same argument democrats use to keep photo ID out of election laws.; 3/26/24, 11:18 AM
Hubert the Infant said...: Companies like Apple, Google, Meta, and Tik Tok make a lot of money from children who use smartphones. It is clear that this activity is damaging not only the children themselves, but society as a whole. It is extremely difficult for parents to get their kids to moderate -- let alone to stop -- their smartphone use. So, the Florida law seems to be a perfectly legitimate exercise of a state's police power.; 3/26/24, 11:36 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Achilles said

" This is the same argument democrats use to keep photo ID out of election laws. "

no it isn't.; 3/26/24, 11:43 AM
Yancey Ward said...: It is a stupid law because it is basically unenforceable. I agree with the sentiment, but parents have more control than they realize already.; 3/26/24, 11:59 AM
Kakistocracy said...: Interesting that a governor from a party preaching the importance of parental rights doesn't trust parents to manage their own children's access to social media.; 3/26/24, 12:37 PM
Howard said...: Taking a page out of the Clinton playbook... for the children; 3/26/24, 12:41 PM
Achilles said...: Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Achilles said

" This is the same argument democrats use to keep photo ID out of election laws. "

no it isn't.

Some think Black people are too dumb to get ID.

Some think Parents are too dumb to raise kids.

The foundation of a free high trust society is the virtue and value of the citizen. They must be able to do the right thing when nobody else is around.

Dumb people want the government to hold their hands and take responsibilities from the people rather than build stronger citizens that are capable of doing it themselves.; 3/26/24, 1:00 PM
Achilles said...: Hubert the Infant said...

Companies like Apple, Google, Meta, and Tik Tok make a lot of money from children who use smartphones. It is clear that this activity is damaging not only the children themselves, but society as a whole. It is extremely difficult for parents to get their kids to moderate -- let alone to stop -- their smartphone use. So, the Florida law seems to be a perfectly legitimate exercise of a state's police power.

So how many police are we going to need to follow every kid with a phone and keep them "safe?"

Who are we going to throw in jail for violating this statute?

This is insanely stupid. You can't even get past the first tier effects before realizing that much less the knock on effects of giving more responsibility to police who already can't do what they are expected to do and creating more unenforceable laws.

But that is the problem with Desantis supporters. They are not really known for thinking.; 3/26/24, 1:08 PM
Mr. T. said...: Rich said...

"Interesting that a governor from a party preaching the importance of parental rights doesn't trust parents to manage their own children's access to social media."

This is a really stupid statement, and for professional leftwing troll, Rich, that say alot.

The bill gives parents the control. It takes it away from immature, naive kids, and gives it to the parents.

In fact, if you bothered reading the link on the top of the page, Rich, the last 20+ works even say so.; 3/26/24, 1:21 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Voter ID laws protect all voters and vote counting from fraud. (LEFTIST FRAUD)
Removing voter ID laws = helps democrats.

Giving parents some help here - is not at all like Voter ID laws.
WE NEED VOTER ID LAWS.; 3/26/24, 2:19 PM
Prof. M. Drout said...: The biggest help the government could give to parents is to make social media and internet companies strictly liable if they allow children under 18 to open an account or access inappropriate material without the parents' permission. Internet-based companies should also be joint and severally liable for distributing pornographic images of under-18s and facilitating the purchase of illegal drugs.

One of our biggest mistakes back in the late '90s and early 2000s was allowing companies to slap an 'i' in front of product name and exempt themselves from all business regulations. It is long past time for that idiocy to end.

Please explain why internet-based companies shouldn't have to follow the same laws as the local liquor store or 7-11 about not selling their products to underage 'customers.'As things stand, children can open up accounts far too easily and it is impossible for parents to get the big companies to close those accounts. The very worst offender is Snapchat, which has migrated servers offshore and pulled all kinds of other sleazy tricks to avoid subpoenas to open up their records--even in matters of homicide and rape (local police told me "there is no point" in getting a judge to issue an order to Snapchat as they will just ignore it).

Parents need some additional tools to protect their children from the disgustingly exploitive and very dangerous online ecosystem that we have allowed to evolve, because it can be impossible to do cancel a recurring billing that a child signed up for on Play Station or via a credit card attached to an iTunes account: even canceling the card is sometimes not enough, as Apple rolls over the billing to the parents' new credit card number.; 3/26/24, 3:00 PM
Jim at said...: So, the Florida law seems to be a perfectly legitimate exercise of a state's police power.

Sorry. No. It's a horrible law. Over-reaching and unenforceable. No way should any conservative support it.; 3/26/24, 3:48 PM
Shahid Q. Public said...: According to two commenters, somehow requiring parental permission before providing specific services to younger teens is an attack on parental rights?

Sorry, not getting that logic. Would someone care to explain, without resort to inapposite analogies?; 3/26/24, 4:13 PM
Leland said...: Sorry folks, but it is a bad law. Why do you need a central government telling you how you and your family can transact business or communicate with anyone? Why worry about communist applications when you use central planning to protect you? Want to protect children, then educate your children about the dangers in this world. Don't cheer the government banning gas burning stoves or banning applications.; 3/26/24, 6:11 PM
Rabel said...: The Gov is not averse to using the power of the government for social control.; 3/26/24, 6:26 PM
Rabel said...: "Sorry, not getting that logic. Would someone care to explain, without resort to inapposite analogies?"

It's not complicated. It takes the decision about the child's behavior and adds a government approved intercession. It is the right of the parents to make that choice without having to clear administrative hurdles.

Stay out of our business.; 3/26/24, 6:32 PM
Prof. M. Drout said...: Leland said: "Want to protect children, then educate your children about the dangers in this world."

Generally people who write things like this haven't raised any children in the past ten years, but I don't want to jump to any conclusions.

There are plenty of things that children aren't allowed to do at all, and plenty of other things that they can only do with their parents' permission.

We don't only say "Don't want your kids to smoke? Educate them about the dangers of smoking"; we also forbid companies to market or sell to children because we have decided that children do not possess the wisdom, experience, and judgment to make a wise choice about this issue. Similarly we forbid the selling of liquor, pot, and porn to children, we don't allow them to gamble, and--and this is the key point--the onus is on the businesses that sell these materials not to sell them to children.

The evidence for social media use being harmful to children and teenagers is extremely strong--probably statistically stronger than that for smoking causing cancer in purely numeric terms--so it seems pretty reasonable to make businesses be responsible for not allowing them access. The "only with parental permission before the age of 16" is actually too loose. 18 would be much better, especially since you've put in the "with parents permission" relief valve, and companies will be much less diligent than they should be.

When it comes to products and activities that have a strong possibility of being addictive, it is not enough just to say "Educate your children about the dangers," because, obviously, children do not always follow their parents' advice, we do not know how much exposure is required to cause addiction, and we have no good ways of curing addiction.; 3/26/24, 9:34 PM
Achilles said...: Prof. M. Drout said...

The biggest help the government could give to parents is to make social media and internet companies strictly liable if they allow children under 18 to open an account or access inappropriate material without the parents' permission.

What a brilliant idea. Next we can do guns! Then we can do gas powered cars!

The government can save us all!

It would be really awful if parents stepped into their kids lives and taught them things. The government really is the best way to solve all of our problems. They have done such a good job with everything else and the people in elected office really are the best people in our country!; 3/27/24, 12:13 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: abusive sex predators are all over social media. wake up.; 3/27/24, 8:48 AM
Achilles said...: Prof. M. Drout said...

We don't only say "Don't want your kids to smoke? Educate them about the dangers of smoking"; we also forbid companies to market or sell to children because we have decided that children do not possess the wisdom, experience, and judgment to make a wise choice about this issue. Similarly we forbid the selling of liquor, pot, and porn to children, we don't allow them to gamble, and--and this is the key point--the onus is on the businesses that sell these materials not to sell them to children.

Now go back and analyze just how successful those government interventions have been and what the secondary effects are.

I will wait. Probably forever. People who want government to save them are either bad at system analysis or they are evil.

There is a reason that as government encroaches more and more into our lives with this nanny BS that we stray farther and farther from a free high trust society.

Can you figure out why that is?; 3/27/24, 9:38 AM