9 ms·

I live in Utah. If that's what happens, that would be awesome! "Sorry kids, no fb/tiktok/insta and there's nothing I can do about it. None of them work where we

I live in Utah. If that's what happens, that would be awesome! "Sorry kids, no fb/tiktok/insta and there's nothing I can do about it. None of them work where we live" Would be a huge win for all parents. No social media, and we don't have to be the bad guys taking it away.

sbrother 3y ago
Another Utahn here and I feel the same. I don’t really see how this could work and think it will probably go away quietly, but I’d kind of love it if these platforms (and the social pressure our kids feel to be on them) just went away.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  Is love to see Instagram, etc, replaced with a static site in Utah asking people to vote for better leaders.
arpowers 3y ago
Ya would be awesome
seandoe 3y ago
Utahn with two young kids, yes please!!
veec_cas_tant 3y ago
Hopefully this is hyperbole. Seems a bit extreme to hope the government legislates away industries because you don't want to handle the parenting yourself.
- acover 3y ago
  You have to show id to buy cigarettes. How hard is it to id people before account creation?
  - veec_cas_tant 3y ago
    The quote was "Call their bluff - don’t make your service available in Utah.", it didn't mention ID.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong. > legislates away industries because you don't want to handle the parenting yourself. What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation? What are your thoughts on making it illegal to advertise unhealthy food to kids? How do you feel about the idea of product placement in children's TV shows? How do you feel about letting pharmaceutical companies directly market to children? You look at parenting as black and white. Good parents would prevent their kids from doing bad things. Bad parents can't prevent their kids from doing bad things. "If a kid does something bad then it is because they have bad parents." The reality is that parents are just one element of the childs environment and that their choice to do bad things can be fit to a bell curve based on the complete set of environmental factors for which parenting is one element. Holding parenting ability constant, the government could make changes that would improve outcomes for some set of children.
  - veec_cas_tant 3y ago
    > I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong. Sorry, I don't know what this means. > What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation? What are your thoughts on making it illegal to advertise unhealthy food to kids? How do you feel about the idea of product placement in children's TV shows? How do you feel about letting pharmaceutical companies directly market to children? The comment this chain is replying to was about tech companies not offering their services at all in Utah. I'd think, for the most part, I'd be against most regulations that basically say "to protect the children, we will ban X for everyone". I'm sure there are exceptions though. > ...rest of the comment I agree, the government can act to improve the outcomes for children and I didn't state anything to the contrary. Rather, I believe that gleefully accepting or cheering on a ban of all technology, for both adults and children, that the government might believe causes harm to children is quite unfortunate.
    - hayst4ck 3y ago
      > Sorry, I don't know what this means. You called something hyperbole. You said you had a hard time imagining someone in good faith wishing that the government would legislate away an industry so that they don't have to "parent." So I asked: What do you think the person you are responding too's position is? What do you think is the best defense for that position? What do you think that position is wrong despite what you see as its best defense? I think the tobacco industry is an obvious industry to make reference to. I think now days most people who don't smoke would be happy to see it regulated away and I think it would be an extremely fringe position to think the tobacco industry should be able to advertise to kids today. > I'd be against most regulations that basically say "to protect the children, we will ban X for everyone". I'm sure there are exceptions though. Just because we don't know the full extent of how bad Facebook is now, doesn't mean it isn't bad. How bad do you think we thought smoking, opiates, or other problems were before we decided they were bad? We saw the correlation with harm of tobacco, investigated more deeply, then regulated their wide spread use particularly use by children. Facebook is modern day tobacco. I am much less black and white about this than you might expect, because I am generally pro letting people do what they want with their bodies. After the age of 25 (when a person's prefrontal cortex is fully developed) there are few good arguments for preventing a net tax payer from doing what they want to their bodies or time. If someone can be told they are old enough to die (or kill) for their country, that's another factor that makes limiting their freedom to make bad decisions a hard argument. > that the government might believe causes harm to children is quite unfortunate. When you say "the government" that is entirely jaded. There is more nuance than us (the oppressed) and them (the government). Replace the government with "my fellow neighbors," and I think it harms the anti-government righteousness a bit. The context of the original conversation was clearly not about banning Facebook, but about not being sad if they went away. Telling facebook it can't do business in utah if it serves children and Facebook deciding to not do any business in Utah as a result is not banning Facebook.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  I hope that corporations more frequently put less relevant jurisdictions in their place and remind representatives that they are in competition with other jurisdictions and this overrides their public service ideas. So I’m more of a fan of seeing that. Not the actual outcome. Would make more people choose more collaborative solutions faster.
  - mvnuweucxqokii 3y ago
    Honestly if social media companies pulled out of Utah, I could see tens of thousands of families choosing to move to Utah for that reason alone.
- arpowers 3y ago
  Social media, crypto, gambling and the cigarette industries should be legislated away. Yes.
  - PragmaticPulp 3y ago
    > Social media, crypto, gambling and the cigarette industries should be legislated away. Yes. Ironically posted on a social media site (Hacker News has the characteristics of "Social Media Site" under this definition). Reddit would also be gone. It's funny to read all the comments from people who think "social media" just means "sites I don't like"
    - mvnuweucxqokii 3y ago
      I'm always very unimpressed by this kind of argumentation. There's a clear difference in kind between Hackernews, Reddit, Instagram, and TikTok. Sure, they all feature user-submitted content, but to pretend that there is any meaningful similarity beyond that seems silly.
      - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
        In the eyes of the law, they are essentially the same.
      - komali2 3y ago
        > There's a clear difference in kind Is there? Is there to your 80 year old senator and their constituents that think the internet is a series of tubes. You know, the constituents that actually vote? Does it matter how well you explain it anyway? Modern political language lacks definition by design. Do street interviews and ask Americans what socialism is. Then ask them what they'd call the government giving banks money. Then ask them how many times in the last 20 years the government has given banks money. My argument is that we should just not let the governments pass these kinds of laws because it opens the door to using these laws to arbitrarily block whatever website they can vaguely hand wave as "social media" or whatever they pick.
      - 3y ago
- Aachen 3y ago
  You can ban social media as a parent today and damage your child's social life. If it's banned for every child equally, they will have to meet up irl or call each other like in the 80s or whatever. Whatever the alternative, it shifts the dynamic and doesn't isolate your child. Regulations for kids is not simply about bad parenting but can be about prisoner's dilemma-like situations where everyone needs to work together for a good outcome and, unless a decent percentage gets on board at more or less the same time, it's counterproductive for individuals.
  - tstrimple 3y ago
    We should also enforce strict school dress codes so students don't have to see other students wearing new shoes and feel pressured to update their wardrobe right? Kids shouldn't be able to talk about family vacations because it might make other students jealous and hurt their mental health. We need to ban these books because it might make kids feel bad about themselves. Where do these ridiculous steps end?
archgoon 3y ago
[dead]
readams 3y ago
Hacker News would fit the definition also
matthewfcarlson 3y ago
I don’t know how I feel about living in Utah if I couldn’t use GitHub, YouTube, stack overflow, most blogs, or any of the dozens of websites I enjoy. I lived there for a few years in college and while I’m somewhat surprised the law passed, I’m not that surprised.
judge2020 3y ago
From other comments, it seems the definition is not "what you assume is a social media app" but "any service with over 5 million users that facilitates chat via posts". I am 99% certain this includes Hacker News, Steam, probably also bugs.chromium.org and bugzilla.mozilla.org, and maybe even any website that allows user comments if they happen to have over 5 million users.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- PragmaticPulp 3y ago
  > From other comments, it seems the definition is not "what you assume is a social media app" but "any service with over 5 million users that facilitates chat via posts". It's baffling to read all the HN comments encouraging draconian restrictions and forced PII collection on websites, all with the assumption that it will only apply to websites I don't like. Laws like this, if enforced, would make a lot of the sites you use on a daily basis require strict ID verification. Are you really ready to be doing the ID verification dance with GitHub, Reddit, Hacker News and every other big site on the internet just to post? Of course not. You're going to sign up for a VPN and use it, just like all of the 17 year old kids who just want to use the internet like normal people.
  - vxNsr 3y ago
    I welcome it. Breaking the way the internet is used these days would be a huge win for society as a whole no matter how painful it might look at first.
    - hooverd 3y ago
      You want full corporate control and mandatory remote attestation on your devices to comply with these laws?
      - FredPret 3y ago
        Some people love being controlled
fludlight 3y ago
You realize these companies will quiet-fire all employees residing in Utah and never hire there again? That this will place massive negative pressure on all software salaries in Utah? Possibly on all software salaries outside of deep blue states?
sircastor 3y ago
It’s a narrow win. If people can’t post to their sites, they’re going to start thinking about going to Colorado rather than Utah for their skiing. The so-called “Silicon slopes” are going to thin out as large companies question what the legislature is going to arbitrarily decide to screw with next. Tourism dollars and high tech jobs are a hefty price. As an aside, I lived in Utah for many years and I generally thought people preferred to not have the government dictating what was allowed and not allowed.
- throwaway-blaze 3y ago
  Willing to bet most of the Utahns you lived around are more worried about the impact of these services on their kids than on government overreach. They can't figure out a non-governmental way to fix the issue.
vasco 3y ago
> we don't have to be the bad guys taking it away You not wanting to explain something to your kids and enforce limits based on said explanations isn't a reason to make a law.
GuB-42 3y ago
Also, no Reddit, no Discord, no forums and no Hacker News. Paradoxically, TikTok and Instagram could pass in a limited form. What is targeted is communication between people, mindless consumption is fine by that law.
pavel_lishin 3y ago
But that's not what would happen: > Utah has become the first US state to require social media firms get parental consent for children to use their apps and verify users are at least 18. > The bills also impose a social media curfew that blocks children's access between 22:30 and 06:30, unless adjusted by their parents. So there would very much be something you could do about it, and your kids would find out. You're still the quote-unquote bad guys. You still have to, gasp, parent.
prh8 3y ago
So kids are just going to replace all of that with more porn? Utah is already the biggest consumer of it

sbrother 3y ago

Another Utahn here and I feel the same. I don’t really see how this could work and think it will probably go away quietly, but I’d kind of love it if these platforms (and the social pressure our kids feel to be on them) just went away.

Buttons840 3y ago
Is love to see Instagram, etc, replaced with a static site in Utah asking people to vote for better leaders.

arpowers 3y ago

Ya would be awesome

seandoe 3y ago

Utahn with two young kids, yes please!!

veec_cas_tant 3y ago

Hopefully this is hyperbole. Seems a bit extreme to hope the government legislates away industries because you don't want to handle the parenting yourself.

acover 3y ago
You have to show id to buy cigarettes. How hard is it to id people before account creation?
- veec_cas_tant 3y ago
  The quote was "Call their bluff - don’t make your service available in Utah.", it didn't mention ID.
hayst4ck 3y ago
I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong. > legislates away industries because you don't want to handle the parenting yourself. What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation? What are your thoughts on making it illegal to advertise unhealthy food to kids? How do you feel about the idea of product placement in children's TV shows? How do you feel about letting pharmaceutical companies directly market to children? You look at parenting as black and white. Good parents would prevent their kids from doing bad things. Bad parents can't prevent their kids from doing bad things. "If a kid does something bad then it is because they have bad parents." The reality is that parents are just one element of the childs environment and that their choice to do bad things can be fit to a bell curve based on the complete set of environmental factors for which parenting is one element. Holding parenting ability constant, the government could make changes that would improve outcomes for some set of children.
- veec_cas_tant 3y ago
  > I would love it if you would state what you think the viewpoint opposite yours is and then try to defend it, then explain why that defense is wrong. Sorry, I don't know what this means. > What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation? What are your thoughts on making it illegal to advertise unhealthy food to kids? How do you feel about the idea of product placement in children's TV shows? How do you feel about letting pharmaceutical companies directly market to children? The comment this chain is replying to was about tech companies not offering their services at all in Utah. I'd think, for the most part, I'd be against most regulations that basically say "to protect the children, we will ban X for everyone". I'm sure there are exceptions though. > ...rest of the comment I agree, the government can act to improve the outcomes for children and I didn't state anything to the contrary. Rather, I believe that gleefully accepting or cheering on a ban of all technology, for both adults and children, that the government might believe causes harm to children is quite unfortunate.
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    > Sorry, I don't know what this means. You called something hyperbole. You said you had a hard time imagining someone in good faith wishing that the government would legislate away an industry so that they don't have to "parent." So I asked: What do you think the person you are responding too's position is? What do you think is the best defense for that position? What do you think that position is wrong despite what you see as its best defense? I think the tobacco industry is an obvious industry to make reference to. I think now days most people who don't smoke would be happy to see it regulated away and I think it would be an extremely fringe position to think the tobacco industry should be able to advertise to kids today. > I'd be against most regulations that basically say "to protect the children, we will ban X for everyone". I'm sure there are exceptions though. Just because we don't know the full extent of how bad Facebook is now, doesn't mean it isn't bad. How bad do you think we thought smoking, opiates, or other problems were before we decided they were bad? We saw the correlation with harm of tobacco, investigated more deeply, then regulated their wide spread use particularly use by children. Facebook is modern day tobacco. I am much less black and white about this than you might expect, because I am generally pro letting people do what they want with their bodies. After the age of 25 (when a person's prefrontal cortex is fully developed) there are few good arguments for preventing a net tax payer from doing what they want to their bodies or time. If someone can be told they are old enough to die (or kill) for their country, that's another factor that makes limiting their freedom to make bad decisions a hard argument. > that the government might believe causes harm to children is quite unfortunate. When you say "the government" that is entirely jaded. There is more nuance than us (the oppressed) and them (the government). Replace the government with "my fellow neighbors," and I think it harms the anti-government righteousness a bit. The context of the original conversation was clearly not about banning Facebook, but about not being sad if they went away. Telling facebook it can't do business in utah if it serves children and Facebook deciding to not do any business in Utah as a result is not banning Facebook.
yieldcrv 3y ago
I hope that corporations more frequently put less relevant jurisdictions in their place and remind representatives that they are in competition with other jurisdictions and this overrides their public service ideas. So I’m more of a fan of seeing that. Not the actual outcome. Would make more people choose more collaborative solutions faster.
- mvnuweucxqokii 3y ago
  Honestly if social media companies pulled out of Utah, I could see tens of thousands of families choosing to move to Utah for that reason alone.
arpowers 3y ago
Social media, crypto, gambling and the cigarette industries should be legislated away. Yes.
- PragmaticPulp 3y ago
  > Social media, crypto, gambling and the cigarette industries should be legislated away. Yes. Ironically posted on a social media site (Hacker News has the characteristics of "Social Media Site" under this definition). Reddit would also be gone. It's funny to read all the comments from people who think "social media" just means "sites I don't like"
  - mvnuweucxqokii 3y ago
    I'm always very unimpressed by this kind of argumentation. There's a clear difference in kind between Hackernews, Reddit, Instagram, and TikTok. Sure, they all feature user-submitted content, but to pretend that there is any meaningful similarity beyond that seems silly.
    - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
      In the eyes of the law, they are essentially the same.
    - komali2 3y ago
      > There's a clear difference in kind Is there? Is there to your 80 year old senator and their constituents that think the internet is a series of tubes. You know, the constituents that actually vote? Does it matter how well you explain it anyway? Modern political language lacks definition by design. Do street interviews and ask Americans what socialism is. Then ask them what they'd call the government giving banks money. Then ask them how many times in the last 20 years the government has given banks money. My argument is that we should just not let the governments pass these kinds of laws because it opens the door to using these laws to arbitrarily block whatever website they can vaguely hand wave as "social media" or whatever they pick.
    - 3y ago
Aachen 3y ago
You can ban social media as a parent today and damage your child's social life. If it's banned for every child equally, they will have to meet up irl or call each other like in the 80s or whatever. Whatever the alternative, it shifts the dynamic and doesn't isolate your child. Regulations for kids is not simply about bad parenting but can be about prisoner's dilemma-like situations where everyone needs to work together for a good outcome and, unless a decent percentage gets on board at more or less the same time, it's counterproductive for individuals.
- tstrimple 3y ago
  We should also enforce strict school dress codes so students don't have to see other students wearing new shoes and feel pressured to update their wardrobe right? Kids shouldn't be able to talk about family vacations because it might make other students jealous and hurt their mental health. We need to ban these books because it might make kids feel bad about themselves. Where do these ridiculous steps end?

archgoon 3y ago

[dead]

readams 3y ago

Hacker News would fit the definition also

matthewfcarlson 3y ago

I don’t know how I feel about living in Utah if I couldn’t use GitHub, YouTube, stack overflow, most blogs, or any of the dozens of websites I enjoy. I lived there for a few years in college and while I’m somewhat surprised the law passed, I’m not that surprised.

judge2020 3y ago

From other comments, it seems the definition is not "what you assume is a social media app" but "any service with over 5 million users that facilitates chat via posts". I am 99% certain this includes Hacker News, Steam, probably also bugs.chromium.org and bugzilla.mozilla.org, and maybe even any website that allows user comments if they happen to have over 5 million users.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
PragmaticPulp 3y ago
> From other comments, it seems the definition is not "what you assume is a social media app" but "any service with over 5 million users that facilitates chat via posts". It's baffling to read all the HN comments encouraging draconian restrictions and forced PII collection on websites, all with the assumption that it will only apply to websites I don't like. Laws like this, if enforced, would make a lot of the sites you use on a daily basis require strict ID verification. Are you really ready to be doing the ID verification dance with GitHub, Reddit, Hacker News and every other big site on the internet just to post? Of course not. You're going to sign up for a VPN and use it, just like all of the 17 year old kids who just want to use the internet like normal people.
- vxNsr 3y ago
  I welcome it. Breaking the way the internet is used these days would be a huge win for society as a whole no matter how painful it might look at first.
  - hooverd 3y ago
    You want full corporate control and mandatory remote attestation on your devices to comply with these laws?
    - FredPret 3y ago
      Some people love being controlled

fludlight 3y ago

You realize these companies will quiet-fire all employees residing in Utah and never hire there again? That this will place massive negative pressure on all software salaries in Utah? Possibly on all software salaries outside of deep blue states?

sircastor 3y ago

It’s a narrow win. If people can’t post to their sites, they’re going to start thinking about going to Colorado rather than Utah for their skiing. The so-called “Silicon slopes” are going to thin out as large companies question what the legislature is going to arbitrarily decide to screw with next. Tourism dollars and high tech jobs are a hefty price. As an aside, I lived in Utah for many years and I generally thought people preferred to not have the government dictating what was allowed and not allowed.

throwaway-blaze 3y ago
Willing to bet most of the Utahns you lived around are more worried about the impact of these services on their kids than on government overreach. They can't figure out a non-governmental way to fix the issue.

vasco 3y ago

> we don't have to be the bad guys taking it away You not wanting to explain something to your kids and enforce limits based on said explanations isn't a reason to make a law.

GuB-42 3y ago

Also, no Reddit, no Discord, no forums and no Hacker News. Paradoxically, TikTok and Instagram could pass in a limited form. What is targeted is communication between people, mindless consumption is fine by that law.

pavel_lishin 3y ago

But that's not what would happen: > Utah has become the first US state to require social media firms get parental consent for children to use their apps and verify users are at least 18. > The bills also impose a social media curfew that blocks children's access between 22:30 and 06:30, unless adjusted by their parents. So there would very much be something you could do about it, and your kids would find out. You're still the quote-unquote bad guys. You still have to, gasp, parent.

prh8 3y ago

So kids are just going to replace all of that with more porn? Utah is already the biggest consumer of it