Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18 | Hacker News Reader

Bill to ban social media for Texans under 18

dallasnews.com

63 pointsgeox181 comments

> A North Texas Republican wants to ban social media for Texans under the age of 18.

But wait, there's more:

> State Rep. Jared Patterson, R-Frisco, filed House Bill 896 this week that would require social media users to show two forms of photo identification to verify their age.

Now all services considered social media would have to collect two forms of photo ID from all users, if they didn't want to be illegal in Texas?

This might not only be about protecting the children.

> This might not only be about protecting the children.

Sadly, it never is about protecting the children. It's always about pushing other agendas that are, at best, tangentially aimed at protecting children.

For example, holding back Texan teens (aka Gen Z, who had a huge impact on the recent midterms) from being a part of the broader political discussion; from informing themselves before they're able to vote.

This x1000.

I live in TX, and it is many people's greatest fear that their kids might start to think differently than their parents.

Yikes, really?

And what do they fear the impact of this to be? (Honest question)

My fear is that culture of my people will be assimilated and co-opted. My culture is thousands of years old, and we've survived plagues, war, and murder.

I'd like to transmit this culture to my children as I feel it's valuable.

I wager though that if we grabbed a person from your culture from two thousand years ago they would find many differences comparing their experience of the culture with yours. It's inevitable that it will change and adapt over time. The only completely fixed culture is the one that has no participants any more.

Of course we've adapted and learned from our experience. But it's done by us and for us.

Unless invited, it's reasonable to reject others imposing their values on our culture.

> it's reasonable to reject others imposing their values on our culture.

I do agree with this sentiment for all cases with a caveat (for any given culture)

- Protection of individuals must be improved/maintained. Racism and queerphobia are two obvious examples that many of us would do well to move on from within our own cultures, and will lead to youth rejecting the culture that they are raised in (in my experience)

This doesn't need to be _forced_ on any given culture, but it will be the end result, as if a given culture refuses to drop baggage that youth find unacceptable it will eventually die.

This take is largely driven by my analysis of conservative's who claim to worship Christ, but I think is generalizable across cultures.

Unfortunately, the surest way to kill a culture is to make it irrelevant. By that I mean, it has to be information that's incorporated the current cultural context, not just the context as it was when the custom arose.

Teaching children history and customs is great -- it informs how they live within society. But forcing them to only heed the customs of the culture back then makes them ill equipped to survive in today. That's many times more so in a multi-cultural society, as everyone's culture goes into the so-called melting pot.

I have respect for where I come from, but that knowledge alone is absolutely not enough to equip me for living in today's world. My parents (and many others) say it all the time "when I was X it was different ...". Yeah. It was.

Edit: to emphasize my sincerity. No disrespect intended and I hope non-taken.

What happens if your culture is assimilated and co-opted?

Cultural change. Loss of their political power. Less consolidation of capital.

^ this is a good summary.

E for more detail: Most individuals who feel this way fear at least one of these greatly, and may or may not fear the others. The people I am thinking of mostly fall in the "cultural change" category. See (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33924352) for one example.

It is many people's greatest fear that their kids might start to think...

This is terrible logic, as when does a corporation performing highly influential campaigns ever have the public interest at heart? In which case, the easiest way to show why this is a bad idea, is imagine if the roles were reversed (i.e. social media was instilling values you didn't agree with and thought were backwards). I don't have to agree with either side to think that allowing a corporation to have such influence over the formation of children is a terrible idea. Especially when said corporations have a long history of scandals (TikTok bowing to CCP, Facebook and Cambridge Analytics, Twitter...)

The only reason I can think of, for why we would be OK with this, is not a principled stance - rather, you just support the political views social media is instilling.

> rather, you just support the political views social media is instilling.

People being able to see ideas outside of what their parents and communities see, particularly with respect to human rights (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33924352)?

I suppose I do agree with that.

To be clear - facebook? Trash. Twitter? Trash. Instagram? Trash.

But it is important for people to learn that things they've been told their whole life are not necessarily true, and social media is sometimes the only way for that to happen.

Not that I support this bill because turning over ID documents is dumb and there will be ways around it and I don't see how it is enforceable, but I am just curious if the context of content on the app motivates your opinion. Are there limits you believe in? Like take for example 8chan if it still existed. Would you be ok with Gen Z going on there to inform themselves?

> take for example 8chan if it still existed. Would you be ok with Gen Z going on there to inform themselves?

No - but I oppose usage of law to prevent this, at least in this way.

Either a site should be up, or it shouldn't. I know many Gen Z individuals with better critical thinking then some people of older gens and vice versa.

As long as a site is not actively promoting harm/hate[0], it should be allowed to argue for it's ideas (whether win or lose).

[0] See the Paradox of Tolerance.

What percentage of Gen Z is under the age of 18?

To be over 18 now, you need to be born roughly before 2005. Per Wikipedia, Gen Z seems to run from 1995 to 2010 (which is oddly small considering most generations span 20 years), so over a third of them.

I'm amused by the idea that developing brains in particular are being informed, rather than misinformed, by social media. Where did that come from in the age of misinformation and filter bubbles? Adult brains are misinformed by these bubbles, teenage brains are even more vulnerable.

I don't think it's about correctness, just about whether they're allowed to coordinate as a bloc.

Last year there was a week where the students at the nearby school stole all of the faucet knobs, towel dispensers, and even a mirror from the bathrooms. The following week they went about doing random acts of absurd "public service" (a TV was installed in the bathroom, poorly). Why? Some meme, no greater explanation.

If you maintain an oppressive status quo, that kind of thing scares the bejeezus out of you.

That kind of things is exactly the reason why kids should be allowed social media.

And by the way, in the 2000s, before facebook arrived in my country, we created websites and chatroom spawning entire grades, entire school even. The rumor mill was worse than facebook. I've heard of one of those project (a real website, not just an IRC like in my highschool) was used by students of multiple schools, until it was "hacked" and the admin took it down.

It was a bit discriminatory for kids who didn't had enough money to participate, or for groups of kids who weren't interested enough to get on it (i mean, it _was_ geeky) because there was an entry barrier. If we could've coordinate our stupidity amongst all the students, those years would have been even better, and for them too

I enabled a lot of filesharing between students who would otherwise never have met. Got suspended for it but whatever, that bit of community building way more important than the curriculum anyway.

The only good thing I can see coming out of a social media ban is that hacking will be cool again (much like it was when you had to be somewhat savvy to customize your myspace page).

Learning that it's not you vs your peers, but you and your peers vs the status quo, is an important part of teenagerhood. Attempting to keep kids from being kids is probably a pretty reliable way to remove any ambiguity about who their enemy is.

When what you've been told in your life so far are things like being told your whole life that non-cishet people are "demons" and that racism is good actually, I think social media is the lesser of two evils.

(Source: Raised in TX, knew people taught both of the things above and learned otherwise thanks to social media. For the record, my parents did _not_ teach either of the above)

Teens are either far more informed about the world than their parents or completely oblivious to it. Not much in between.

Were you more informed as a teen than you are now as an adult?

Or, more likely, when you look back at yourself as a teen do you cringe at what you believed?

I personally wasn't, but I turned 17 during the 2008 financial crisis, so that jump started getting engaged with things.

My sisters are way more aware of the world than I was at the time, for instance. But if you talk to some younger people, you'll find that things are different than even a decade ago for younger people.

Informing themselves, or getting indoctrinated by an app partially owned by the Chinese Communist Party? (When you put it that way, it's an insane idea that we've permitted things to get this far.)

No idea why you are getting downvoted. It’s a completely legit point. TikTok is actually now run by an ex xaomi exec and party member. Do people really think they don’t put their fingers on the scale?

I guess the same people believed Twitter didn’t either.

I’ll bite. What is the indoctrination the CCP feeding teens over tiktok?

In China, social media is regulated and enforces that children be shown content that is generally related to STEM or other achievements. No stupid dance videos, no memes, no stupid trends - it's "check out this algorithm I wrote!" Many of the top-trending videos on TikTok would actually be banned.

Is it malicious? I think so, though not everyone agrees, but the outcome is the same both ways: I would say it is indoctrination into stupidity, not an ideology.

Remember, these are the future soldiers who could, potentially, fight China in a Taiwan skirmish. If they only know how to communicate by meme, can't spell anything, have no sense of achievement, and all dream of being YouTube stars, you've won before firing a single shot.

And here I thought it was all a conspiracy to infect American teens with imaginary mental illnesses.

I thought it was an app intended to show users content they might enjoy enough that they might also view ads between content, all in order to make a profit.

> "I don't understand anything," she said with decision, determined to preserve her incomprehension intact. "Nothing. Least of all," she continued in another tone "why you don't take soma when you have these dreadful ideas of yours. You'd forget all about them. And instead of feeling miserable, you'd be jolly. So jolly, ..." -- Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

Not chineese, not from the US either, still i installed ticktock roughly 6 month ago and for now, i mostly had science and tech pushed to me. Some with nice music too!

[just read paragraph 2 and 3 from the parent, yeah, sorry for taking it seriously]

This is a galaxy-brained idiot who is known for coming up with ridiculous, non-starter bills.

Here's another recent hit:

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/state-rep-for-frisco-has....

That's right. Since Austin is a big city and left-leaning, the clear and logical thing to do is to take away all representation and agency from its residents. /s

> ...two forms of photo ID...

I have one valid photo ID. Most people have only one valid photo ID. How is this supposed to work?

This article is incorrect. What the bill says is you need to provide a photo ID, and then you need to provide a photo of yourself to prove you're the person on the ID (presumably like those tinder verify features where you take a picture of yourself doing a silly pose to prove you're the person in the photos you uploaded).

That said this bill is being proposed, so it's expected to change, particularly on implementation. It's basically a rough draft

"Man's got a point. Two is no good. Let's make it three photo ids." - Texas Legislator Tex

"Hole up there son, we don't want to have to revisit this every year to patch holes. Let's put in a safety margin: Five photo ids." - Texas Legislator Champ

For some governmental (aka official) examples:

* State-issued ID card (aka the lesser equivalent to a driver's license card)

* Federal-issued passport

* Federal-issued passport card (yes, these are a thing)

For some informal examples (if they have a photo):

* Company ID card/documentation

* Library card

* Medical card

----

Everyone always has access to a state-issued ID card (or driver's license) and a passport issued by the federal government. Most people satisfy the "two forms of identification" requirement found in many situations with them.

Plenty of people only have a SSN card and a birth certificate, as they neither drive (perhaps due to age or preference) or travel by plane (often for financial reasons or preference).

As I said in my other reply, their lack of governmental identification is by choice. Should they choose to not obtain them even if they have the opportunity, then that is their problem.

I doubt I'm going to change your mind on this, but I think you are under-estimating the difficulty of getting ID in certain parts of the country, for certain people. For example, people living on reservations often have difficulty getting ID because the DMV/other agencies are hundreds of miles away, many lack transportation, many lack the necessary documentation required to get the IDs, some states have put legal hurdles in the way (many homes on reservations don't have legal addresses, for example).

No doubt there are some specific people who will have difficulties obtaining identification for no justifiable reason. Such barriers to access should be rectified.

However, we are speaking in general rather than specific contrived what-ifs. The vast majority of people have the opportunity to obtain multiple forms of governmental identification that are accessible and affordable.

Such barriers should be rectified before making ID mandatory. If the response to that is "well then we'll never be able to implement this!" then one should have a period of deep reflection on why that is and its implications.

When it comes to creating systems whose consequences infringe on rights things like "the vast majority" aren't valid escape hatches. This is doubly true when the folks making the rules have political motivation for disenfranchising the very same group who doesn't have IDs in this case. In fact, when such discrepancies are pointed out and then are instituted anyways, such biases functionally become the point of the institution and increases culpability rather than decreases it.

> No doubt there are some specific people who will have difficulties obtaining identification for no justifiable reason. Such barriers to access should be rectified.

They should be, yet somehow that is never part of the plan in bills that require these IDs. And isn't it curious that the areas where these difficulties are found are almost always correlated with minority demographics? Weird.

What about people with disabilities who wouldn’t be able to get a license, and can’t afford / don’t have a way to travel to get ID at the DMV or whatever? Also, do you think Facebook should have more requirements to access than going to a grocery store or taking a bus or any other infrastructure activity you might do? Almost nothing requires double photo IDs, this requirement is ludicrous regardless of if you happen to be privileged enough to have good health and money and time to have multiple photo IDs and it’s not an issue for you personally.

IDs issued by the state are generally free or very close to free as far as I'm aware. State-issued IDs usually have no requirements for issuance other than having residency in that state.

>Almost nothing requires double photo IDs

From experience, anything that is very and truly important has always demanded I produce multiple forms of identification. Usually 2 or more.

As I said in my other reply, its too expensive. Are you going to pay for it on their behalf?

Additionally, how are you going to handle undocumented persons.

$130 is not "too expensive", especially when it's a one-time expense every 10 years. What level of destitute do you have to be for that to be expensive?

As for illegal aliens, they are illegal. They shouldn't be getting IDs issued by the government in the first place, be it state or federal, and should be deported as they are found.

Perhaps you could be deported from HN

Not everyone has a passport. It is a lot of work to get one, costs over $100, and can take months to have them delivered.

> Everyone always has access to a state-issued ID card (or driver's license) and a passport issued by the federal government. Most people satisfy the "two forms of identification" requirement found in many situations with them.

Most Americans don't have a passport, so that can't possibly be true

That is by choice, and if someone doesn't want to obtain a passport then that's their problem. The opportunity is there, should they wish to pursue it.

Passports aren't free.

So? Passports aren't expensive either.

EDIT: I looked up the fees, it is $130 USD for a passport book, both for first-time issuance (plus separate fee of $35) and renewals. Most passports are valid for 10 years. That is not expensive, and practically free.

Source: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/passports/forms-fees/Pa...

That's prohibitively expensive for an ID, even for most Americans. Any required government IDs should be nearly if not completely subsidized.

Requiring IDs in the USA has historically been used as a form of voter suppression. Texas is one of the worst states WRT voter suppression [1]; anecdotally in the 2020 election (during COVID) Houston, TX (3rd largest city in America) had exactly 1 ballot dropbox [2].

1. https://www.aclutx.org/en/news/5-ways-texas-suppresses-vote-...

2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/10/13/trump-j...

$130 probably isn't much to the majority of people on this forum, but $130 can buy multiple weeks of groceries for 2 people at low cost retailers. That is absolutely a lot of money to the significant percent of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck.

Even if you're not living paycheck to paycheck, $130 could be a decent chunk of what you're able to save annually. When money and expenses aren't consistent, it's be tough to prioritize a passport with no intention of traveling internationally.

That's expensive to most regular people.

Most people buy thousand dollar smartphones, among other luxuries.

$130 dollars for federally-issued identification that is valid for 10 years is not expensive.

Is $130 plus whatever a state ID costs a reasonable fee to pay (to the government) to access Facebook?

Passports are very expensive though, like hundreds of dollars. They’d have to make them free for this to work

US passports are $130 for both first-time issuance and renewals, though first-time issuance also has a separate $35 fee.

Most passports are valid for 10 years. This is hardly expensive.

Source: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/passports/forms-fees/Pa...

Thats too costly of a barrier to the legal right to share cat pictures

> Most people satisfy the "two forms of identification" requirement

53% of US adult citizens have a passport as of 11/22. Most of them have a state ID as well. So yes, a bare majority of citizens will be allowed internet access.

I have never seen a library card or insurance card with a photo id that is accepted as id at all, much less valid id. Do you have examples and if so how common is this in Texas?

I don't live in Texas, and I did call library cards and the like informal.

Passports are easy to obtain and are not expensive[1] at all. If someone chooses to not obtain them, that's their problem and not mine nor anyone else's.

[1]: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/passports/forms-fees/Pa...

Why do you think people without passports (or uncomfortable uploading government documents to nearly every website they wish to use) should not be allowed to use those websites.

The only problem here is collecting photo ID. Someone just needs to educate legislators on zero-knowledge proofs.

Or Apple or Twitter could proactively show how it's done. The app is already 17+ in the App Store.

1. Show != collect 2. It doesn’t say who should see the ID, could be a specialized and regulated 3rd party as well.

What does this change? If anything, supporting a specialized 3rd party that exists to collect IDs seems even worse

Next up: id.me signs exclusive no-bid contract with Texas

Unintended consequence should this bill ever pass (it likely won't) - every 18 year old would have everything they need to register to vote!

Show two forms of ID to whom?

It's a WHATTABOUT. You go "Hey, children are starving to death..."

Then they respond: "WHATABOUT the drag shows!"

It has nothing to do with the children, it's just attempting to avoid the fact that they don't want to do anything about all the other actual problems.

> This might not only be about protecting the children.

When you have verified name and address of every user you can charge a lot more for ads.

Alternatively, those without identification (who are most often marginalized individuals and groups) won't be able to use these platforms with this requirement.

Also a positive for advertisers, marginalized individuals generally aren't flush with disposable income either.

As great as it would be to never have to see the opinion of a 14 year old again

>Under HB 896, social media sites would also be forced to verify a user’s age with a photo ID

Throw the bill in the garbage.

Not just a photo, 2 photos (one of which _must_ be a drivers license) !

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00896I....

So no social media for anyone with a condition that prevents them from driving, or anyone whose licence was seized for driving offences.

Does Texas not also issue ID cards, in addition to driver licenses, for those who need an ID but cannot or do not drive?

Are the laws going to be written such that accepting the wrong type of ID is the bigger liability, or refusing to accept someone who has a correct but unusual ID?

Cause if there's no protection, support for the "other" less common IDs are undoubtedly going to the "not supported at this time" low priority task graveyard of any growth hacking dynamic company.

I've had no end of issues before I got an actual US drivers license, which took ~6 months to get after I moved here (DMV appointment waiting times, processing time incl. DHS verification etc.).

This bill specifically demands a "driver's license" in the first page, line 22: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00896I.... .

They do, but the social media law specifies drivers license, not "photo ID".

Sure, just as long as you're not from certain demographics.

esp. since the driver's license number is almost a proxy for the SSN when it comes to credit reporting.

Good catch.

I agree with the premise of this bill — that social media are harmful to young people — but disagree with the conclusion that therefore there must be a law. There are lots of things that can be harmful to children, like television, busy streets, caffeinated sugary sodas, and weight training, and we trust parents and other adults to guide children through those dangers, teaching them wise self-restraint along the way. I don't see that social media belong to a different category of danger that requires legislation.

Parenting is hard, and not everyone succeeds, but that doesn't mean that we need to legislate away all danger, especially at the cost of privacy and potentially beneficial engagement with friends and family.

These are the same busybody nanny-staters who tell us that it is "illegal" for our kids to drink, drive cars, buy guns, or share pornographic pictures of themselves.

But seriously - if you think social media is harmful to children, I don't see why you would oppose making it illegal. It would be illegal, neglect, for example, to let your children wander into a busy street. Why should it be legal to let your children come to harm in other ways?

I'm not actually sure that social media is harmful, or how harmful, or what qualifies as social media or as "use" - but if we grant that it is harmful, it should be illegal. Doing otherwise just adds another advantage to children with good parents. Making it illegal will, hopefully, reduce the amount of harm done to those who do not have the maturity to decide things for themselves.

I'm not sure it ought be "neglectful" or "illegal" to let kids wander in a busy street. Every day I see a huge swarm of kids, including 5th and 6th graders in elementary school, walk home without parents from school. That includes crossing intersections and commercial venues. I don't think that as neglectful activity.

In Japan there's a popular TV show where kids (max age 6-7) wander around their town to do shopping chores. Despite the fact that this is a TV show and thus there are going to be employees secretly posted around with cameras, it still displays a cultural sensibility on when children should begin to be trained to be independent.

Now, should kindergarteners cross a very busy street alone? Probably not. But in the city I'm talking about each family makes their own choices and the sum of all this is one of the safest places in the world. Police cars do not regularly patrol around and the community is very, very prosperous and optimistic.

Meanwhile we have a recent story of a mom who got charged for child endangerment and convicted and sentenced because she let her kids walk alone.

You're missing an important distinction that I may not have made clear: a lot of activities that can be harmful to children can also be valuable. There's a lot of harmless fun on television, walking alone to the park or a neighbor's house fosters a healthy sense of independence, weight training done safely can help build strength and confidence and sugary caffeinated sodas in moderation are… tasty? (Not sure about the benefit on that last one.)

Like these activities, social media can have their benefits even for young people: contact with friends and family far away, connection with others with similar interests, and a broader view of the world, among others. With guidance, kids can experience those benefits without too much of the harm.

In most of the cases you point out — drinking, driving, buying firearms, and sharing pornographic pictures of themselves — any good there may be is vastly outweighed by the dangers. I don't believe the harm so disproportionate with social media, but I suppose others might disagree.

I agree with you except that weight training/exercise has not only been shown to be safe, but also healthy in kids with normal health and development. There are extremes for sure, but the old adage that weight lifting will hurt you if you’re too young hasn’t held up to current research on the topic.

Proper weight training won’t hurt. But I got (and a lot of kids into sports/athletics get) hernia(s) because teenage hormones and physical reality are often at odds.

That may well be. I was trying to illustrate the broad range of activities in which we accept some risk to children, and may have been ambitious beyond my knowledge.

The definition of social media in this bill defines all websites with comment sections as social media. This means they don't want your kids to even have access to the news on the web.

I also can't believe how many other comments (not yours) in the comments on this post are like "this is a good idea" and "we should consider this" and etc.

I'm amazed. Most of the people on here responding as such are, I'm guessing, are people from my generation: "millenials" who grew up natively on the internet, probably even hung out on Slashdot and etc when that was big. Slashdot had a lot of problems (so does this site, not gonna lie) but OMG I can't imagine a post like this appearing on 2005 era Slashdot and 1/3 of the people being like "but why not this probably is a good idea".

I thought when my generation grew up and had kids, we'd try to stand up for digital rights as being important for the next generation, because we experienced why it was important ourselves. I am depressed by just how wrong I was.

> I thought when my generation grew up and had kids, we'd try to stand up for digital rights as being important for the next generation,

Yeah, but the internet we had has kids is far different than what we have today.

IMO the biggest difference is that it used to cost things to be on the internet: time and/or money. Sites weren't just GUI/WYSIWYG. You had to spend time building them. You had to have initiative. People's goals were different (I feel) than today. Knowledge and transfer of that knowledge was a big deal.

Now it seems like everything is about making a buck. You can't just let kids go wild online. There is some seriously dark stuff and it doesn't take a lot to get there. Hell, you can't even open some apps on a default install of something like macOS without the risk of pornography showing up.

Nevermind the Sisyphean nature of these sorts of laws.

What rights specifically do you have mind?

What is a social media site defined as?

In California, the definition includes any online forum and majority of sites allowing user-submitted content. (Granted, California has a minimum revenue requirement.)

Under a similar definition, this block anyone under 18 from having any accounts on the vast majority of popular sites.

Also, if you squint at it, this could equally apply to any video game company allowing communication between players.

From earlier in that chapter [0]:

> (1) "Social media platform" means an Internet website or application that is open to the public, allows a user to create an account, and enables users to communicate with other users for the primary purpose of posting information, comments, messages, or images. The term does not include:

>> (A) an Internet service provider as defined by Section 324.055;

>> (B) electronic mail; or

>> (C) an online service, application, or website:

>>> (i) that consists primarily of news, sports, entertainment, or other information or content that is not user generated but is preselected by the provider; and

>>> (ii) for which any chat, comments, or interactive functionality is incidental to, directly related to, or dependent on the provision of the content described by Subparagraph (i).

> (2) "User" means a person who posts, uploads, transmits, shares, or otherwise publishes or receives content through a social media platform. The term includes a person who has a social media platform account that the social media platform has disabled or locked.

[0] https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BC/htm/BC.120.htm

Not to mention, what does it mean to use? Is passively consuming content without contributing or even creating an account using? Because, if so.... this means that YouTube gets turned upside down in this case.

> Not to mention, what does it mean to use?

Presumably, to use a platform is to be a user of that platform, where a user is "a person who posts, uploads, transmits, shares, or otherwise publishes or receives content through a social media platform" [0].

Since YouTube is unambiguously a social media platform by Texas law (it primarily consists of user-generated content), the bill as written would prohibit receiving YouTube videos without logging in with an age-verified account. I strongly doubt the bill will go anywhere.

[0] https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/BC/htm/BC.120.htm

This would make it harder to make a social media account, make it harder for people to try out new platforms thereby cementing the monopoly of the current ones, make it impossible to make an account without giving your real name to the social media platform — something which people will also be especially reluctant to do with new platforms.

This is a terrible proposal in it's intent and it's even worse in how it could be implemented. I see everyone here boldly claiming that a particular type of website is "bad" (???) for people but I've never seen that causal link backed up in any reputable journal. What does "bad" (???) even mean?

Websites are not drugs. Websites do not directly manipulate incentive salience and throw the brain's motivations out of wack like, say, cocaine or methamphetamine or tobacco do. Websites have to actually be enjoyable intrinsically before they alter your motivations. This is very unlike drugs. Trying to pass legislation like this that pretends people are without volition signals a far deeper danger: that the state no longer considers people to have volition and that it will force them to make the "correct" decisions. That's appropriate re: some drugs but entirely unjustified here.

Is this a real thing even worth discussing or just some silly performative stunt? Nobody is seriously considering this as a real thing we want to implement in society right? Right??

The negative effects of social media on children are absolutely something we should be discussing. Kids spend an unbelievable amount of time online in these networks, and it's having a real consequences. We already require by law blocking access to kids under 13 in certain situations, so it's not without precedent.

Why would you think this is something that is so far outside the reasonable to not warrant discussion here or in govt?

> We already require by law blocking access to kids under 13 in certain situations

The COPPA age-gating on 13 years old is trivially bypassed by most 13 year olds. It definitely won't keep teens off social media. But adding ID verification to enforce it is dystopian.

having photo ids floating around the internet is its own set of problems

The issue is real, but the bill is a stunt. It's not actually going to pass or even get any real time in committee. It won't make it out of committee; if somehow it did, it would be voted down.

It gets people talking about the issue, and it puts the guy on the social calendar for talking with other people about the issue. That's how politics works: people talking with each other. The actual votes are only the final stage, and really the least important.

Lots of things are silly performative stunts until they aren't. The Governor of Texas has also formally declared that the state is subject to an invasion (in the military sense) and that he intends to act independently of the federal government with regard to the Mexican border.

https://www.borderwall.texas.gov

cf: the december amendments to bill c-11 currently being debated in canada including age verification to access online media

This…actually seems like a good idea, at least in principle. Pretty much all research seems to be more or less unanimous that social media, as bad as it is, is even worse for younger users.

My key concern would be that this legislation could effectively outlaw any anonymous account on any website.

I can see the argument, but in TX social media/The Internet are pretty much the only way that many marginalized people have to socialize with each other, as well as the first exposure people get to ideas outside of their parents beliefs.

(Am LGBT raised and living in TX)

>My key concern would be that this legislation could effectively outlaw any anonymous account on any website.

It would. First line of the article: State Rep. Jared Patterson wants social media sites to require photo identification for users.

You might want to cite some decent quality research for that, so far the only things I have seen are vague association studies or anecdotal examples...

The BBCs conclusions:

>It’s clear that in many areas, not enough is known yet to draw many strong conclusions. However, the evidence does point one way: social media affects people differently, depending on pre-existing conditions and personality traits.

>As with food, gambling and many other temptations of the modern age, excessive use for some individuals is probably inadvisable. But at the same time, it would be wrong to say social media is a universally bad thing, because clearly it brings myriad benefits to our lives.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180104-is-social-media-...

> This…actually seems like a good idea, at least in principle.

Let parents do the banning. No reason for government to dictate that.

Make laws which ensure moderation on social media so that children aren't abused, groomed. If mental health is a concern - which it rightly is - spend more on mental health so that every kid has access to mental health practitioners.

If we lived in a sensible society, this would already be the case. The amount of damage social media has inflicted on younger generations is unsurpassed.

I don’t know. Cable news, network tv and religions have done damage to teens and younger in the past and it probably still continues. Sports coaches aren’t always pure, nor are families. Seems there’s lots of bad actors and influences. Unmonitored activity seems to be the concern, suggesting strong parental actions?

Until the Parent is the bad actor and then strong parental actions exacerbate the issue.

This is most likely harming children more then it's helping them as it makes it way harder for children with rural problems of all kind (domestic abuse, child grooming, religious sects, bullying due to being different) to get into contact with people which provide emotional assistance and help. While there are "official" institutions which are meant to provide help they are often in practice inefficient and out of reach for various reasons.

Additionally I have herd more stories about peoples live being saved due to social media then about people dying due to social media and that is even through stories about someone dying due to social media get propagated a tone while stories where the opposite happens tend to not. (I mean scandals and other bad news and hate just do get more attention in general, not just in social media but also TV and news).

Lastly a restriction of 18+ is ridiculous high.

TV? Radio? One could argue that some stations/networks are quite comparable to social media.

TV and radio are not interactive. The interactive nature of social media makes is so damaging: you write a comment or post a video, and then you get a dopamine injection every time there is a like, reply or re-share.

I used to think TV is bad, social media is 10x worse.

C-SPAN and call-in talk radio shows. ;-P

In what way? Those are pull only and almost never directly attack children.

Depends on what you’re protecting the kids from. Ideas, actions, …

Individualized targeting. TV and Radio targeting kids would do so in a broadcast manner visible to others watching and thus would be easier to police.

A news Show doesn't have a broadcaster reaching out to young children...trying to rape them.

FTA:

> In a statement, Patterson compared social media to cigarettes.

> "Once thought to be perfectly safe for users, social media access to minors has led to remarkable rises in self-harm, suicide, and mental health issues." Patterson said. "The Texas legislature must act this session to protect children because, thus far, the social media platforms have failed to do so."

TV and radio have not been able to claim these same effects

Edit: Formatting

Texas has no lower limit on the age to possess a firearm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas#Firearms_pos...

Neither do a lot of states.

I was interested so I looked it up. Apparently 42 states set a minimum age for handguns and 21 states have minimum ages for rifles and shotguns

https://maps.everytownresearch.org/navigator/states.html?dat...

Of course, none of them want a minimum age for social media access...

The problem to me is how do you legally define social media? Eg, Whats the legal difference between twitter and a mailing list?

Some folks on HN will hate this idea due to the genetic fallacy, but I think we'll end up feeling about social-media the way we currently feel about smoking: it is something that obviously requires protections for minors.

Well, the idea in the link is total bunk (IMHO), but I agree with you. Social Media's turned out to be something with an ugly side, but Pandora's Box is open now and it's here to stay. I would completely agree that we need some protections for minors. Hell - some protections for all of us! I just have no real, viable, solutions come to mind.

smoking was out of the box too, and we did something about that

> HN will hate this idea due to the genetic fallacy

That's extremely condescendingly reductionist. Surely I'm allowed to hate this idea because it's a bad idea.

fair, updated to "Some folks on HN..."

Which social media? Does that include discord and forums? Reddit? Those are all social media too

From our business and commerce code:

(1) "Social media platform" means an Internet website or application that is open to the public, allows a user to create an account, and enables users to communicate with other users for the primary purpose of posting information, comments, messages, or images. The term does not include:

(A) an Internet service provider as defined by Section 324.055;

(B) electronic mail; or

(i) that consists primarily of news, sports, entertainment, or other information or content that is not user generated but is preselected by the provider; and

(ii) for which any chat, comments, or interactive functionality is incidental to, directly related to, or dependent on the provision of the content described by Subparagraph (i).

I'm looking forward to the Big Government apparatus necessary to identify which sites are and are not "consisting primarily of news, sports, et al", and monitor such sites to ensure they don't change their feature set unnoticed. The GOP motto is the more government the better, right?

Likely anything that accepts user generated content and makes it available to others without human editorial review

Keeping kids off social media is good -- I signed up for Gamefaqs with a pormanteau of my first and last name and some of the evil people I met follow me across the net to this day.

But forcing children to present more ID to use the net than in the PRC is not a step in a positive direction.

The real solution is to put the computer in a semi public place, but that works less well than it did back before gift cards, burner phones, and ubiquitous wifi -- too many times I've had to tell a kid something to the effect of "You shouldn't be in this application, I am not going to call the school since I've met your teachers and they'll just smell blood in the metaphorical water and victimize you, but dear lord treasure this time rather than try to meet weird 30 something year olds on the net who might literally murder you".

I thought Texans loved freedom

They love their children too...

Never knew freedom of speech in the US has an age restriction - seem to vaguely recall some Supreme Court case involving a school board that limited the rights of their students in some case - think the SC said it was ok in some cases.

Children can't enter into contracts either, we actually do not give them many of the same rights we give adults. This is because children are considered immature and unable to act in their own self interest. There have been "childrens rights" movements in the past though, it's not an uncontested subject...

> Never knew freedom of speech in the US has an age restriction

Freedom of speech is freedom from Government intervention.

Social Media companies are private companies, and you can absolutely regulate what products & services have age limits, as the government isn't technically restricting speech.

How wouldn't this bill constitute government intervention? The government would be making it illegal for any person or business to run a social media platform that transmits the speech of minors, even if they want to run such a platform.

This comes up in every such discussion: freedom of speech as a legal construct applies to governments, but freedom of speech as an ideal and principle is something that private platforms can support and encourage, or censor and deny.

We need a distinction for this, like "free as in legal" speech versus "free as in voice".

There are huge limits on the rights of minors in the US, unfortunately. Tinker won, but students have lost more recent first amendment battles (e.g., Frederick).

> require the social media platform ’s users to use an account to access the social media platform

Man, people hate the twitter login wall just to view a tweet. Wait until it's legally required. That's one way to drive user signups.

Let's be charitable and say the identification is done on a governmental website and the data isn't tracked or used further, nor correlated with voters database. Big assumption

What does using mean? If it's posting publicly on social media? Why not. I mean, if facebook default privacy settings were "private" for the kids and only ascendants (IE parents or legal guardians, and main professor (to allow children withing a class to interact with each other)), its not a great idea, but at least it does "protect the children".

If it's using altogether, i mean, tough luck.

Does anyone with legal credentials care to comment on whether this would be likely to be blocked on a first amendment basis? Fundamentally "social media" does seem to be about an ability to post (communicate/publish) and read messages/content. I know in loose terms that in various contexts rights for minors are abridged (e.g. public schools can punish students for speech), but I don't know how far those are allowed to go.

> require the social media platform ’s users to use an account to access the social media platform

Man, people hate the twitter login wall just to view a tweet. Wait until it's legally required. That's one way to drive user signups.

Should the gov't do this? No. Should many parents restrict what their kids from social media, yes.

Yes I realize has no chance of passing. But lots of social media is toxic for adults maybe more so for kids.

I'd be for this but the way you implement it is by completely destroying online anonymity.

"would require social media users to show two forms of photo identification to verify their age"

sweet

For context: there is not any age requirement for a minor to own a firearm in Texas.

Whataboutism != context

Is this one of those (insert absurdity to make the news) bills?

Good news - it is part of my family's religion to use social media

"And on the 49th day, this Lord of thine commands that thee shall have a LinkedIn account with all annoying notifications turned on, and thee shall click on all these notifications and appreciate them for wasting the remaining moments of your life on this 'ere planet."

In all seriousness, a Christian could marshal a legally credible argument that such a restriction impinges upon their freedom to proselytize, which is widely considered to be a core duty of that religion notwithstanding that this is in conflict with the prescriptions of its founder.

Sounds like a mental health preserving bill.

Relax

TX is about to start its legislative session and reps can suggest literally anything

This will never even make it to the debate floor

I think it's important to know what crazy ideas your elected representatives try to push forward, no matter how unlikely they are to actually pass. It helps you identify the crazies.

Filing this under "even a stopped clock is right twice a day."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com