[ryankshaw]

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.

[judge2020]

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.

[PragmaticPulp]

> 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.

[throwaway-blaze]

The sponsors of this bill are likely less worried about the 17yr olds who can hack around the restrictions. They're more worried about 12 and 13yr olds who are attempting suicide and experiencing mental health crises at a rate that far exceeds any previous time.

[judge2020]

The problem is the loss of privacy for all users. They will be forced to verify the identity of every user to do business in Utah, so you can either expect third parties like Stripe (with their Identity product) to get richer or an increase in leaks and hacks containing tons of driver's licenses.

[throwawaysleep]

I support it because I want to see the Silicon Slopes destroyed and young people abandoning Utah.

[vxNsr]

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]

You want full corporate control and mandatory remote attestation on your devices to comply with these laws?

[vxNsr]

I don’t think that’s where this goes. I think this leads to less internet use in general. Just like when Apple broke Facebook’s mobile tracking the ad dollars dried up and forced Facebook to scramble to find a new tracking mechanism which most agree is subpar and thus that revenue hasn’t returned. I’m hopeful that people spend less time in anonymized spaces that aren’t conducive to healthy discussion and relationships and instead seek out each other in real life.

[lucaspfeifer]

There are benefits to reducing anonymity: accountability, trust, relationships, etc. It's why humans evolved to recognize faces so well. We decide who to trust based on experience. It doesn't matter who controls the identification process, so long as its done fairly. And if corporations or government misuse identification for self-serving purposes, we should certainly push back.

[pavel_lishin]

> And if corporations or government misuse identification for self-serving purposes, we should certainly push back.

The time to push back is now, before we give them this power.

[data_maan]

There are also downsides to reducing anonymity - many more than benefits.

[FredPret]

Some people love being controlled

[hra5th]

I would be surprised if bugzilla.mozzila.org has over 5 million users

[sircastor]

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]

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.

[veec_cas_tant]

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.

[hayst4ck]

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.

[komali2]

> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation?

The USA government already makes the incorrect decision regarding these substances by criminalizing them, banning them, and throwing users in prison. Evidence shows that legalizing these substances and providing addiction care and universal healthcare, as well as tackling homelessness with empathetic solutions (literally just give them housing, it's that simple), is the so far most effective method to reduce usage of these substances.

Thus the highly retributive, reactionary USA government, or its local manifestations, can't be trusted to make these kinds of laws well.

Great, it banned tik tok for the kids. It passed a morality law. You know, fox news isn't really news, and some have suggested to that it provides a direct path to radicalization that leads to political violence. We should probably ban that, too. Don't worry, if you want to watch it, you can unlock it by applying at the local Office of Moral Wellbeing, just provide a photocopy of your photo ID and proof of address for them to file. That way if Fox changes channel registration, they have a list of all the people that watch it, so they can send someone to let you know the channel number changed.

[hayst4ck]

I agree with the first half.

TikTok is a national security issue and a reciprocity issue and for that reason it was a bad choice of example.

You can look at other social media as a morality problem. I could see why someone would think of it that way, but we are literally quite governed by our neurotransmitters, and these companies literally have "engagement" (read: addiction) engineers. There are literally addiction engineers working on creating the state of addiction. Engineers working on figuring out how to get people to spend the maximum amount of time possible on the apps.

At some point it becomes a health issue. Stimulus is stimulus. Dopamine dysfunction is real.

What's the difference between scrolling an infinite feed for 10 hours and feeling good on an opium den couch for 10 hours? I am not saying that's a perfect comparison, but I don't think it's as simple as morality. These social media apps cause real biological response and there are engineers literally working on manipulating those responses.

[komali2]

I agree with you that social media is a social toxin. Kind of like alcohol or heroin.

The solution for all three I think is the same. Don't allow the government to pass laws criminalizing these things, because that has bad outcomes. It's a lot easier to say "the government isn't allowed to restrict bodily autonomy" than it is to for example try to write into law the 800 different specific exact scenarios where society thinks abortion is ok. In this case, "the government isn't allowed to pass laws restricting access to information" or something along those lines.

Certainly we should allow our government to offer alternatives, information on the negative effects of a toxin, treatments, and use our governments to ensure good social safety nets that prevent people falling into toxin abuse as their only escape.

I'm talking about the problems of using the State to enforce whatever given values or ideals. The State is at best completely imperfect, at worst, it's fascist and trying to kill you and people like you. Don't let it get to that point, don't let it ban what it today defines as "social media."

There are better ways to protect society from these harmful things. Mostly I think solutions around good public education.

[hayst4ck]

I don't think criminalizing is the right approach. I think taxing them for usage that exceeds a reasonable amount of time might be a reasonable policy. I think it would be ok to 100% tax any advertising profit gained after 1 hour of use. I suppose that creates a conflict of interest because then the government directly benefits from over-use which is its own hazard. I think the most American approach would be to codify that Facebook (or other social media) is directly liable for medical treatment related to social media use creating a feedback mechanism that disincentivizes bad behavior.

I don't know what to do, but I do think social media is becoming a cancer, and I do think we need treatment. I don't now what the treatment is.

I think you're saying the treatment can be worse than the disease, and I agree.

> I'm talking about the problems of using the State to enforce whatever given values or ideals.

I think we probably agree on a lot politically, but this is where I think I take a hard turn.

Somewhere bad faith behavior must be discouraged. Education is one place that happens, the legal system is another place. Education is only a first line defense against bad faith.

In the game theory of daily life, defectors and defection cannot be a winning strategy otherwise society will turn from a high trust society into a low trust society. Consensus will be abandoned in favor of dominance. To be honest, I think we are already to that point.

Human rights are an example of an ideal that the state must enforce. Contractual obligations are an ideal a state must enforce. Rule of law is an ideal that a state must enforce. Property rights are an ideal states must enforce.

Where it becomes less clear is the Fox News case you stated because Fox News is actively trying to destroy the idea of rule of law.

I don't know how to deal with that.

Do you think that's a problem? Should nothing be done?

[veec_cas_tant]

> 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]

> 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.

[watwut]

> 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.

Ok, this would be opposite: I want absolute access to my 17 years old kids account. I want read all their messages with their friends and I do not want them to have any privacy, because I want to fully control them.

Second part of the opposite: I dont want to talk with my kids about social dynamic in their peer group. I do not want to talk with them about beauty standards, realistic or not. I do not want to help them navigate peer relationships and I do not care about my kids thoughts. My idea of solving these issues is to cut their access to communication methods.

I am not about to defend either.

> What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical/heroin legislation?

I am actually fine with whole bunch of regulations and law. Really, this dichotomy where if you dont like one law you need to hate all of them is ridiculous. It

[Aachen]

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]

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?

[yieldcrv]

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]

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]

Social media, crypto, gambling and the cigarette industries should be legislated away. Yes.

[PragmaticPulp]

> 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]

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.

[MisterBastahrd]

I'm always very unimpressed by people who believe that politicians have the intellectual capacity to differentiate between HN and Reddit.

They don't, especially when they're throwing their weight around after screaming about internet boogeymen for years.

Go watch the Tiktok hearings. They were losing their minds because filters could track your eyes and your cell phone could use the internal wifi network in order to access the internet.

[adgjlsfhk1]

In the eyes of the law, they are essentially the same.

[komali2]

> 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.

[HideousKojima]

>Reddit would also be gone.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

[acover]

You have to show id to buy cigarettes. How hard is it to id people before account creation?

[veec_cas_tant]

The quote was "Call their bluff - don’t make your service available in Utah.", it didn't mention ID.

[sbrother]

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]

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

[readams]

Hacker News would fit the definition also

[matthewfcarlson]

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.

[GuB-42]

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]

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.

[seandoe]

Utahn with two young kids, yes please!!

[fludlight]

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?

[prh8]

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

[vasco]

> 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.

[arpowers]

Ya would be awesome