Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Government The Courts The Internet

Judge Blocks Arkansas Law Requiring Parental OK For Minors To Create Social Media Accounts (apnews.com) 64

Posted by BeauHD from the permission-not-granted dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked Arkansas from enforcing a new law that would have required parental consent for minors to create new social media accounts, preventing the state from becoming the first to impose such a restriction. U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks granted a preliminary injunction that NetChoice -- a tech industry trade group whose members include TikTok, Facebook parent Meta, and X, formerly known as Twitter -- had requested against the law. The measure, which Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed into law in April, was set to take effect Friday.

In a 50-page ruling, Brooks said NetChoice was likely to succeed in its challenge to the Arkansas law's constitutionality and questioned the effectiveness of the restrictions. "Age-gating social media platforms for adults and minors does not appear to be an effective approach when, in reality, it is the content on particular platforms that is driving the state's true concerns," wrote Brooks, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama. NetChoice argued the requirement violated the constitutional rights of users and arbitrarily singled out types of speech that would be restricted.

Arkansas' restrictions would have only applied to social media platforms that generate more than $100 million in annual revenue. It also wouldn't have applied to certain platforms, including LinkedIn, Google and YouTube. Brooks' ruling said the the exemptions nullified the state's intent for imposing the restrictions, and said the law also didn't adequately define which platforms they would apply to. As an example, he cited confusion over whether the social media platform Snapchat would be subject to the age-verification requirement. Social media companies that knowingly violate the age verification requirement would have faced a $2,500 fine for each violation under the now-blocked law. The law also prohibited social media companies and third-party vendors from retaining users' identifying information after they've been granted access to the social media site. In a statement on X, Sanders wrote: "Big Tech companies put our kids' lives at risk. They push an addictive product that is shown to increase depression, loneliness, and anxiety and puts our kids in human traffickers' crosshairs. Today's court decision delaying this needed protection is disappointing but I'm confident the Attorney General will vigorously defend the law and protect our children."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Blocks Arkansas Law Requiring Parental OK For Minors To Create Social Media Accounts More

Judge Blocks Arkansas Law Requiring Parental OK For Minors To Create Social Media Accounts

Comments Filter:

  • here's an alternative (Score:4, Insightful)

    by v1 ( 525388 ) on Friday September 01, 2023 @08:15AM (#63814531) Homepage Journal

    how about parents get their butt off the couch and BE A PARENT. Be a part of your children's lives. Set the boundaries you feel are appropriate. Teach you kids to respect your decisions. Demonstrate consequences if they disobey? Make them better people.

    But sadly, too many parents are hands-off with their kids, raising inconsiderate, entitled little monsters to release on society after they leave the nest. It affects us all. Your little snowflake becomes everybody else's problem when they turn 18, so don't tell me I don't have any say in it.

    Thank you Judge Brooks, keep up the good work in striking down laws that try to give parents yet another excuse to ignore their kids.

    • I just posted something similar to yours. But I do think parents need some additional tools to help them manage devices for children. Something completely voluntary and managed by the parents.

    • Re:here's an alternative (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Friday September 01, 2023 @08:26AM (#63814555)

      Disclosure: I struggle with trying to not be a 'helicopter parent'. I have the urge to stand over my kids, protecting them, second-guessing every choice they make, etc. Kids do not grow up that way, they stay children forever. And not just children, but timid ones afraid of anything new and expecting mom & dad to take care of everything.

      Every time I've managed to swallow my fear and let my kids do something without my oversight, they've grown up a bit more. Not that my children are 'broken' or anything, but you can definitely tell that my wife and I have been too heavy-handed in our parenting.

      In order to give your children the freedom to grow up, you need to be able to give them freedom in general. Which means you can't always be hovering over them making sure they make the choices you want them to - sometimes they have to screw up and try to recover on their own.

      I'm OK with some things not being accessible to children without their parents, so parents can let them be kids without being wardens. We (society) have figured out that social media is a wonderful device for engaging our worst social instincts and makes us more socially competitive, obsessed, and isolated. Putting it on the list of things children shouldn't have access to is not something I'd demand of my courts or legislators, but I wouldn't fight it, either.

      • Parents still need reasonable control over their children's access to dangerous things. This doesn't mean it has to be full control, all the time, their entire "childhood". But it does mean the ability to monitor and restrict and gradually introduce more access and freedom as they develop.

        There is nothing wrong with trying to control kid's access to the Internet/Social Media, and we need more tools to do that. It is just that the tools need not and should not start with immediately stripping everyone of

        • I do not see a realistic path between the two for social media (and I'm firmly on the side of "no age verification requirement in law, for the record).

          Without identity and age verification, kids will access social media as soon as you're not looking over their shoulders. With identity and age verification, you've just turned social media into even more of an Orwellian dream than it already is.

          So far I'm pretty sure I got through to my kids about it; I'm a semi-typical IT paranoid type and I've tried to pa

          • >I do not see a realistic path between the two for social media

            See my post on that here: https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]

            I think we can achieve a balance by offering better devices/tools that parents can control, not the State, and not big business. The objective should be to empower parents, not to punish all adults.

            >"Without identity and age verification, kids will access social media as soon as you're not looking over their shoulders."

            That entirely depends on what age we are talking about and wh

      • Kids need access to communications in the case where they have one or more abusive parents. You should fight for their right to communicate if you are not abusing your kids, because that should show that you have anti child abuse values, and you should want other children to also not be abused.

        • Kids need access to communications in the case where they have one or more abusive parents.

          They could do this JUST like kids did before the internet....you know...TELL some one, like a teacher or someone else in authority.

          Or, not even go back that far....they could email or text the cops or child services, or....an adult they trust.

          Social Media really is not the end all be all for communications, in fact....its negatives seem to FAR outweighs the positives for children exposed to it.

      • You're contradicting yourself here:
        "I'm OK with some things not being accessible to children without their parents, so parents can let them be kids without being wardens."

        If you aren't being a warden to your kids, then you definitely don't want me to be their warden. Neither do you want about 500 moneygrubbing assholes in Washington to be their warden either.

        Your children are your responsiblity. If you can't teach them, you shouldn't have had them in the first place. If you feel that you need help pare

      • Any debate where it's already decided that the goal is access restriction, has lost because at that point it's no longer about what's best for the kid, but what is easiest for an adult who is too cowardly to have that conversation.

        Kids are going to find it. You can't stop them. It's not going to ruin their lives, and parents should make them prepared for it. Teach them that porn is artificial, teach them what is healthy and unhealthy when it comes to sex and entertainment.

        If parents won't have that conversa

        • >Any debate where it's already decided that the goal is access restriction, has lost because at that point it's no longer about what's best for the kid, but what is easiest for an adult who is too cowardly to have that conversation.

          I know, right? That's why I let my toddlers drink alcohol, experiment with crack, and open carry while driving my car. But I talked to them first, of course.

          Access restriction by age is a reasonable tool.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by v1 ( 525388 )

          Kids are going to find it. You can't stop them. It's not going to ruin their lives, and parents should make them prepared for it. Teach them that porn is artificial, teach them what is healthy and unhealthy when it comes to sex and entertainment.

          I thought How to Train Your Dragon had a few nice words of advice in it. "You can't stop him. You can only PREPARE him." (and "it's not my problem, YOU need to watch over MY kid" is a horrible alternative)

      • Social media is practically a form of crack for some types of people. Over a long enough time span humanity will evolve to deal with it, but frankly parents ought not to feel bad stepping in if they think it's becoming a problem for their children. Personally I think that in time we'll come to realize that social media and all of the dark patterns that the providers of it employ are detrimental and that children shouldn't be exposed to it. We're just not evolved for it as a species.

    • Kid takes black rectangle, goes into room, closes door. What are you going to do? Hover over the shoulder?
      Not give them black rectangle? Black rectangle without mobile data?
      Parental controls? Apps would have to opt in into that. And they probably won't work long-term.
      Also it would require a level of tech savinness not quite common.
      go try be a part of a teenager's life. I know didn't accept it when I was one.

      I honestly don't know how to handle this. A communication tool merged with a dangerous technology.
      I

      • Re:here's an alternative (Score:4, Interesting)

        by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Friday September 01, 2023 @09:23AM (#63814693) Homepage

        I honestly don't know how to handle this. A communication tool merged with a dangerous technology.
        I don't see an analogy to what I had to be kept away from while growing up.

        Have you been watching the 10:00 news? It never ends - old-school clickbait used to be on your local news but it is the same today as yesterday. There's always an exaggerated moral panic going on.

        Schools are trying to indoctrinate your kids [by accurately teaching history] (2020s)
        Your kids are going to start eating Tide Pods (2010s)
        Video games are causing children to become violent and aggressive (90s)
        Strangers are going to come up to your kid in a van with candy
        Rock n Roll is corrupting our youth (1950s)
        Lots of women and girls all around you are secretly witches (1690s)

        There's usually a real, small danger. But the panic is generated by the media. The main risk on social media is other kids. Who also interact with them in real life. Raising kids that will avoid the pitfalls does not necessarily even involve being directly aware of what your child is doing online.

        • > Have you been watching the 10:00 news?
          Actually, no. That might be part of the problem.

          > Schools are trying to indoctrinate your kids

          That's literally what schools actually are for. By definition. To indoctrinate how to function in the current society. As well as gaining knowledge.
          The countries I know have a picture of the current leader on the wall at final exams (I know mine did). AFAIK the US has parts where schools must have students recite the pledge of allegiance.
          We agreed that's a good thing.

        • Here's something you forgot [youtube.com]: children being corrupted by having a pool table in the town, horse races where the jockey sits right on the horse and shameless ragtime music.

      • I didn't want my parents to be a part of my life when I was a teenager because they were doing a shitty job, to the extent that they were even doing it. I can only guess what it's like when parents actually do that because the majority of my friends' parents were similarly worthless or worse. Birds of similar socioeconomic status flock together.

        If I was used to getting useful advice or help from my parents, I probably would have wanted to interact with them.

    • how about parents get their butt off the couch and BE A PARENT. Be a part of your children's lives. Set the boundaries you feel are appropriate. Teach you kids to respect your decisions. Demonstrate consequences if they disobey? Make them better people.

      The problem is, this damned judge just killed what could have proven to be a VERY valuable tool to help parents do JUST what you're promoting.

    • This ruling prevents parents from doing that. How stupid can you be?

    • One guess how I know your not a parent....
  • So, rather than teach your children what is safe and not safe, let's have the government make those decisions?
    These individuals think everyone that gets pregnant should have the kids, but the government needs to do the parenting, because they probably aren't qualified, and who wants the responsibility of actually raising a child, anyway?

    • That's what I said about changing the cigarettes' laws to 21 but I always get modded down.

      • >"That's what I said about changing the cigarettes' laws to 21 but I always get modded down."

        I am not sure that is relevant. The issue there is that we are granting "adulthood" onto 18-year-olds and then telling them that as full adult citizens they can own property, vote, sign contracts, marry, work full hours, be sued, be drafted, etc. But, they cannot smoke, or drink alcohol, or buy a handgun, or several other things. It is a major flaw in logic and consistency.

        Personally, I think that with our inc

  • > "Big Tech companies put our kids' lives at risk. They push an addictive product that is shown to increase depression, loneliness, and anxiety and puts our kids in human traffickers' crosshairs"

    I agree. But the side effects of such "age checking" laws, are the complete loss of anonymity and privacy of all adults or unnecessary/dangerous censorship. And that might be equally as bad.

    Ultimately, like most other aspects regarding children, the responsibility for protecting children from dangerous things i

  • What is it with these judges? (Score:3, Funny)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Friday September 01, 2023 @08:33AM (#63814565)

    The are blocking the transformation of the US into a totalitarian nanny-state! Don't they know that is the only acceptable future?

  • Being a parent is hard... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SlideWRX ( 660190 ) on Friday September 01, 2023 @08:36AM (#63814571)

    There is a lot of "just be a parent", but a lot of being a parent isn't monitoring everything your kid does. It isn't just a lightswitch event when they turn 18 where they are independent and can handle everything the world throws at them. Part of raising a child is letting them do things themselves and making mistakes and handling it themselves. Kids need to learn to think for themselves and learn to be independent. Parenting isn't just 'everything goes through me'. Balancing letting your child be more independent as they get older, trying to monitor things along the way, is harder than most on here think. Unless you want a perpetual man-child programmer in your basement.

  • It's not my job to raise your kids. Actually, as far as I'm concerned, you should not have any. You wanted them, now deal with them. If you didn't want them, you should not have voted in politicians that don't let you get rid of them.

    You wanted it, now deal with it, but leave me out of it! Don't brush your problem off onto me, I thought the GOP is the "rugged individualism" party, now be an individual and let me be one as well.

    Deal with your kids, one way or another, I don't even care if you have a postnata

  • A minor should not be allowed to enter into a binding contract that sells their personal information for a lifetime to another party without parental consent. In that sense, I agree that oversight is needed and the law makes sense in principal.

    However, in practice it is entirely unrealistic to implement this without some more reliable form of digital ID that one can test age against. If you expect that kids are not just going to lie about their age, you do not have your head on straight. And age verificatio

    • A minor should not be allowed to enter into a binding contract that sells their personal information for a lifetime to another party without parental consent.

      The US doesn't really have laws that protect people's personal information. If a company obtains it, it's their property.

      A user agreement often lines out how a business might limit THEMSELVES, usually to give a false sense of security to the user because they don't understand the implications anyway.

      • It doesn't, but it should. And these are minors who should not be allowed to enter into a binding contract in the first place. Which is why I support the law in principal but it's totally unworkable.

        • According to what I see from a brief Google search, minors can freely enter into contracts. But they can effectively void them at any time and so can their parents. My point is that in the above example a company is mostly binding themselves but it's really just for show.

  • Insofar as it is understood that the users of social media platforms are the product and source of revenue for the sites, and that some of the purveyors of the largest of these sites seem to defend and maybe even support and promote racist views, and are limiting the ability of users to block other users from sending them posts.

  • I'm old enough to remember when the consensus on /. was to mock people for thinking things were different, worse crimes or issues because a computer was involved.

    Back "IRL" the government has a ton of uncontroversial laws like making it a serious crime to sell vice to minors. This is not "big gubmint parenting" this is basic restrictions to keep businesses from actively harming minors.

    Restricting access to social media is absolutely in line with that. If a democratic majority of Arkansas wants to just base

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RedK ( 112790 )

      Slashdot today isn't Slashdot of yesteryear. There's a certain "crowd" now. It's all about exposing kids to harmful material so they ascribe to a certain ideology that requires kids to be exposed to said materials.

      Look at all the "Porn should be anonymous!" people. Guess why they want it anonymous when it has never been anonymous to get porn ever, not even on the Internet.

  • He's an Obama judge. That's all you need to know about this.

    It's a long-established tenet of law that minors do not have the same rights as adults.

    • ...so he wasn't picked by the Federalist society based on his ability to deliver whatever the GOP wants.

      • ...so he wasn't picked by the Federalist society based on his ability to deliver whatever the GOP wants.

        So would there be any difference for a judge picked by the DNC to deliver what they want then?

        • If you think you can still do the "both sides" nonsense after the past decade, you aren't paying attention. I know, Trump lied about the election, tried to cheat, tried to get other people to cheat, then whipped up useful idiots to attempt an insurrection. And Obama wore that tan suit, so really both parties have problems.

  • I think everyone should get approval before being allowed on social media.

  • Think of the CHILDREN? (clutches pearls) This isn't about preventing children from looking at porn; it's about preventing adults from looking at porn.

  • ... it's about preventing adults ...

    The law doesn't ban that so, no. It's about knowing which adults are looking at porn. A bit like knowing which europeans are Jewish.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?

Close