September 1st, Texans, Do Your Kids Use Social Media? You'll Have to Verify Their Ages, Your Info

[atomheartbevo 90088]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/texas-will-require-parental-consent-for-kids-to-use-social-media/

Hot on the heels of the porn ID law that was passed last month, this was passed as well.

Quote

Teens will likely soon be losing online privileges in Texas, which this week became the third state to require parental consent for minors under 18 to access social media. Utah passed a similar law in March, and Louisiana followed suit this month.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed HB 18 into law on Wednesday. It takes effect on September 1, after which platforms will be required to verify the ages of all minors, secure parental consent to register the minor as a user, or risk legal action from the state attorney general or private actions from parents who report violations.

Quote

The broad law comes with heavy burdens for online platforms. It requires basically any digital services provider that collects an email at sign-up to conduct age verification to identify all minors, verify parents or guardians connected to all minors identified, and secure parental consent for a wide range of account activity.

Yes, because I trust all of these companies to thoroughly protect the identification I would have to provide for myself and my kids to use their services.

Edited July 4, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[demos 3019]

Just throw their phone or ipad away and make them go play outside.

[Js1 85790]

[NeverMarryAStripper 22033]

I would much rather have a law requiring a proof of at least average IQ to run for state office

[Newdoc 3465]

I would much rather social media along with a lot of our state politicians just slide into the Gulf of Mexico. 

[YGIFS 19453]

Do the superhero guy sweating over the two buttons.  ‘Texas youth turns 18’.  Get VPN or AR-15.  

[Rimbo 26460]

honestly, I have no problem with this law

[52-80 19281]

12 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/texas-will-require-parental-consent-for-kids-to-use-social-media/

Yes, because I trust all of these companies to thoroughly protect the identification I would have to provide for myself and my kids to use their services.

Modern, unified national ID verification system, lets go!  (It works stupendously well in some nations). 

3 hours ago, Rimbo said:

honestly, I have no problem with this law

Given how much people here love to hate on social media, you figure they'd love this disincentive for kids to stay off (no matter the means)

[Deej 77212]

 

[KYHorn 17288]

6 hours ago, Rimbo said:

honestly, I have no problem with this law

This. There may be a better way to do the age verification that helps protect privacy (I don't know what that would be), but the data have stacked up against the current norm of unregulated ubiquitous adolescent social media use.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13554]

Laws that like this don't impact facebook or snap. Those companies can implement tech or services to knock this out in a minute. The problem is for sites like Surly. Claim you're 15 or 60, and Surly has to prove you are that age. This isn't age gating or giving parental rights, this is requiring all of us to always prove who we are online.

[Slacks 6921]

6 hours ago, Rimbo said:

honestly, I have no problem with this law

You should. 

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Laws that like this don't impact facebook or snap. Those companies can implement tech or services to knock this out in a minute. The problem is for sites like Surly. Claim you're 15 or 60, and Surly has to prove you are that age. This isn't age gating or giving parental rights, this is requiring all of us to always prove who we are online.

Yep. Suspicious af. 

[52-80 19281]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Laws that like this don't impact facebook or snap. Those companies can implement tech or services to knock this out in a minute. The problem is for sites like Surly. Claim you're 15 or 60, and Surly has to prove you are that age. This isn't age gating or giving parental rights, this is requiring all of us to always prove who we are online.

1. not allowing adults to claim they're teenagers is a good thing (if so implemented)

2. proof of person != proof of public online identity.  e.g. proof required to establish account with service provider, while account can be represented with avatar

[immamac 43579]

I'm confused about this. Kids aren't allowed on surly so the majority of this is moot, but does that mean the burden of proof to prove people aren't kids when they sign up is on surly? 

That is going to be very annoying but doable. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13554]

5 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

1. not allowing adults to claim they're teenagers is a good thing (if so implemented)

2. proof of person != proof of public online identity.  e.g. proof required to establish account with service provider, while account can be represented with avatar

I'm not talking about criminal behavior but when people are legitimately trying to create a social media account. Why do so many always jump to this miniscule aspect?

Adults won't be claiming to be teenagers but in reality the other way around. The validation can't just occur when someone claims to be 15. . If someone claims to 30, facebook will also have to verify to ensure that they're not 15.  Otherwise every child can bypass the age verification with a simple selection of birth year of 1993. Meaning EVERYONE has to confirm who they are with the state ID database. Or the parents (or other adult)  in the case of minors.

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13554]

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm confused about this. Kids aren't allowed on surly so the majority of this is moot, but does that mean the burden of proof to prove people aren't kids when they sign up is on surly? 

That is going to be very annoying but doable. 

If a child claims they're 30 but you didn't check up on that, you're liable. The law may not address this aspect but it's the logical conclusion.

[52-80 19281]

20 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Laws that like this don't impact facebook or snap. Those companies can implement tech or services to knock this out in a minute. The problem is for sites like Surly. Claim you're 15 or 60, and Surly has to prove you are that age.

Which of these apply to Surly or sites like Surly though.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/analysis/pdf/HB00018S.pdf#navpanes=0

 

i mean, i guess we have funny animated gifs though.

[Captainant 27988]

Just now, 52-80 said:

Which of these apply to Surly or sites like Surly though.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/analysis/pdf/HB00018S.pdf#navpanes=0

 

i mean, i guess we have funny animated gifs though.

the law is so incredibly vague that it can be used/weaponized against almost any site or platform.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13554]

(not a lawyer but doesn't this describe surly?)

Sec. 509.002. APPLICABILITY. (a) Provides that this chapter, except to the extent that Section 509.057 applies to any digital service provider, applies only to a digital service provider who provides a digital service that:

(1) has a primary function of connecting users in a manner that allows users to socially interact with other users on the digital service;

(2) allows a user to create a public or semi-public profile for purposes of signing into and using the digital service; and (

3) allows a user to create or post content that can be viewed by other users of the digital service, including sharing content on: (A) a message board; (B) a chat room; or (C) a landing page or main feed that presents to a user content created and posted by other users

[52-80 19281]

4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I'm not talking about criminal behavior but when people are legitimately trying to create a social media account. Why do so many always jump to this miniscule aspect?

Adults won't be claiming to be teenagers but in reality the other way around. The validation can't just occur when someone claims to be 15. . If someone claims to 30, facebook will also have to verify to ensure that they're not 15.  Otherwise every child can bypass the age verification with a simple selection of birth year of 1993. Meaning EVERYONE has to confirm who they are with the state ID database. Or the parents (or other adult)  in the case of minors.

 

Where do you see that in the bill?

You can register for surlyhorns.com, claim to be 55, call yourself "Armybrat", and post about rye whiskey and texas history.  Where's the burden or risk to immamac?  (besides the fact that Surly would not be a subject of the bill anyway).

Bill pertains to websites hosting accounts of "known minors"

Quote

"Known minor" means a minor under circumstances where a digital service provider has actual knowledge of, or wilfully disregards, a minor’s age

 

[52-80 19281]

there's an exemption for small businesses as defined by the SBA, so if immamac doesn't clear $40M/yr from the site he's hunky dory

[immamac 43579]

Yeah surly isn't catering to minors. Has never catered to minors, is an adult website, in the term and conditions it's 18+ and in privacy policy. I don't think we could be confuse for a site catering to minors. 

This is likely not going to impact us either way, but if I do need to do age verifications I would need to figure out how to do that while not having people feel like they are self doxxing. 

If you do commerce business with surly we require your PII, but that's for pretty obvious reasons, but even that if you wanted to be truly anonymous could be worked around today. 

I guess limiting the people who have access to that information to only me and @blacklab is enough for most people. We are both proven trustworthy beyond just message boards, including fortune 500 and government agencies. 

[immamac 43579]

Just now, 52-80 said:

there's an exemption for small businesses as defined by the SBA, so if immamac doesn't clear $40M/yr from the site he's hunky dory

Small businesses are now defined as 40M/year? Jesus fuck. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13554]

30 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Where do you see that in the bill?

You can register for surlyhorns.com, claim to be 55, call yourself "Armybrat", and post about rye whiskey and texas history.  Where's the burden or risk to immamac?  (besides the fact that Surly would not be a subject of the bill anyway).

Bill pertains to websites hosting accounts of "known minors"

 

Minors only need to claim they're 55 to bypass this law? Minors will never be able to figure this one out.

Confirms my suspicions about morons being in the state legislature. 

[Brisketexan 105618]

50 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm confused about this. Kids aren't allowed on surly so the majority of this is moot, but does that mean the burden of proof to prove people aren't kids when they sign up is on surly? 

If "maturity level of posters, as indicated by the content of their posts" is an indicator of age.....Surly is in heap big trouble.

31 minutes ago, immamac said:

Small businesses are now defined as 40M/year? Jesus fuck. 

They were gonna define it as "tree fiddy," but the crack team of Surly lobbyists got it upped to 40M.

[52-80 19281]

8 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Minors only need to claim they're 55 to bypass this law? Minors will never be able to figure this one out.

Is utter and absolute enforceability the target of this or any other law?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13554]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

Is utter and absolute enforceability the target of this or any other law?

This law? Yes.

And they're putting the ownership of the enforceability on the platforms not law enforcement or the person misrepresenting themselves. 

[52-80 19281]

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

This law? Yes.

And they're putting the ownership of the enforceability on the platforms not law enforcement or the person misrepresenting themselves. 

That's correct.  Would you they rather they assign law enforcement specifically to crack down on websites for merely admitting kids, or prescribe punitive measures on kids themselves for going on sites?

It being law is suffice to induce sufficient compliance (if ineffective, why the fuss?).  That speed limits do do deter all drivers from speeding at all times, does not make speed limits a bad idea ipso facto.

[HonkeyVape 107]

Can't websites just do what beer websites have done since the late 90's and just have the user put in a birthday or a click box self-describing themselves as 21+"?

[Dbeasy 15239]

2 hours ago, immamac said:

Yeah surly isn't catering to minors. 

What about catering to adults with the maturity of minors? Guilty!

[Rimbo 26460]

3 hours ago, Slacks said:

You should. 

Good heavens, why should I?

As others have pointed out, social media use among teenagers has led to epidemic levels of clinical depression and am increase in the suicide rate. Regulating children's behavior, e.g. preventing them from being able to go to bars, strip clubs, etc, is already a well-established legal norm. So you've got the facts on the side of this law, and you've got legal precedent.

Oh no, it might temporarily inconvenience message board hosts and users oh no!

This doesn't apply to me since I'm in California, but I'd support it in a heartbeat if it made it here.

[immamac 43579]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

Good heavens, why should I?

As others have pointed out, social media use among teenagers has led to epidemic levels of clinical depression and am increase in the suicide rate. Regulating children's behavior, e.g. preventing them from being able to go to bars, strip clubs, etc, is already a well-established legal norm. So you've got the facts on the side of this law, and you've got legal precedent.

Oh no, it might temporarily inconvenience message board hosts and users oh no!

This doesn't apply to me since I'm in California, but I'd support it in a heartbeat if it made it here.

This is where I'm at. I can do it and it's less good than now but not really going to change surly  

[atomheartbevo 90088]

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

the law is so incredibly vague that it can be used/weaponized against almost any site or platform.

4 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Is utter and absolute enforceability the target of this or any other law?

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

This law? Yes.

And they're putting the ownership of the enforceability on the platforms not law enforcement or the person misrepresenting themselves. 

1 hour ago, HonkeyVape said:

Can't websites just do what beer websites have done since the late 90's and just have the user put in a birthday or a click box self-describing themselves as 21+"?

No, they can't do the "put in  your birthday and click on this box" thing.  This law, along with the new porn law, they are being promoted by a group (https://americanprinciplesproject.org/legislation/gov-abbott-signs-law-protecting-texas-kids-online-porn/) who is very clearly trying to wage war on porn, social media, etc. sites, etc. Now, there could be some VPNs pushing money into that project, but it doesn't feel like it - it feels like it's one of those bullshit morality groups.

The fact that a lot of us did not realize until just this week that it was signed a few weeks ago meant that, well it means a lot of shit was going on and we were distracted, but the people who pushed this legislature through weren't publicly doing victory laps and rubbing it in everybody's faces.

This is more for the porn thread, but requiring government-issued ID and collecting that data is the whole purpose - yes, websites can setup their own verification system (I think at one point the Louisiana law that the Texas law is modeled after allows you to video chat with somebody at the website while holding up your ID), but they are pushing 3rd-party systems as well that are scooping this data up and can then verify you across numerous sites, and there's no way in hell they are going to do nothing with that data, not to mention they are just aching to be hacked.  Even if the state doesn't have a list of websites you technically visit (yet), the makings for it are there.

[Pig Bellmont 8769]

Why does the state legislature feel the need to substitute its judgment for that of parents? Next they are going to put cameras in all the bathrooms to perform genital checks

[Rimbo 26460]

24 minutes ago, immamac said:

This is where I'm at. I can do it and it's less good than now but not really going to change surly  

There are probably even reasonably priced id verification services... and will be more. Good time to get into that business.

 

13 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Why does the state legislature feel the need to substitute its judgment for that of parents? Next they are going to put cameras in all the bathrooms to perform genital checks

Because parents are, by and large, unaware of the dangers they're exposing their children to.

Social media didn't exist when they were children, and has only just recently been around long enough for legit research into their effects to be published.

Basically, if you're giving your kid a phone before 8th grade, or allowing them on social media at any time before age 18, it's the moral equivalent of giving them free access to cocaine and booze. In fact, those might be less bad for them.

It's just like making seat belts required, or mandating airbags in all new vehicles. There's a lot of people who won't use them if you don't legislate it, simply because they don't know how bad it is for them.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Rimbo

[immamac 43579]

3 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

There are probably even reasonably priced id verification services... and will be more. Good time to get into that business.

 

Because parents are, by and large, unaware of the dangers they're exposing their children to.

Social media didn't exist when they were children, and has only just recently been around long enough for legit research into their effects to be published.

Basically, if you're giving your kid a phone before 8th grade, or allowing them on social media at any time before age 18, it's the moral equivalent of giving them free access to cocaine and booze. In fact, those might be less bad for them.

It's just like making seat belts required, or mandating airbags in all new vehicles. There's a lot of people who won't use them if you don't legislate it, simply because they don't know how bad it is for them.

The verification service thing to me seems really sketch though. It basically takes anonymity away from the internet which is a huge part of what isn't broken a lot of places. 

The porn thing is bonkers you may as well sign up for an account if they are gonna have your ID. I don't understand that thinking. 

[Pig Bellmont 8769]

5 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

It's just like making seat belts required, or mandating airbags in all new vehicles. There's a lot of people who won't use them if you don't legislate it, simply because they don't know how bad it is for them.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree here. The number of deaths prevented by seatbelts and airbags is not equivalent to mandating age verification for use of social media. It’s more like the government wanting to determine the age of all my family when I download movies to make sure I’m not showing something R rated to someone younger than 17.  

9 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

It's just like making seat belts required, or mandating airbags in all new vehicles. There's a lot of people who won't use them if you don't legislate it, simply because they don't know how bad it is for them.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree here. The number of deaths prevented by seatbelts and airbags is not equivalent to mandating age verification for use of social media. It’s more like the government wanting to determine the age of all my family when I download movies to make sure I’m not showing something R rated to someone younger than 17.  

[Rimbo 26460]

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

The verification service thing to me seems really sketch though. It basically takes anonymity away from the internet which is a huge part of what isn't broken a lot of places. 

The porn thing is bonkers you may as well sign up for an account if they are gonna have your ID. I don't understand that thinking. 

 

I used to be a proponent of the pro-anonymous cause. The last decade or so has shown that anonymity stopped being a good idea around the time of the Eternal September. It's not a bad idea, either; it depends on how you use it.

As for using a service, I mean ... I work in healthcare now. We have partners and vendors dealing with extremely sensitive data. And if you choose your vendors poorly, bad things happen... some file sharing service got hacked recently and tons of sensitive healthcare data got exposed.

But building your own means having to build to a very high standard, which is incredibly expensive.

So you check their compliance status, sign a BAA and hope for the best.

[Rimbo 26460]

4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

The number of deaths prevented by seatbelts and airbags is not equivalent to mandating age verification for use of social media.

And in one sentence, you've proven my point: Most parents (and adults in general) are completely unaware of the risks.

[atomheartbevo 90088]

58 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I used to be a proponent of the pro-anonymous cause. The last decade or so has shown that anonymity stopped being a good idea around the time of the Eternal September. It's not a bad idea, either; it depends on how you use it.

Ultimately it's not about how we use it, it's how it would be used against us (the knowledge of who we are and what we do and say online). There's already an extensive amount of information known about most Americans - loyalty programs at grocery stores such as Kroger or Randalls aren't there to actually reward customer loyalty for coming back - they exist to collect data on what specific customers are buying, when they are buying it, etc. and are used to entice them to buy more (hence targeted coupons when checking out, mailers that are tailored towards specific geographic areas, etc.).  And some/all of this goes into several large commercial databases (maybe Kroger or Amazon don't share all of their customer's shopping habits, but plenty of other companies do and you can bet Kroger and Amazon pay for access to those databases), along with magazine subscriptions, organization memberships, restaurant data, etc., etc., etc., 

In the case of social media, many people do use their real names, even if their profiles are set to private, and it's also fed into those massive commercial databases (and property tax records and many other things end up in those databases).

Part of the problem is that this is tying kids from a young age into that whole system, because I can almost guarantee that the companies doing this "age verification" stuff will be feeding data into the massive commercial databases.

58 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

As for using a service, I mean ... I work in healthcare now. We have partners and vendors dealing with extremely sensitive data. And if you choose your vendors poorly, bad things happen... some file sharing service got hacked recently and tons of sensitive healthcare data got exposed.

The companies (or state) doing the age verification stuff, but especially the private companies, there's no way they'll have the highest of standards - hell, like I said, they'll probably be selling the access information to the massive commercial databases.

We should be following the European model of GDPR and strengthening our online privacy, not making it worse.  Plus, those services will be extremely valuable targets for various hacking groups (which ties into what you mention).

[Brisketexan 105618]

14 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Ultimately it's not about how we use it, it's how it would be used against us (the knowledge of who we are and what we do and say online). There's already an extensive amount of information known about most Americans - loyalty programs at grocery stores such as Kroger or Randalls aren't there to actually reward customer loyalty for coming back - they exist to collect data on what specific customers are buying, when they are buying it, etc. and are used to entice them to buy more (hence targeted coupons when checking out, mailers that are tailored towards specific geographic areas, etc.).  And some/all of this goes into several large commercial databases (maybe Kroger or Amazon don't share all of their customer's shopping habits, but plenty of other companies do and you can bet Kroger and Amazon pay for access to those databases), along with magazine subscriptions, organization memberships, restaurant data, etc., etc., etc., 

In the case of social media, many people do use their real names, even if their profiles are set to private, and it's also fed into those massive commercial databases (and property tax records and many other things end up in those databases).

Part of the problem is that this is tying kids from a young age into that whole system, because I can almost guarantee that the companies doing this "age verification" stuff will be feeding data into the massive commercial databases.

The companies (or state) doing the age verification stuff, but especially the private companies, there's no way they'll have the highest of standards - hell, like I said, they'll probably be selling the access information to the massive commercial databases.

We should be following the European model of GDPR and strengthening our online privacy, not making it worse.  Plus, those services will be extremely valuable targets for various hacking groups (which ties into what you mention).

All I know is that I finally have a reason to go on the darkweb and buy one of those "identities for sale" that we all hear so much about.  Bad news for you, Earl Stubblefield of Neenah, Wisconsin.  According to official records of, umm, certain sites, you now have a predilection for MILF porn.  And occasional forays into midget stuff, because it's kinda interesting.

[bolverk 29833]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Ultimately it's not about how we use it, it's how it would be used against us (the knowledge of who we are and what we do and say online). There's already an extensive amount of information known about most Americans - loyalty programs at grocery stores such as Kroger or Randalls aren't there to actually reward customer loyalty for coming back - they exist to collect data on what specific customers are buying, when they are buying it, etc. and are used to entice them to buy more (hence targeted coupons when checking out, mailers that are tailored towards specific geographic areas, etc.).  And some/all of this goes into several large commercial databases (maybe Kroger or Amazon don't share all of their customer's shopping habits, but plenty of other companies do and you can bet Kroger and Amazon pay for access to those databases), along with magazine subscriptions, organization memberships, restaurant data, etc., etc., etc., 

In the case of social media, many people do use their real names, even if their profiles are set to private, and it's also fed into those massive commercial databases (and property tax records and many other things end up in those databases).

Part of the problem is that this is tying kids from a young age into that whole system, because I can almost guarantee that the companies doing this "age verification" stuff will be feeding data into the massive commercial databases.

The companies (or state) doing the age verification stuff, but especially the private companies, there's no way they'll have the highest of standards - hell, like I said, they'll probably be selling the access information to the massive commercial databases.

We should be following the European model of GDPR and strengthening our online privacy, not making it worse.  Plus, those services will be extremely valuable targets for various hacking groups (which ties into what you mention).

Yup. In a previous job, I did a lot of work looking at market demand for specific geographies by looking at a variety of demographic data. Among them was a tool accessed through ArcGIS that offered really detailed profiles for various population groups in the aggregate at the state, county, city, and ZIP code levels. To be able to do this, they purchased a shit ton of data on individual buying patterns from credit card companies, retailers, and whomever else knows shit about us.

This is by no means the most you can get out of it, but this is a broad profile of a population group (tapestry segment) just to serve as an example:  https://downloads.esri.com/esri_content_doc/dbl/us/tapestry/segment10.pdf

Using all of this data, they've pretty much pigeonholed all US households into fairly specific profiles that they then sell subscriptions to for advertisers, retailers, political campaigns, and other researchers. It's interesting shit but creepy as hell, especially when you dig in deeper.

Edited July 5, 2023 by bolverk

[52-80 19281]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

We should be following the European model of GDPR and strengthening our online privacy, not making it worse.  Plus, those services will be extremely valuable targets for various hacking groups (which ties into what you mention).

Europe has robust online identity verification systems. America is behind on that front. 

[Celery Man 21028]

So who do I send a picture of my diploma to get an age tag?

Edited July 5, 2023 by Celery Man

[tx 3 putt 77952]

What a crock of shit 

[Deej 77212]

2 hours ago, Celery Man said:

So who do I send a picture of my diploma to get an age tag?

Age tag?

PM Armybrat 

[Rimbo 26460]

So anyway.

One of the perks of my current job is I can ask a question about children's mental health and get a really fuckin' good answer. So I did. Leaving out, of course, the minor detail that it's to win an internet argument.

So anyways, here's the Surgeon General's Advisory on Social Media and Youth Mental Health. It's incredibly fair, going into:

1. How social media has been good for kids
2. How social media has been bad for kids (lots of this)
3. What we do know
4. What we need to do more research on (don't know)

At the end, the report has a page of recommendations each for

1. Policymakers
2. Tech companies
3. Parents/Caregivers
4. Children/Adolescents
5. Researchers

And there it is, right there:

Quote

Pursue policies that further limit access—in
ways that minimize the risk of harm—to social
media for all children, including strengthening
and enforcing age minimums.

Now, tech companies likely have zero interest in pursuing any of the recommendations made here. Which is why policymakers need to really step it up.

 

[Deej 77212]

I just wish they'd ban all those kids from XBox Live. Maybe I'd win a CoD match every so often. 

[atomheartbevo 90088]

1 minute ago, Deej said:

I just wish they'd ban all those kids from XBox Live. Maybe I'd win a CoD match every so often. 

And you'd stop getting called f------ and other such words on the live chat.

[Deej 77212]

Then I'd have to move to TexAgs.