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

[F250 28,764]

4 hours ago, 52-80 said:

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

Eh, there has been a fairly recent effort at age verification in Europe over the last couple of years. It's still in process and what differentiates it from anything that comes up in the U.S. is the Europeans have strict privacy already built into their laws.

All of these proposals in the U.S. are shit because they skip the privacy requirement because the monetization of user data is a multi-billion dollar industry.

Anyone advocating for these laws before a U.S. GDPR like framework is put in place shouldn't be taken seriously.

[atomheartbevo 89,626]

14 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

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.

Edit: Keep in mind that we adults will apparently have to verify that we are adults as well, which means we have to provide photo ID to the social media companies or a third party for us to use those services.  Maybe @Brisketexan @TwiceHorn @Ghost of LL etc. can chime on how quickly this will be challenged or can it be challenged.

Being married to somebody who taught for  many years/is still in education, and being the parent of two young kids, I know social media is bad.  I've already seen it amongst my kids' friends, and having participated in various BBS and internet forums since the early 1990s, I've seen the worst of it, and have seen it evolve.  And that's before we get into being a college football fan and the shit-talking that is done between schools.

But all of the underlying motives about the age verification for social media and for porn access are not about protecting kids, they are about a small group of people who want to exert more control over society and believe that social media and porn should be banned, etc. and they don't deny it - it's right up front on their websites and in their press releases.

They can't ban it outright yet (or they would have), but they can try and make it as difficult to access as they legally can, and they can try and pick the low-hanging fruit - people who are not the most technically literate (although I have a feeling many Texans will soon learn what a VPN is).  They can also try to make it onerous enough that some companies completely exit various markets (this has happened with some porn sites just completely blocking certain smaller states). 

Texas is unique and their first really big test, because it's too big of a market to ignore for many companies to ignore.  A third of the state is under the age of 24 (and that range is growing). I'm still amazed that they were able to slide it in without it being noticed, but I suppose things like Paxton's impeachment, etc. redirected everybody's attention.

Ultimately, the end result of this will be one of these things:

1. Some people will refuse to provide their ID and they and/or their kids will just stop using those companies. This is the desired outcome of the groups behind this legislation, and by the way they are using the same template across the US where they can, that's why our legislation mirrors Louisiana's in some ways.
2. Many will use VPNs and/or some other means to bypass it (which is why these companies are trying to get this passed in as many states as possible).
3. Some will provide their ID and their kid's ID, which means their personal information is getting directly tied to social media accounts, for better or for worse. It's one thing when John Smith has his name on his Facebook account (and with facial recognition, a lot of people don't realize the situation they've put themselves in) but  it's another when the driver's license of John Smith, of 1313 Mockingbird Lane, Mockingbird Heights, Texas, is on file and tied to a specific account, and some kind of identification (birth certificate?) of his children, along with his DL are tied to his kids' accounts.  And then that information is hacked/leaked.  Or that information is collected by a company that feeds it into the various consumer databases that @bolverk and I mentioned.

[atomheartbevo 89,626]

8 minutes ago, F250 said:

Anyone advocating for these laws before a U.S. GDPR like framework is put in place shouldn't be taken seriously.

These laws have been happening rapidly - as far as I know, Louisiana was the first starting back in January of this year, because the groups behind this legislation are concerned that we will get a GDPR-like framework that will protect our data.

Right now, just reading the legislation, unless I missed it, there's nothing stopping our information from being sold off.

[Rimbo 25,911]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

Anyone advocating for these laws before a U.S. GDPR like framework is put in place shouldn't be taken seriously.

Might be a factor, since I live in California which does have one of those laws.

[Pig Bellmont 8,712]

58 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Maybe @Brisketexan @TwiceHorn @Ghost of LL etc. can chime on how quickly this will be challenged or can it be challenged.

I mean, I’m not one of these surlys but legislated restrictions on free speech need to pass strict scrutiny, which generally means the govt must have a compelling interest and the law is narrowly tailored to that interest. Just because minors aren’t adults doesn’t mean they’re not entitled to rights of speech (although that can be limited in school settings).
 

So yes, it can be challenged. Probably both by people under 18, as well as by adults who are prevented from accessing social media without providing ID. 

[atomheartbevo 89,626]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

I mean, I’m not one of these surlys but legislated restrictions on free speech need to pass strict scrutiny, which generally means the govt must have a compelling interest and the law is narrowly tailored to that interest. Just because minors aren’t adults doesn’t mean they’re not entitled to rights of speech (although that can be limited in school settings).
So yes, it can be challenged. Probably both by people under 18, as well as by adults who are prevented from accessing social media without providing ID. 

Sorry not to include you, I can never keep straight the 46% of Surly that's a lawyer.

Hopefully it will be challenged. The fact that they pushed this through the legislature and not tried to put it in front the public on a ballot speaks volumes, but again, the same groups are doing this in multiple states.

[TwiceHorn 31,438]

13 hours ago, immamac said:

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

Varies by business sector.  For Data Processing (just one sector), yes it's $40M.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-121/subpart-A/subject-group-ECFRf12a11421b08a31/section-121.201

[TwiceHorn 31,438]

12 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I mean, I’m not one of these surlys but legislated restrictions on free speech need to pass strict scrutiny, which generally means the govt must have a compelling interest and the law is narrowly tailored to that interest. Just because minors aren’t adults doesn’t mean they’re not entitled to rights of speech (although that can be limited in school settings).
 

So yes, it can be challenged. Probably both by people under 18, as well as by adults who are prevented from accessing social media without providing ID. 

I'm not sure this is a first amendment issue because it's not content-related, or only vaguely so.

Where it definitely may have a problem is Dormant Commerce Clause, the undue burden on interstate commerce. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C3-7-8/ALDE_00013314/

Edited July 6, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[F250 28,764]

26 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Might be a factor, since I live in California which does have one of those laws.

Nobody is sweating the CCPA like they do the GDPR. It's bite doesn't have any teeth and isn't even an after thought. Granted, California has always lead the nation in this area it has never been taken seriously because it's easy to bypass state regulations within this domain.

Doing this state by state is absurd, Americans are just not serious people. It's frustrating to watch as an insider. I've spent my entire career going the extra mile to protect European users while seeing American users be treated like a whore when the navy rolls into town.

All of this needs to be dealt with at the federal level.

[52-80 19,147]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Varies by business sector.  For Data Processing (just one sector), yes it's $40M.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-121/subpart-A/subject-group-ECFRf12a11421b08a31/section-121.201

Immamac, why you no $40M?

2 hours ago, F250 said:

Nobody is sweating the CCPA like they do the GDPR. It's frustrating to watch as an insider. I've spent my entire career going the extra mile to protect European users while seeing American users be treated like a whore when the navy rolls into town.

Wait…so you’re the guy behind GDPR cookies pop-up on every website? 🧐

[gyroprotagonist 2,592]

is the google VPN worth a damn?  it's free, but i wonder if they are doing anything or if its more like this

[52-80 19,147]

2 hours ago, gyroprotagonist said:

is the google VPN worth a damn?  it's free, but i wonder if they are doing anything or if its more like this

One time i got in a windscribe promotion of $40 for lifetime service. That was a few years ago. Even if they go out of business tomorrow i broke even a long time ago. 

[HonkeyVape 107]

Dumb question amnesty: Why not just use your VPN you are given by your employer? Is that bad and they are tracking you or something?

[MissingInAction 25,010]

I bet the guys at lemonparty are gonna be pissed.

[MissingInAction 25,010]

11 minutes ago, HonkeyVape said:

Dumb question amnesty: Why not just use your VPN you are given by your employer? Is that bad and they are tracking you or something?

Everything you do over a VPN is logged on the switch or server or router the VPN connects to.

Edited July 6, 2023 by MissingInAction

[atomheartbevo 89,626]

33 minutes ago, HonkeyVape said:

Dumb question amnesty: Why not just use your VPN you are given by your employer? Is that bad and they are tracking you or something?

22 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Everything you do over a VPN is logged on the switch or server or router the VPN connects to.

And with commercial VPNs, you are counting on them not to retain the data (and many advertise this as a selling point), but your employer is very much going to run at least some kind of automated scan to make sure you aren't looking at stuff you couldn't look at if you were sitting in the office plugged into the local intranet.

[MissingInAction 25,010]

Doing anything other than work on your employers equipment is a straight up Munson.

Edited July 6, 2023 by MissingInAction

[Evil Bill Obrien 3,259]

On 7/5/2023 at 1:20 PM, 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

Don't give Lt Dan "Bathroom Dan" Patrick any ideas for next Legislative Session...

[TexasGrunt 72]

20 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

And with commercial VPNs, you are counting on them not to retain the data (and many advertise this as a selling point), but your employer is very much going to run at least some kind of automated scan to make sure you aren't looking at stuff you couldn't look at if you were sitting in the office plugged into the local intranet.

Most companies use Proxies that block comercial VPN's, your work can and will track your internet usage using that proxy.

[MissingInAction 25,010]

I used to support iPhone at the enterprise level and you wouldn't believe the shit people would put on them. Essentially treated them like personal phones. Tik tok, Facebook, nekkid pics.

I'd send out a wipe command to all of them at least once a month.