Florida bans children under 14 from holding social media accounts

[DragonSlayer101]

What just happened? In a move supporters claim is aimed at protecting kids from the dangers of unregulated internet use, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a bill that bans all children under the age of 14 from social media platforms. The new law also prohibits kids aged 14 and 15 from having a social media presence without the consent of their parents.

The law, which will go into effect on January 1, 2025, is expected to have far-reaching consequences for not only teens and their parents, but also social media companies that will have to delete the accounts of children under the age of 14. They will also have to seek parental consent for kids who are 14 or 15 years old. According to the provisions of the bill, the social media companies will need to use a third-party verification system to determine which users are underage before terminating their accounts for good.

In a statement, DeSantis said that the new law will help protect kids from the ills of social media and give parents "a greater ability to protect their children." He also expressed confidence that it will withstand legal scrutiny in case social media companies decide to sue the state for what some believe is an unconstitutional and unjustified ban. According to DeSantis, the ban will be upheld by the courts because it is "a fair application of the law and Constitution."

The action comes about a month after Florida's Republican-led legislature passed a bill that would have banned children under the age of 16 from social media entirely. DeSantis, however, vetoed that bill, saying that parents need to be given a say on whether their teenage children could use social media. Following the veto, the bill was amended to allow parents of 14- and 15-year-olds to give consent to having their kids on social media platforms.

Supporters of the new bill claim that it will prevent social media from harming young and impressionable youngsters who often develop anxiety, depression and other mental illnesses due to bullying and harassment they face online. Critics, however, believe that the bill violates the First Amendment protections for free speech and is a clear infringement by the government on parental rights.

Despite stiff opposition, several states are enacting similar laws, ostensibly to protect children from online dangers. In March 2023, Utah enacted legislation to regulate children's access to social media. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders also signed into law a similar bill last April, requiring parental consent for minors to create new social media accounts. However, a federal judge temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the law which was set to take effect in September. Other states that are also reportedly considering similar laws include Louisiana, Ohio and Texas.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/102399-florida-bans-children-under-14-holding-social-media.html

 

[winjer]

That moment when Florida does something reasonable, before everyone else...

 

[The Talking Tech]

I'm a deep blue Democrat and I despise Ron De Santos as much or more than many people, but I have to agree with his view on this matter.

Kids need to be kids again, social media is a very toxic environment for anyone, especially those under the age of 16.

 

[m4a4]

It's a nice sentiment, but I don't see this working very well. All that's needed is a kid-friendly, state-specific workaround and you're back to square one.

I don't think kids should be exposed to the toxicity that is social media (in general), but I also don't think this is the best way to do so. Especially if the parents are going to be ignorant about these issues...

 

[yRaz]

I have very mixed feelings about this. On one end of things, I know many kids who are completely addicted to social media. Atleast when I was a teenager I was addicted to videogames, but tiktok and Facebook addiction just seems silly.

On the other end of things, I don't like the idea of the government creating a system to identify people online for the purpose of controlling who can make accounts on what sites. Also, what defines social media? Is the techspot comments section social media? Does making a youtube account so you follow certain content creators count? I've never made a youtube video but I follow thousands of people so I can make it easier to find content I want to see.

But, again, I look at my friends son who all he wants to do is watch tiktok videos. He won't do his homework, he doesn't want to play videogames or go outside. He's 14 and all he does is watch tiktok on his phone.

So I won't argue that social media is harmful to the youth, but at what point does trying to control who is on social media violate EVERYONES rights? I can only imagine what this would mean for 4chan

 

[wiyosaya]

Interesting. Commander Sinclair in the Babylon 5 episode "Infection" said "When you become fanatical about the enemy, you become the enemy." So, has Florida become "Woke" by being "anti-Woke?"

And just what are the consequences if kids find a way around this - as they likely will? Ah, yes, don't tell me - just throw their parents in jail or subject them to hefty fines.

And what alternatives are offered? More outdoor activities for kids after school? I bet there are no alternatives offered.

Why not just make it illegal for a child to have a smart phone/computer/tablet/etc.?

I get it, screen addition, fueled, in part, by social media is a thing. But just making it illegal is unlikely to solve the problem and may only make the problem worse.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

As a society the US/West has let social media run amok and instead of building up strong guidelines and guard rails early to ensure both society and social media keep pace with each other we've essentially let big tech define the rules.

Now law makers are trying to put that genie back in the bottle (and not out of altruism but for points in the "culture war").

I broadly agree with Florida's sentiment here, and its generally better to do the right thing eventually than never do anything at all, but its gonna hurt cause we waited so long...

 

[Uncle Al]

Sounds great ..... now let's see them enforce it!

 

[brucek]

Even if the implementation will have plenty of holes, it's still good to set a community-wide standard for an issue like this where as soon as a few kids have it, everyone else in their school does too.

It might have made slightly more sense to time it so it applies to an entire class at once (I.e., September 1 of your freshman year or something like that.)

 

[human7]

I don't see how this survives a First Amendment challenge. If it does survive such a challenge, I don't see why a (hypothetical? TikTok?) law banning social media for adults would not be struck down. Age is a very poor and fragile excuse to ban forms of speech.

This article forgets to mention the requirement placed on social media companies to verify adults ages using government IDs. Similar to the age restrictions/ID verification requirement placed on porn websites (which this law also does) that appeals courts have split on, I don't see how it survives a First Amendment review by the Supreme Court.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I do love how we’ve taken all responsibility of children’s actions away from their parents and their “theoretical “ education system.

If you just educated children properly, social media would be no more of a problem than anything else.

Passing laws which you have almost ZERO way to enforce generally never ends well… prohibition anyone?

 

[kiwigraeme]

I do love how we’ve taken all responsibility of children’s actions away from their parents and their “theoretical “ education system.

If you just educated children properly, social media would be no more of a problem than anything else.

Passing laws which you have almost ZERO way to enforce generally never ends well… prohibition anyone?

Studies show parents influence are not as great as they like to think . Separated twins and all that
Ie genetics , environment does have a major decision how genes will get expressed . There but for the grace of god, there go I....

Even as a kid when folks had 3 to 6 children - or Deep south 12 or more . Was always curious in seeing a stable family , all kids "normal" bar one . ie "The Black Sheep" . What did the parents do wrong there?

Yes you can make a psychopath , unpredictable/stressful upbringing , random hate/affection etc abuse

But until society can sort out the imbalance in children between body/mind - then you will have problems ie it your body/hormones etc is working well , then your mind is likely to follow , they influence each other.
Plus people are on spectrums , not necessarily good or bad ,attachments to things , need for excitement etc

Plus it is a RITE of Passage for teens to take risks , or learn about themselves and boundaries . How high can they jump from ?

 

[Squid Surprise]

Studies show parents influence are not as great as they like to think . Separated twins and all that
Ie genetics , environment does have a major decision how genes will get expressed . There but for the grace of god, there go I....

Even as a kid when folks had 3 to 6 children - or Deep south 12 or more . Was always curious in seeing a stable family , all kids "normal" bar one . ie "The Black Sheep" . What did the parents do wrong there?

Yes you can make a psychopath , unpredictable/stressful upbringing , random hate/affection etc abuse

But until society can sort out the imbalance in children between body/mind - then you will have problems ie it your body/hormones etc is working well , then your mind is likely to follow , they influence each other.
Plus people are on spectrums , not necessarily good or bad ,attachments to things , need for excitement etc

Plus it is a RITE of Passage for teens to take risks , or learn about themselves and boundaries . How high can they jump from ?

Parental guidance is not the same as education… someone is far less likely to be ruined by addiction if they are knowledgeable about the “bad stuff” ahead of time.

Studies are almost impossible to “prove” any of this though - no 2 people are exactly the same genetically : even “identical” twins. There are plenty of cases where identical twins, receiving the same upbringing, have completely different careers and values…

 

[Soulburn74]

I'm not usually a fan of anything DeSantis, but this I can get behind 100%. I've been reading/hearing a ton of statistics that are stating that pre-teen/teen depression/suicide numbers have spiked through the roof since social media became relevant...... Keeping up with the Jones' is hard enough irl, but impossible when the "Jones'" you are comparing yourself to online are staged influencers faking 'the good life'........

 

[Squid Surprise]

I'm not usually a fan of anything DeSantis, but this I can get behind 100%. I've been reading/hearing a ton of statistics that are stating that pre-teen/teen depression/suicide numbers have spiked through the roof since social media became relevant...... Keeping up with the Jones' is hard enough irl, but impossible when the "Jones'" you are comparing yourself to online are staged influencers faking 'the good life'........

Easy to blame social media… but lots of stuff also happened around the turn of the century (most attribute the rise of social media to have begun around 1997)… can we blame all this on the movie Jurassic Park? Or the closing of Woolsworth?

The one thing that science CAN tell us is that human nature has remained the same for thousands of years. Blaming “new stuff” on the misunderstood behaviors of the “young folks” is also something that humans have been doing for millennia…

Instead of firing knee-jerk reactions to stuff they don’t really understand, perhaps devote some time/money into actually understanding your own children and cooperating with them to make their lives (and thus our own) better.

 

[texasrattler]

Easy to blame social media… but lots of stuff also happened around the turn of the century (most attribute the rise of social media to have begun around 1997)… can we blame all this on the movie Jurassic Park? Or the closing of Woolsworth?

The one thing that science CAN tell us is that human nature has remained the same for thousands of years. Blaming “new stuff” on the misunderstood behaviors of the “young folks” is also something that humans have been doing for millennia…

Instead of firing knee-jerk reactions to stuff they don’t really understand, perhaps devote some time/money into actually understanding your own children and cooperating with them to make their lives (and thus our own) better.

Jurassic Park was a movie

Woolworth closed

WTF has happened to this world.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Jurassic Park was a movie

Woolworth closed

WTF has happened to this world.

That would be my point…. LOTS of things have occurred at around the same time social media began… what evidence do we have that the “rottenness of society” is social media’s fault? Obviously I’m not blaming Jurassic Park…

 

[gamerk2]

I for one will be quite happy to have 14 year olds gone from here, since TS is really just a social network at this point anyways.

The major problems I see with this bill:
Free speech concerns
Likely runs afoul of the Interstate Commerce Clause
Doing the job parents should ultimately be responsible for
Impossible to actually implement/enforce
Define me what is a "social network"; definitions matter

EDIT

Note the *legal* concerns are separate from whether or not there's a benefit to the bill.

 

[Endymio]

The major problems I see with this bill:
Free speech concerns

Bans on minors accessing adult websites have withstood SCOTUS challenges before. The court requires restrictions on children's free speech to be "narrowly tailored" to meet a government concern. Keeping 12-year olds from content that research has shown causes depression and anxiety -- not to mention them from interaction with random adult strangers around the country -- seems a valid government concern.

Likely runs afoul of the Interstate Commerce Clause

Not hardly. Selling beer and tobacco to minors across state lines is commerce, and yet such bans are constitutional. Nor is it even clear that free social media accounts even constitute "commerce".

Doing the job parents should ultimately be responsible for

There are more than 15,000 federal, state, and local laws restricting what minors can or cannot do -- all of them ultimately what parents "should be responsible for", but aren't.

Define me what is a "social network"; definitions matter

The bill defines the term. Regardless of the irresponsible media reporting, not all social-media is banned -- just those sites which include "addictive" features like notification alerts, uploading of self-made videos, etc.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

I don't see how this survives a First Amendment challenge. If it does survive such a challenge, I don't see why a (hypothetical? TikTok?) law banning social media for adults would not be struck down. Age is a very poor and fragile excuse to ban forms of speech.

There is already clear precedent for children, and it is called COPPA. Honestly, that should just change to match the rules that Florida used. Just require parental permission from ages 13-15.

 

[jsant2418]

Especially if the parents are going to be ignorant about these issues...

That's the problem you can't solve at scale. Many people will either choose to remain ignorant on this front or can't be bothered with it. You can say they should be educated on this topic, pass down some punishment, good luck with that. Some parents are aware and taking action, but the majority whose children this has already effected probably need some intervention like this. Of course, I prefer parents take action and do their job but do you really think people in general are going to do the right thing suddenly without some incentive or consequence?

 

[Squid Surprise]

Some parents are aware and taking action, but the majority whose children this has already effected probably need some intervention like this. Of course, I prefer parents take action and do their job but do you really think people in general are going to do the right thing suddenly without some incentive or consequence?

Except this isn't an "intervention".... this is simply political grandstanding to make it look like the government cares about this issue...

As society progresses (we can debate whether it's regressing or progressing later), things change - and those people who are older often get left behind. Whether the changes are objectively "good" or "bad" is not really relevant: they're here to stay. I'm sure there were people in the 50s and 60s saying "kids shouldn't watch TV" - how'd that turn out?

Telling our youth "no social media for you" won't solve anything. We can't turn the clock back - social media is only going to get MORE pervasive, not less. We need to find ways to deal with the reality we have, not the reality we want.

 

[human7]

There is already clear precedent for children, and it is called COPPA. Honestly, that should just change to match the rules that Florida used. Just require parental permission from ages 13-15.

To my knowledge, COPPA doesn't ban speech or platforms of speech, though. It places additional privacy constraints on such platforms.

 

[Endymio]

Whether the changes are objectively "good" or "bad" is not really relevant: they're here to stay.

Tobacco and alcohol are here to stay. Should we allow 12 year olds to use those too?

FYI: until the modern era, children age 12 -- and younger -- regularly consumed both. We eventually realized what a bad idea that was.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Tobacco and alcohol are here to stay. Should we allow 12 year olds to use those too?

FYI: until the modern era, children age 12 -- and younger -- regularly consumed both. We eventually realized what a bad idea that was.

We have spent extensive amounts of resources educating people on the dangers of them alongside banning them from minors… it’s also much easier to enforce… did it work? Is our society better? I’ll leave that to future generations to judge.