Texas is pushing a bill to block under-18s from joining social media platforms

[midian182]

In a nutshell: Texas wants to emulate Florida by imposing a ban on minors signing up for social media accounts, but it would go even further: while Florida bars those under 14, the Texas proposal would raise the minimum sign-up age to 18.

House Bill 186, which was introduced in November, is currently making its way toward becoming a law in Texas. It has already passed the Texas House with bipartisan support, and it appears to be gaining plenty of approval from members of the Senate, paving the way for Governor Greg Abbott to sign it into law.

The bill would ban individuals under the age of 18 of from signing up for social media accounts. It would also require parental consent to download apps, and place warning labels about the dangers of social media. Any website that allows users to create content and share it will be considered a social media platform, so it seems that YouTube will fall under this designation. The bill doesn't apply to email, news, or gambling sites.

Rep. Jared Patterson, the bill's author, said its introduction would help address what is "the most harmful product our kids have legal access to in Texas."

The bill's requirement for warning labels to be placed on social media sites echoes then-US Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy's call last year for the platforms to carry similar health warning labels as cigarettes and alcohol.

While 10 states have various age-restriction and verification laws on social media use for minors, Florida is currently the only state that outright bans minors from signing up for them, though the age limit is 14. In 2024, Australia banned those under 16 from using social-media platforms, even with parental permission.

While the bill in its current form would target those aged under 18, Patterson said the age limit could be changed by the Senate.

Age verification and restriction laws often face pushback for violations of First Amendment rights. Several of these laws have been enjoined by courts, including in Arkansas, Ohio, and California.

There are also concerns about the privacy implications of these bills, which don't provide guidance on how the platforms must delete the information gathered for verification purposes.

Permalink to story:

Texas is pushing a bill to block under-18s from joining social media platforms

 

[NumberNine]

Looks like somebody fell behind on their government bribes.

 

[candle86]

Good, as for violates first amendment rights, you get your rights at 18 as an adult

 

[dangh]

Said its introduction would help address what is "the most harmful product our kids have legal access to in Texas."

I guess limiting access to a guns is next in the line?

 

[Xelions]

Good, as for violates first amendment rights, you get your rights at 18 as an adult

So minors have no rights?

I guess limiting access to a guns is next in the line?

Wait. Pa, what was that? Bang! Hey son did you learn a lesson? Bang! What was the wife doing? Bang! Guns in the U.S.a. allow people to settle minor disputes quickly and effectively - sarcasm intended!!

They're never changing gun laws - id*#ts live there! I'd amend the 2nd to include the right to use explosives so more people would disappear into the ether.

I've been pushing for the 34th amendment in the state of B.S. The right to whip my d*#k out in your face. The U.S.a. is a sinking sh#* hole. What can I say I'm not optimistic for that country at the moment.

The only question that remains is how many kids gotta die by the gun to get you folks to change gun laws?

 

[candle86]

So minors have no rights?

No why should they? Laws should exist to protect them, but until 18 their parents are responsible for their actions, can't have rights without responsibilities.

And because I'm sure someone will whine, its real easy to verify, work with something like ID.me that the IRS and government agencies already use, they have your information under very tight laws, and can verify you without passing on to the company any other information other than yes they are 18.

Said its introduction would help address what is "the most harmful product our kids have legal access to in Texas."

I guess limiting access to a guns is next in the line?

Gun's arn't a problem, I'm in Texas I owned my first gun at age 10, I was given a .22 rfile and taught how to handle it, maintain it, and be responsible with it. I was also told if I aim it at anyone or shoot any animals with it I don't intend to eat my father himself will beat me with it until the stock breaks. I had a great respect for it.

 

[lonetac]

Good, as for violates first amendment rights, you get your rights at 18 as an adult

I seem to miss that in the 1st amendment where it says "once you are 18"

 

[dangh]

Gun's arn't a problem, I'm in Texas I owned my first gun at age 10, I was given a .22 rfile and taught how to handle it, maintain it, and be responsible with it.

I sleep better knowing everyone in Texas is that responsible with the gun, so gun crimes doesn't even happens there (and seriously, your dad did a good job, but that is not that common).
There are kids using social media responsibly as well. But, as with a guns, the vocal minority doesn't. And that why there is a problem. The difference is, it is easier to prohibit than to educate. And there is no such lobby against limiting social media as for guns.

 

[candle86]

I sleep better knowing everyone in Texas is that responsible with the gun, so gun crimes doesn't even happens there (and seriously, your dad did a good job, but that is not that common).
There are kids using social media responsibly as well. But, as with a guns, the vocal minority doesn't. And that why there is a problem. The difference is, it is easier to prohibit than to educate. And there is no such lobby against limiting social media as for guns.

I lobby for gun education, I think gun safety classes and marksmanship should be readded to standard curriculum in schools, as for Social Media it plays into how easy it is to manipulate kids, it's been proven especially in teenagers to trigger the same pleasure centers in the brain as cocaine or beer and it is the leading cause of bullying and abuse. The solution is to block it like you do alcohol or Tobacco sales to minors.

 

[SRB]

I sleep better knowing everyone in Texas is that responsible with the gun, so gun crimes doesn't even happens there (and seriously, your dad did a good job, but that is not that common).
There are kids using social media responsibly as well. But, as with a guns, the vocal minority doesn't. And that why there is a problem. The difference is, it is easier to prohibit than to educate. And there is no such lobby against limiting social media as for guns.

As usual, confuse the issue and conflate different rights while implying things that are nowhere near correct. First, if your talking about gun responsibility vs social media, both are capable of creating lasting damage and being misused, but only one can be legally obtained before the age of 18 in Texas. Hint: it's not the gun. Second, you acknowledged, that the gentleman who learned to shoot was given proper instruction and oversight by his parent(s). How many parents think like you and believe that a gun is a bigger problem than social media and allow their kids to go online and unsupervised with no restrictions?

As for easier to prohibit than to educate, are you advocating for eliminating the current restrictions on guns? After all you want no limits on social media. While we're at it, there are dozens of laws on the books, starting with the age restrictions to be able to legally own a gun, not to mention background checks on purchases, restrictions on when and where you can have a gun, etc. But you feel a simple age restriction on something like social media, which is addictive as the day is long, is outrageous and a huge overreach.

If you're so against gun violence, rather that go after anyone who owns a gun, why not treat illegal guns like illegal drugs. Mandatory sentences for using one in a crime, no matter the crime. Mandatory sentences for illegal sales and purchase of guns, etc. Punish the criminals. Make sure that everyone that should not have a gun does not, and make sure they are only available through legal means.

It's easier just to say "bad guns" and good "social media" rather that actually try to solve either problem.

 

[toooooot]

I think the more we study the effects of social platforms on ah human brain, the more of us will accept that they are harmful.
You cannot replace food with cocaine. Social media is literally a cocaine for people who cannot spend their lives there instead of reality.

 

[candle86]

"this cestpool of Russian bots and AI porn that we created is too inappropriate for the kids we're trying to brainwash."

Ironic that they would try to block kids from getting on social media before trying to block them from shooting each other.

This era of republicans are the most morally bankrupt the party has even been, so far. I'm sure they're only going to get worse too.

If only we could just ban stupid people from the internet.

Question when did school shootings begin to rapidly increase from something shocking to something mundane? Because it happened once children got unrestricted access to the internet, cyber bullying is a real problem, online platforms used to simulate and discuss this stuff by older people is also interacted with by younger people and while Doom doesn't make a murderer, exposer to certain themes or normalization does desensitize. The solution is really to protect the kids by protecting them from a space they aren't old enough to interact with. The brain isn't fully developed until you're in your 20's, and kids in their teens are very easy to manipulate, influence or make feel persecuted, and what happens is that kid then acts out violently, the issue was never guns, the issue has always been a broken society that doesn't do enough to protect kids, to monitor kids, and to properly educate kids, if you want to stop school shootings stop kids from going online. Kids that have limits on online interactions and activity are higher achievers, more focused, and more confident than ones that have had unrestricted access. Let's stop making stupid excuses, its not the gun, its that Children which includes teens aren't mature or stable enough to handle the internet, let alone social media properly.

 

[Vanderlinde]

Sometimes when Instagram starts showing certain content I feel like it's they are opening the doors through hell. Like for real.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

No why should they? Laws should exist to protect them, but until 18 their parents are responsible for their actions, can't have rights without responsibilities.

And because I'm sure someone will whine, its real easy to verify, work with something like ID.me that the IRS and government agencies already use, they have your information under very tight laws, and can verify you without passing on to the company any other information other than yes they are 18.

You have no idea what a right is. A right is inborn, "god given", "inalienable". The idea that a government agency has to a) possess all your data then b) verify you have rights is soooooo far from the concept of inalienable rights as to be its antithesis.

Right to a fair trail? Liberty? Life?
'Naw they're minors.'
'Throw 'em jail, make 'em slaves, kill 'em who cares.' -SMH-

You really should read this: https://www.britannica.com/science/Dunning-Kruger-effect

 

[DanteSmith]

It should be blocked only for children under 13.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I guess its more big government parenting instead of, you know, parents parenting but on balance I think it's the right move.

I appreciate the general "only Nixon could go to China" vibe of the country right now. If liberals tried to do this, hissy fits everywhere, but so long as conservatives implement restrictive liberal policy everyone seems to be OK with it and I'll take that as a kind of win.

 

[candle86]

You have no idea what a right is. A right is inborn, "god given", "inalienable". The idea that a government agency has to a) possess all your data then b) verify you have rights is soooooo far from the concept of inalienable rights as to be its antithesis.

Right to a fair trail? Liberty? Life?
'Naw they're minors.'
'Throw 'em jail, make 'em slaves, kill 'em who cares.' -SMH-

You really should read this: https://www.britannica.com/science/Dunning-Kruger-effect

Freedom of speech is not inalienable, you don't even understand what you're talking about, and no they don't. I as a parent am responsible for their actions. If you think no rights should have restrictions, then I suggest you start stating that gun ownership shouldn't require a background check or ID go ahead. Some rights are restricted for specific reasons, someones pursuit of happiness might be murder, that might bring them joy, its still a crime and they don't have that right.