The Nanny State is alive in well in Florida.
Since Ron DeSantis became governor and the Republicans have super majorities in the Legislature, we have protected our children from history, such as the truth of slavery and discrimination, and from learning about such things as tolerating and even accepting people who are different from us, such as gays and lesbians, Moslems and Hindus. They are protecting white straight kids on the grounds that learning such things might make them feel bad about themselves and their country.
Personally, I don’t see how learning about the past and even current problems and our country’s history would make anyone feel bad about him or herself. And you can’t fix something if you don’t know it’s broken.
Now, the Legislature is moving, on a bi-partisan basis, to require social media companies to limit access by children under 16. That move is justified as being vital to protect children from online predators.
Opponents attack it as a violation of the First Amendment and parental rights to control what their children can do online.
I find it fascinating that the conservatives are advocating for government control in a way they have condemned liberals for doing.
While I find the debate interesting, there is one point that I can’t get my head around: How do you do it?
I mean, how does an online social media company get proof that a person online is under 16?
A subscriber can be required to reveal their birthdate. The only problem with that is how do determine if a child is lying? Of course, every parent knows children never lie, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume one does. Require a person send a driver license? The problem with that is that it reveals not only the person’s age but address, or a way to find the address. Not a good look if you are trying to protect children.
You could require parents to affirm the child is 16 or older. But you have the same problem as before: Either the child lies or personal information about the family is revealed.
I can’t see the revelation of personal information going over very well with many people.
Perhaps it can be done by requiring a child to piggy-back on the parent’s account. That assumes the parent is actually the parent. Requiring the use of a credit card may work, unless, of course, a resourceful kid borrows a parent’s card for that one-time use.
Perhaps, the best solution is to leave the problem where it belongs: With the parents.
Comments