Arkansas House wants you to show ID to use social media(arktimes.com)
arktimes.com
Arkansas House wants you to show ID to use social media
https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2023/04/05/arkansas-house-wants-you-to-show-id-to-use-social-media
67 comments
Nope, you are not paranoid, that’s exactly what will happen, since the patriot act, both “Terrorism” and “not the children” are the main excuses to undermine and attack privacy online, soon you won’t be able to use any online services without attaching your ID, but that’s only temporary until they make the digital ID -in Canada there’s already a bill about it (1)-, hence the push for it especially after covid digital passports and how they can be used to attack such privacy (2), and making the process of violating this anonymity easier, but the worst part in my opinion isn’t just the online side, but the offline one, as soon as such digital ID is implemented, the gap between the online usage and offline one will vanish, your bank account and taxes are linked to what you post online for example, and just a single query on your name and all what you do online and offline is on screen.
(1) https://citizenlab.ca/2021/04/bill-c-11-explained/
(2) https://www.biometricupdate.com/202206/canada-us-officials-s...
(1) https://citizenlab.ca/2021/04/bill-c-11-explained/
(2) https://www.biometricupdate.com/202206/canada-us-officials-s...
> lets start with banning phones at school
Too many parents hate such bans—or even just heavier restrictions—a whole bunch.
Otherwise, districts would already do this. Most of the educators would really, really rather phones were banned or their use heavily restricted, and those restrictions enforced. It's a fucking mess in schools right now, as far as phone use goes. Distractions, cheating, kids taking creep-shots of their peers (or of teachers....) or using photos or videos captured in what should be a safe environment to magnify the effects and scope of bullying (think: the difference between accidentally wearing a stained shirt to school one day and getting laughed at, and the same thing happening but also you become a "meme" image shared around the rest of your school career, as the Stained Shirt Kid—now consider all the things that might apply to beyond a stained shirt, and let that sense of dawning horror sink in).
Parents are the ones preventing bans—things aren't the way they are because schools want it to be that way.
Too many parents hate such bans—or even just heavier restrictions—a whole bunch.
Otherwise, districts would already do this. Most of the educators would really, really rather phones were banned or their use heavily restricted, and those restrictions enforced. It's a fucking mess in schools right now, as far as phone use goes. Distractions, cheating, kids taking creep-shots of their peers (or of teachers....) or using photos or videos captured in what should be a safe environment to magnify the effects and scope of bullying (think: the difference between accidentally wearing a stained shirt to school one day and getting laughed at, and the same thing happening but also you become a "meme" image shared around the rest of your school career, as the Stained Shirt Kid—now consider all the things that might apply to beyond a stained shirt, and let that sense of dawning horror sink in).
Parents are the ones preventing bans—things aren't the way they are because schools want it to be that way.
>I am shocked that so many people in this thread are okay with this. This is a terrifying bill. This will create the stage for it to be acceptable for companies to ask for ID to create an account.
I mean, between the solid decade of right-wing propaganda against social media and HN's general cynical contempt for modernity it shouldn't be surprising. Plenty of people here would gleefully welcome any degree of authoritarianism so long as it hurts social media.
Of course if it's any platform trying to stop child porn or racism or violence against gay and trans people, Hacker News always stands united in the name of absolute freedom, regardless of the consequences. But social media? Burn it all down and salt the earth.
I mean, between the solid decade of right-wing propaganda against social media and HN's general cynical contempt for modernity it shouldn't be surprising. Plenty of people here would gleefully welcome any degree of authoritarianism so long as it hurts social media.
Of course if it's any platform trying to stop child porn or racism or violence against gay and trans people, Hacker News always stands united in the name of absolute freedom, regardless of the consequences. But social media? Burn it all down and salt the earth.
and we thought ad tracking was bad now.
This is a real ID system for everybody. Because how these companies such as Meta have trackers in most commercial web pages, it will mean more definite attribution of site visitors.
The silver lining is this could encourage more people to use the fediverse which has no ID requirement other than an email address and no tracking.
The silver lining is this could encourage more people to use the fediverse which has no ID requirement other than an email address and no tracking.
> encourage more people to use the fediverse
If this passes, they'll expand it to internet access in general.
If this passes, they'll expand it to internet access in general.
That would be nearly impossible to implement and enforce with many thousands of instances.
> with many thousands of instances
They're not claiming that governments will tell everyone running a Mastodon instance to check ID, but instead that they'll tell every ISP to check ID. In such a world, your cable modem may not work if your ISP doesn't know who you are.
They're not claiming that governments will tell everyone running a Mastodon instance to check ID, but instead that they'll tell every ISP to check ID. In such a world, your cable modem may not work if your ISP doesn't know who you are.
They won't have to enforce it on thousands. Just make an example of a few poor saps within the country and most will shut down. And the US loves to make examples out of people. Just look at how people were charged and given hysterically ridiculous sentences in the war on drugs.
Since it is controlled by the GOP, I wonder if this is a way to find out who does not "support" the party or start a Social Score like the CCP did a few years ago.
More and more it seems that party is loosing its original outlook.
More and more it seems that party is loosing its original outlook.
> More and more it seems that party is loosing its original outlook.
The original outlook was never free speech absolutism. Both sides have always agreed there are limits on free speech, but just have different metrics for where the line should be drawn. Many on the Democratic side would be OK with stricter rules against using "deadnames" or incorrect pronouns deliberately against trans people; while the GOP would be strongly opposed. Likewise, the GOP would likely not rule the Satanic Temple to have any free speech on school campuses if possible, whereas the Democratic side would call that inconsistency.
The original outlook was never free speech absolutism. Both sides have always agreed there are limits on free speech, but just have different metrics for where the line should be drawn. Many on the Democratic side would be OK with stricter rules against using "deadnames" or incorrect pronouns deliberately against trans people; while the GOP would be strongly opposed. Likewise, the GOP would likely not rule the Satanic Temple to have any free speech on school campuses if possible, whereas the Democratic side would call that inconsistency.
Depends on when you define "original" I guess but this wouldn't be out of place in their playbook during my entire life, at least. They're at least as much for consolidating and wielding state power against individuals as the democrats are they just have much better branding around it.
Australia has had three major data breaches in the past year all leaking ID documents and now many people are facing serious and ongoing issues with identity theft.
Forcing more companies to collect ID is going to increase cases of identity theft which can cause extreme suffering and in some cases even suicide. Unfortunately this is never considered when a government mandates ID verification. “Protect the children at any cost even if we have no evidence it will work” seems to be the mantra across the world.
Forcing more companies to collect ID is going to increase cases of identity theft which can cause extreme suffering and in some cases even suicide. Unfortunately this is never considered when a government mandates ID verification. “Protect the children at any cost even if we have no evidence it will work” seems to be the mantra across the world.
Honestly, it sounds like a good idea. You already have to show ID to buy cigarettes or alcohol, and social media is at least as harmful to kids.
You have to present ID to buy tobacco or alcohol in the states. These places do not store any information on your ID. They glance at it to verify your birthdate, then you put the ID back in your wallet.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell I am giving my government ID to a social media company that will undoubtedly store that info in their database.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell I am giving my government ID to a social media company that will undoubtedly store that info in their database.
I've noticed some stores are scanning ID cards now. I have no idea what happens with the data they get from the scan.
It isn’t about showing an ID but rather storing it, do they take a photocopy of my ID if I buy cigarettes? Nope. Additionally, that ID system won’t stop on social media which I’m personally ok with to kill it, but basically all internet usage will be linked to that ID.
For anyone disputing this, it is documented that teen suicidality has gone up nearly 30% in the last decade.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/psychiatry/generalpsychiatry/10...
General teenage happiness also took a beating post-2012.
https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/the-sad-state-of-happi...
https://www.medpagetoday.com/psychiatry/generalpsychiatry/10...
General teenage happiness also took a beating post-2012.
https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/the-sad-state-of-happi...
Causation or correlation? If causation then in which way?
Maybe lower happines lead to using of social media..
Maybe lower happines lead to using of social media..
Is the teen suicide rate today actually higher than it was in say the 1990s?
Utah just passed the bill this is based on. I'm sure it will in court for awhile.
> If an account holder is a minor, the social media company 33 shall confirm that a minor has consent under subsection (a) of this section 34 to become a new account holder, at the time an Arkansas user opens the 35 account.
I don't see any text about how they're suppose to verify that consent.
> If an account holder is a minor, the social media company 33 shall confirm that a minor has consent under subsection (a) of this section 34 to become a new account holder, at the time an Arkansas user opens the 35 account.
I don't see any text about how they're suppose to verify that consent.
It's fairly interesting to me that a lot of People seem to be against the idea of showing ID to use social media, but companies like Meta have verification badges that require a Government Issued ID and a Payment Details to further verify your identity, Twitter (which does not seem to require gov ID) and Meta have both said that verified creators will be shown more, while this will obviously de-boosting non-paying, and subsequently non ID verified, users which essentially incentivizes giving these Platforms your personal information in order to actually use them properly.
An excerpt from a Meta Article on the matter reads: "At this time, Meta Verified will only support your real name on your profile. Once your profile is verified, you can’t change the profile name, username, date of birth, or photo on your profile without going through the Meta Verified subscription and verifications application process again."
If paid users are being boosted, more people are led to believe they need to pay the monthly fee to be seen, the user base of ID verified users increases, and Social Media basically becomes ID Verified, without the need for any laws to pass.
An excerpt from a Meta Article on the matter reads: "At this time, Meta Verified will only support your real name on your profile. Once your profile is verified, you can’t change the profile name, username, date of birth, or photo on your profile without going through the Meta Verified subscription and verifications application process again."
If paid users are being boosted, more people are led to believe they need to pay the monthly fee to be seen, the user base of ID verified users increases, and Social Media basically becomes ID Verified, without the need for any laws to pass.
There are people who use social media without the desire to be "seen" or recommended to random people via an algorithm.
But beyond that the difference is that with the Arkansas law, users don't have the _choice_ to remain anonymous. With verification, a user can simply sacrifice broader reach to maintain that anonymity.
But beyond that the difference is that with the Arkansas law, users don't have the _choice_ to remain anonymous. With verification, a user can simply sacrifice broader reach to maintain that anonymity.
My point was more that we're already being conditioned to think that verifying your identity on Social Media shouldn't be seen as a big deal, because in some cases you get a "cool" badge or broader reach out of it, thus leading to less outrage if a broader version of this hit the rest of the U.S. There are people who use social media without the desire to remain anonymous as the entire "social" aspect implies that you're going to be sharing details of your life with others in some way, and if they only wanted to share to close friends they'd make their profiles private? This especially impacts platforms like Instagram and Facebook, Link Aggregators like HN hardly fit into this at all, and any bill that hits the senate floor would likely make their scope incredibly clear to target specific social media platforms where hateful and inappropriate content is usually spread, as the OP Article states: "shielding minors from the harmful effects of social media" .
> There are people who use social media without the desire to be "seen" or recommended to random people via an algorithm.
Social media without the desire to be "seen" or recommended to random people, is just a messaging app.
Social media without the desire to be "seen" or recommended to random people, is just a messaging app.
Firstly, social media is as much push, as it is pull. Far more people consume content then create it and do not care about being seen.
But even still, for people that do post, social media has many forms. I personally use it to interact with people in my social circle, but not much further.
Take Twitter. I follow friends, and even some random content creators I'm familiar with from other platforms. I post, but with the knowledge that only a select few people will see it (in fact, I remove followers I don't know externally). But I strictly avoid algorithmically "recommended" content, sticking to just my chronological news feed.
But even still, for people that do post, social media has many forms. I personally use it to interact with people in my social circle, but not much further.
Take Twitter. I follow friends, and even some random content creators I'm familiar with from other platforms. I post, but with the knowledge that only a select few people will see it (in fact, I remove followers I don't know externally). But I strictly avoid algorithmically "recommended" content, sticking to just my chronological news feed.
And? I remember when Friendster, Facebook, MySpace and friends were focused on sharing updates and communication with your circle, not blasting the entire Internet. Frankly social media was better then. I often struggle to see the point in it now.
That is an opt-in process at the level of the organization. If FB, TWTR, etc decide to push ID verification, we will see how users feel about it. It is a free-market.
However, if the govt decides to push ID verification, the user loses all choice because this will be applied to all social media platforms (like HN).
However, if the govt decides to push ID verification, the user loses all choice because this will be applied to all social media platforms (like HN).
> The A.C.L.U.’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology project sent me a statement that said the Utah bill and many like it around the country would “restrict the ability of teenagers to explore and make up their own minds about everything..."
Does the ACLU realize they are walking right into a trap? Is their position really going to be that parents don't have the right to parent their kids? This is not a position you will ever convince mom's to agree to. And I think we all know who has been swinging elections lately.
There has been a very strange desire by some to get direct access to kids and to influence them without parental approval or supervision. And here the ACLU is putting into broad daylight this idea that kids have complete agency. They do not.
For the entire history of parenting, parents have tried to control what their kids are exposed to and most importantly, who they are exposed to. You know, the whole "bad influences" thing? And although I personally believe overprotecting kids is ultimately bad for them and that reality is something they need to understand, I respect that other parents may have different limits.
Does the ACLU realize they are walking right into a trap? Is their position really going to be that parents don't have the right to parent their kids? This is not a position you will ever convince mom's to agree to. And I think we all know who has been swinging elections lately.
There has been a very strange desire by some to get direct access to kids and to influence them without parental approval or supervision. And here the ACLU is putting into broad daylight this idea that kids have complete agency. They do not.
For the entire history of parenting, parents have tried to control what their kids are exposed to and most importantly, who they are exposed to. You know, the whole "bad influences" thing? And although I personally believe overprotecting kids is ultimately bad for them and that reality is something they need to understand, I respect that other parents may have different limits.
The ACLU is a legal organization about civil liberties. It is not a political campaign trying to convince moms to vote for them.
The ACLU has been a borderline joke for a while now. They've long lost their ways from the Ira Glasser days and are just another organization that succumbed to political polarization.
Right, but they are very adjacent to and influential to these campaigns.
> There has been a very strange desire by some to get direct access to kids and to influence them without parental approval or supervision.
I’ve noticed this as well. One recent instance is opposition to the proposed Parents Bill of Rights Act in the US, which would require elementary schools to obtain parental consent before a minor child’s gender pronouns or preferred name is changed. That seems like a pretty reasonable rule to me.
I’ve noticed this as well. One recent instance is opposition to the proposed Parents Bill of Rights Act in the US, which would require elementary schools to obtain parental consent before a minor child’s gender pronouns or preferred name is changed. That seems like a pretty reasonable rule to me.
By all means, give teachers even more eggshells to carefully walk on, with consequences for screwing it up (if no consequences, what's the point of having the law at all?) while they're seeing inflation-adjusted pay fall fast, benefits (healthcare especially) not-so-gradually eroding, and we already have alarmingly-low enrollment in education programs. Go ahead and speed up the collapse of public education that's already in progress.
Rather than, you know, letting them just behave like human beings possessing judgement and at least a little common-sense, which I'd bet has been working out entirely fine in damn near all cases, as far as it relates to this topic. If you want to find an example or five of somethings stupid or bad happening in a country of 330+ million, you can, but is this an actual widespread problem worth legislating, that individual schools and districts aren't manage to handle just fine on their own, overall? I doubt it.
Rather than, you know, letting them just behave like human beings possessing judgement and at least a little common-sense, which I'd bet has been working out entirely fine in damn near all cases, as far as it relates to this topic. If you want to find an example or five of somethings stupid or bad happening in a country of 330+ million, you can, but is this an actual widespread problem worth legislating, that individual schools and districts aren't manage to handle just fine on their own, overall? I doubt it.
So what, require everybody to get their parents to come in and state their gender in kindergarten? Seems annoying.
Or just default to they/them? Possible I guess but awkward.
Or just let the teachers assign a gender to start? This will be fun! Can they ask the kids first or do they have to pick without consultation?
Or just default to they/them? Possible I guess but awkward.
Or just let the teachers assign a gender to start? This will be fun! Can they ask the kids first or do they have to pick without consultation?
so i'd have to ask my parents to have my teacher call me Johnny instead of John?
that doesn't sound great to me.
that doesn't sound great to me.
> And although I personally believe overprotecting kids is ultimately bad for them and that reality is something they need to understand, I respect that other parents may have different limits.
This is also a more bipartisan issue on the ground than we'd like to admit. Both conservative parents and many "radical feminists", for example, both agree pornography should not be used as a tool for teaching oneself about sex. But if you take the ACLU literally here (because of how broad their position is), they think that's just a necessary evil. I think it is not unreasonable as a parent to strongly, strongly disagree with that idea.
This is also a more bipartisan issue on the ground than we'd like to admit. Both conservative parents and many "radical feminists", for example, both agree pornography should not be used as a tool for teaching oneself about sex. But if you take the ACLU literally here (because of how broad their position is), they think that's just a necessary evil. I think it is not unreasonable as a parent to strongly, strongly disagree with that idea.
Why do parents feel the government needs to restrict everyone to solve parenting issues. Does the drinking age eliminate under age drinking?
> Does the drinking age eliminate under age drinking?
No, but it massively reduced it.
No, but it massively reduced it.
> Is their position really going to be that parents don't have the right to parent their kids?
Parents can parent all they want without this law. I am a parent, and this law would not help me in my parenting of my kids online. In fact, I would prefer my kids be able to sign up for accounts without having to share any private information about themselves, including their age.
> There has been a very strange desire by some to get direct access to kids and to influence them without parental approval or supervision.
You're veering off into "pizza basement" levels of conspiracy here.
Parents can parent all they want without this law. I am a parent, and this law would not help me in my parenting of my kids online. In fact, I would prefer my kids be able to sign up for accounts without having to share any private information about themselves, including their age.
> There has been a very strange desire by some to get direct access to kids and to influence them without parental approval or supervision.
You're veering off into "pizza basement" levels of conspiracy here.
I don’t understand why this was downvoted. Forcing kids to share more PII with social media companies is extremely dangerous. I’m surprised that people on HN are in support of this.
[deleted]
> Is their position really going to be that parents don't have the right to parent their kids?
I think their position is more children have 1st amendment rights too.
I think their position is more children have 1st amendment rights too.
The ACLU has become a parody organization with a thin veneer of supporting it's core goals.
At this point... I'm actually ready to play advocate for such a ban. I'm also not convinced that it would be unconstitutional, as that would call ID for gun purchases, alcohol purchases, and similar into question. And some might say as well that social media isn't a physical threat, but that's assuming that threats to children's mental health are less of a priority than physical threats.
As for enforceability, or "they'll just use a VPN!" I don't really care. It's still a crime to speed even if 25% of the road speeds, and it would still be worse without Speed Limits. Criminals sometimes obtain guns, but it doesn't mean I don't want Gun ID laws.
As for enforceability, or "they'll just use a VPN!" I don't really care. It's still a crime to speed even if 25% of the road speeds, and it would still be worse without Speed Limits. Criminals sometimes obtain guns, but it doesn't mean I don't want Gun ID laws.
It's not difficult to show a compelling state interest in the regulation of weapons and intoxicants, but regulating media companies is a whole different question that deserves at least intermediate scrutiny. In this case specifically, I think the government would have difficulty demonstrating state interest given the carve-outs in the bill: it's hard to understand how Facebook is uniquely toxic but Youtube, LinkedIn, all multiplayer video games, and platforms with less than $100mm in annual gross revenue are exempt (plus a kind of tossed-out exemption for news that looks like a half-assed attempt to get around the controlling "ink-tax" 1A case law).
How long until we need a license for using the Internet?
In a way you do. Your ISP and your cell phone company know who you are and you aren't getting online without using one of them or finding a public wi-fi.
IP addr != human
Well, legally, an IP Address is still probable cause for a search warrant and police raid of a human.
Social media purposely targets kids knowing that the vast majority of parents are technically incapable of cutting their kids off.
Society functioned and had revolutions against monarchies with absolute power without an internet. We'll survive.
Also, nobody is proposing that.
Also, nobody is proposing that.
[deleted]
The best way to finally kill social media.
Can't wait.
Can't wait.
I'd rather we just outlaw the creepy, dangerous, dragnet forever-memory spying at the core of their business model and see how the whole landscape adjusts after that happens, before deciding if further regulation is necessary.
But I'd settle for anything else that hurts them, at this point.
But I'd settle for anything else that hurts them, at this point.
Outlaw them, yes.
Kill everyones privacy by forcing them to giveup their identity to very bad actors? Good idea (TM)! Every single one of my friends can't wait to do that, myself included.
Kill everyones privacy by forcing them to giveup their identity to very bad actors? Good idea (TM)! Every single one of my friends can't wait to do that, myself included.
Glad to see we the French are not alone with this brilliant idea. /s
Adult sites are also supposed to check that, and we all know how effective this is.
Adult sites are also supposed to check that, and we all know how effective this is.
> Adult sites are also supposed to check that, and we all know how effective this is.
Actually I don't know if that's effective at all and I couldn't find any data on that either, care to share?
Actually I don't know if that's effective at all and I couldn't find any data on that either, care to share?
It’s not effective, that’s their point. This shit costs billions of dollars to implement and can be bypassed using a $2 VPN or free proxy.
Well then I'd expect there to be some data pointing to that.
It's absolutely ridiculous that:
1) most social coordination happens on private corporate servers
2) we'll soon be unable to use those servers without showing our "papers"
The constitutional best alternative to banning social media. My only concern is its implication for anonymity... which Big Tech has already shredded anyway.
This will end up with the death of anonymity on the internet.
Signal will require an ID. Hacker News will require an ID. Reddit will require an ID. Stack Overflow will require an ID. 4chan will be illegal to operate. Your google account may eventually require an ID
This is a really slippery slope. Maybe I am overly paranoid, but this seems like really dangerous legislation.
I agree that social media is pretty harmful in its current instantiation, but lets start with banning phones at school rather than removing anonymity for every site that "could harm kids".