US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[StevenC]

Eh, I don't see a ban on young kids going on social media and immediately think pro-child abuse policy makers.

Read the law. It doesn't just ban social media. It bans any website discussing sex and bodies. Maybe this isn't specifically pro abuse, but along with other Republican policy it certainly facilitates abuse.

Children can't read textbooks on the topic because those books are banned in libraries. Children aren't told by teachers because sex ed is banned. Children can't get the information on the internet because the information is behind age verification.

And eventually, if they ban every avenue by which a child can understand they've been abused, then the policy makers are making pro abuse policies.

 

[narad]

Read the law. It doesn't just ban social media. It bans any website discussing sex and bodies. Maybe this isn't specifically pro abuse, but along with other Republican policy it certainly facilitates abuse.

Children can't read textbooks on the topic because those books are banned in libraries. Children aren't told by teachers because sex ed is banned. Children can't get the information on the internet because the information is behind age verification.

And eventually, if they ban every avenue by which a child can understand they've been abused, then the policy makers are making pro abuse policies.

Conservatives hate the thought of young people having sex. Or people having sex and enjoying it. It's a big leap to imply this is done to facilitate child abuse or that you even have a measure of the net pros/cons of this bill with respect to child abuse.

No one's defending Ron's policies, but you have to base your arguments in reality.

 

[StevenC]

Conservatives hate the thought of young people having sex. Or people having sex and enjoying it. It's a big leap to imply this is done to facilitate child abuse or that you even have a measure of the net pros/cons of this bill with respect to child abuse.

No one's defending Ron's policies, but you have to base your arguments in reality.

OK. But these laws are passed under the guise of protecting children, when they actively do the opposite.

It needs to be broadcast loudly that these are not pro child safety laws, and only protect abusers.

I'm not saying Ron is specifically doing a favour for paedophiles, but that his policies are actively helping them regardless. Because voters need to know the reality of the situation. And that reality is that these laws harm children.

 

[narad]

OK. But these laws are passed under the guise of protecting children, when they actively do the opposite.

It needs to be broadcast loudly that these are not pro child safety laws, and only protect abusers.

I'm not saying Ron is specifically doing a favour for paedophiles, but that his policies are actively helping them regardless. Because voters need to know the reality of the situation. And that reality is that these laws harm children.

I don't agree, and I don't think there's any objective measure to indicate that these laws harm children or protect abusers. Your argument relies on an assumption that having a social media account is an important avenue for abused children to find information regarding abuse. There are certainly other places to find this information that are freely available and not age-restricted.

On the other hand, predators cannot use social media to target underage kids who aren't on social media. So there is a clear case that, at least along one axis, the bill is protecting children.

The real question regarding this bill is whether the state government has any business in exercising these sorts of controls over something that isn't inherently problematic, and can be used responsibly by people of all ages.

 

[DrewH]

OK. But these laws are passed under the guise of protecting children, when they actively do the opposite.

It needs to be broadcast loudly that these are not pro child safety laws, and only protect abusers.

I'm not saying Ron is specifically doing a favour for paedophiles, but that his policies are actively helping them regardless. Because voters need to know the reality of the situation. And that reality is that these laws harm children.

The law will protect children. Social media bullying is a huge problem and this is going to put an end to that in FL for elementary school and middle school children. There are plenty of stories out there of suicides resulting from that type of bullying.

The sex info thing is another thing altogether. You grew up with the internet and social media. Most of my generation did not and we did just fine without it. There are other ways to get info. The positive side of this is that children will not have access to pornography.

 

[TedEH]

Your argument relies on an assumption that having a social media account is an important avenue for abused children to find information regarding abuse.

I read the linked bill, and it does more than just deal with social media sites. It requires identification for any site that can be deemed "harmful sexual content". The choice of the word "harmful" leaves it up to interpretation as to what is harmful. If sex-ed is deemed "harmful", suddenly you've restricted access to health information. It's not the most egregious example, but it's in there.

There are other ways to get info.

Not universally. If you're in a school with more conservative values, or a home where there are pushes to stop sex-ed in schools altogether, then that info isn't otherwise available. And I don't believe for even a second that a parent who would protest against sex-ed in school would be willing (or sometimes even able) to provide a comparable education at home.

 

[narad]

I read the linked bill, and it does more than just deal with social media sites. It requires identification for any site that can be deemed "harmful sexual content". The choice of the word "harmful" leaves it up to interpretation as to what is harmful. If sex-ed is deemed "harmful", suddenly you've restricted access to health information. It's not the most egregious example, but it's in there.

-if-
And -if- In this unrealistic future world where basic educational knowledge of sex it is deemed harmful, it is about as actionable as removing all the Beyonce superbowl photos from the internet.

 

[TedEH]

In this unrealistic future world where basic educational knowledge of sex it is deemed harmful

I don't mean to sound funny, but that's not a hypothetical. Lots of conservatives / republicans already have declared sex-ed to be harmful.

 

[narad]

I don't mean to sound funny, but that's not a hypothetical. Lots of conservatives / republicans already have declared sex-ed to be harmful.

I mean in a legally relevant manner that would restrict access to things like wikipedia or counselors.

 

[TedEH]

I mean in a legally relevant manner

Such as introducing bills that could be creatively interpreted as blocking access to sex-ed...?

 

[Glades]

State constituency elect their representatives to govern and pass legislation according to their beliefs and morals. Desantis was re-elected by a large margin by its constituents to do just what he is doing. That’s how representative democracy works.
The beauty of it all is that if you do not agree with the ideals and morals of the majority of a state’s population, you can move. The people of Florida spoke, and this is what we voted for.

 

[DrewH]

State constituency elect their representatives to govern and pass legislation according to their beliefs and morals. Desantis was re-elected by a large margin by its constituents to do just what he is doing. That’s how representative democracy works.
The beauty of it all is that if you do not agree with the ideals and morals of the majority of a state’s population, you can move. The people of Florida spoke, and this is what we voted for.

You forgot the gerrymandering part. The thing that gives Republicans overwhelming majorities in the state legislature.

 

[narad]

Such as introducing bills that could be creatively interpreted as blocking access to sex-ed...?

Well creatively interpreted by forum people? The entire bill is regarding social media with a little leeway cutout for what is obviously intended to be pornographic sites. Which is a far cry from including general sex education information, which is a far cry from having the practical ability to do anything about it from a technical perspective, which is a far cry from having any ability to do anything to services provided outside of Florida.

State constituency elect their representatives to govern and pass legislation according to their beliefs and morals. Desantis was re-elected by a large margin by its constituents to do just what he is doing. That’s how representative democracy works.
The beauty of it all is that if you do not agree with the ideals and morals of the majority of a state’s population, you can move. The people of Florida spoke, and this is what we voted for.

Well the Florida people speak, and the supreme shuts them up, typically. I see no reason why this wouldn't go down similarly.

 

[MFB]

You forgot the gerrymandering part. The thing that gives Republicans overwhelming majorities in the state legislature.

Woah, first Glades yesterday and now DrewH today, have all the clockmakers on SSO died or what?!

 

[TedEH]

Which is a far cry from

It's only a "far cry from" until it isn't anymore. It's chipping away in a direction until you have enough leeway to make a bigger leap. First you grant vague language about "harmful", then you start blocking porn sites, then you've got your foot in the door to claim that sex-ed is pornographic, or that a pro-LGBT website contains "promotion of harmful sexual ideas", etc. I don't think it's a stretch at all. I think it's very deliberate. Otherwise, what would be the reason for such open-ended language? Why a sudden push for anti-porn language everywhere when it's been around for a long time and nobody ever really protested against it? Why put that specific language into a bill about social media? Why sneak that extra section in?

 

[Randy]

-if-
And -if- In this unrealistic future world where basic educational knowledge of sex it is deemed harmful

Yeah but in Florida under Desantis? That's not a stretch at all.

 

[narad]

Well $1000 says we don't see a future in 2024 or 2025 where young people in Florida are unable to use the internet to access basic sites providing information about sexual education or abuse. Any takers?

 

[MetalDestroyer]

Well $1000 says we don't see a future in 2024 or 2025 where young people in Florida are unable to use the internet to access basic sites providing information about sexual education or abuse. Any takers?

Just because an action is futile doesn't mean it isn't also condemnable

 

[RevDrucifer]

State constituency elect their representatives to govern and pass legislation according to their beliefs and morals. Desantis was re-elected by a large margin by its constituents to do just what he is doing. That’s how representative democracy works.
The beauty of it all is that if you do not agree with the ideals and morals of the majority of a state’s population, you can move. The people of Florida spoke, and this is what we voted for.

That is absolutely not where my vote went.

I cannot for the life of me wrap my head around “small government” + “We’re not going to suggest you how you handle your kid’s social media, we’re going to control it for you. Also, if you want your kid to use a nickname in school, we’re going to need documentation for that”

 

[narad]

Just because an action is futile doesn't mean it isn't also condemnable

Well first you have to show that it's actually the intent of that vague but reasonable language. Then we can talk about condemning it. Don't take my criticism of following this bill to ends that are not explicitly proposed in the bill as an endorsement of those ends.