Submitted by ANNIHILATOR284 t3_zgsxc9 in UpliftingNews
Comments
PopularPKMN t1_izmnx8e wrote
>If you have to censor info to control your population, you're already on the losing side of things.
You just described most of social media and especially Reddit.
moistrain t1_izmozt2 wrote
It's not at all the same. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to private entities. They are entitled to have TOS and it's kinda your fault if you break em. They're there to read. This is a government oppressing it's people. Not the same at all.
PopularPKMN t1_izmq9ma wrote
Subs like this one praised when states raised gun purchases to 21. Same with cigarette purchases to 21 and banning vapes. Would you consider those okay?
moistrain t1_izmz05v wrote
Not gonna take the whataboutist bait, rightie. Go whine to someone who cares
PopularPKMN t1_izmzm7k wrote
Nah, you're just a hypocrite who is only okay with with your kind of "government oppression".. but hey, you got your chance to virtue signal about a bill that will go nowhere compared to real restrictions that exist today.
moistrain t1_izmzrab wrote
How long were you sitting on that one buddy, you sure owned the libs
PopularPKMN t1_izn0kjr wrote
Just not sure why you have to be so defensive about it. I simply just asked for some elaboration on why you consider this "fascism" when other states have similar restrictions on minors. But sometimes i forget your type likes to argue like a child does, throwing out words you don't even know the meaning to and not being able to defend your own positions when confronted with your own hypocrisy.
moistrain t1_izn0pn9 wrote
It's rly funny I'm not even engaging rly or reading, you're just projecting lol God righties and their disingenuous arguments are so easy to mess with. Please, keep going, I'm sure you'll own me sometime
PopularPKMN t1_izn1fak wrote
>I'm not even engaging rly or reading
That's obvious. You don't even make any points, just filling out my bingo card for typical reddit comments. So far we got:
>LiTeRRAlLy FaScisM!!
>Whataboutism!!
>OwNeD ThE LiBs
>Projection
You're truly hitting the pinnacle of originality here when it comes to maturity.
moistrain t1_izn21zx wrote
I didnt make any points cause idc Abt this and haven't from the start. You're just arguing with yourself over the values you made up for me in your head. And it is hilarious.
Please I can do this all day keep going keep going I wanna see how long I can string you along
Cheetahs_never_win t1_izigs73 wrote
Ah, yes. Small government conservatives want you to be registered with a third party to exercise your first amendment rights, which you're not entitled to if you're 18.
The party of fascism.
PopularPKMN t1_izmniab wrote
Wait...so you're arguing that not being able to access social media violates the first amendment?
Cheetahs_never_win t1_izp3zjd wrote
Let me dumb it down for you.
If you created a subreddit, and suddenly the government told you that you have to check everyone's IDs on it, because that becomes the TOS of reddit, then you end up fined or imprisoned for your subreddit you can't keep up with.
The platformer's rights are being infringed.
You don't have a first amendment right to access someone else's property. They have the right to share it with whom they want.
I know you're not too bright, so reread as often as you need.
[deleted] t1_izpfqm0 wrote
[removed]
Pingyofdoom t1_izn7rx5 wrote
Good point, when we rack the supreme court this would be a good case to bring to their attention.
moistrain t1_izn9dco wrote
Did you just openly and unironically suggest stacking the supreme court to push agendas
Pingyofdoom t1_iznbxvz wrote
moistrain t1_izngnwb wrote
Your vid isnt gonna do anything to change how horrendously stupid that is. It's supposed to be an impartial body so we always have someone protecting our constitutional rights. Ain't you learned nothin about separation of power and checks and balances? Your plan would destroy our gov at the seams lmao
Pingyofdoom t1_iznjpuw wrote
They cheat, I cheat, it's real simple here.
Cheetahs_never_win t1_izp4a5s wrote
Except your seditious side never seems to produce evidence in court when prompted.
Pingyofdoom t1_izpe8xb wrote
Sedicious? Are you not understanding that I'm suggesting expanding the court as per protocol due to the rampant cheating that's been going on.
TraditionalSkill4241 t1_j00zbtf wrote
>Supreme Court
>Impartial Body
Pick one
moistrain t1_j01m7d9 wrote
I didn't say it worked lol, I just rly wanted to put that chud in his place. But that's also not really what it's supposed to mean. It's just the toppest of courts, but the judges are intended to be apolitical to interpret the constitution as transparently as possible. In practice... Well, you see what they do now.
I far from agree with American government systems, but I ain't about to allow some moron to spread dangerous shit that'd lead to even worse things.
TraditionalSkill4241 t1_j0466xx wrote
Fair enough ¯_(ツ)_/¯
ChokaTot t1_izihzcr wrote
Not uplifting news. Parents should monitor their children anywhere on the internet.
Social media is the tip of the iceberg for terrible things online.
Forcing people to identify themselves because of lazy/shitty parents is bad.
fish_whisperer t1_izin3pn wrote
There have been quite a few studies that have shown negative mental health effects of social media on kids. I’m not saying this is right, there actually are very good reasons for it.
ChokaTot t1_izkyou1 wrote
Social Media for children isn't great, I believe those studies are accurate. My SO and I don't have our child on any social media aside from letting her look at pictures/videos along with us. I think social media is a major contributor to the huge upsurge in mental health problems in young adults.
All that being said, I couldn't ever support forced identification to prove age. That would be like being forced to identify yourself for walking down a sidewalk.
NuuLeaf t1_izl5gst wrote
Or like providing your ID to buy booze
Aines t1_izik656 wrote
Yeah, right. Parents can monitor children anytime, anywhere. Sure.
shinpud t1_izird6t wrote
Is not about that, it's about the responsibility of parents to teach their kids about the dangers and negative effects of social media. Most kids don't have problems with drugs even tho their parents aren't there to always check them.
ChokaTot t1_izkxtv3 wrote
That's diverting the responsibility of providing an inadequate environment for a child i.e. an excuse.
As shinpud said, it's about teaching your children. It's not about being big brother and monitoring their every move on the internet. There are also steps a parent can take to reduce the probability of inappropriate material that may appear.
JustHereToGain t1_izil83u wrote
They've realized that they've lost control of the narrative, too many people get independent news on social media. Time for authoritarian censorship 😎
CattleAlternative251 t1_izij586 wrote
How is this an Uplifting News?
SereneDreams03 t1_izk7u1g wrote
There are serious mental health risks with teenagers using social media https://www.newportacademy.com/resources/well-being/effect-of-social-media-on-teenagers/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=NA_leads_performancemax&utm_term=&kpid=go_cmp-17884784088_adg-_ad-__dev-m_ext-_prd-&gclid=Cj0KCQiA1sucBhDgARIsAFoytUsFE62RMG8LgE2ODEm88lMOQLcccJmXv1tfSwCbYUgjH90SosH41KMaAmZzEALw_wcB
moistrain t1_izklodu wrote
Yeah but it's Texas. This targets trans kids and the legislation itself reads like dystopian bullshit. You're really fooling yourself if you think this is about kids health. It's about censorship and isolating queer kids, the same thing they've been doing all year with their anti-lgbt legislation.
SereneDreams03 t1_izkm76c wrote
I haven't read much into the story myself, besides this article, I was just pointing out why some may seeing it as uplifting news.
How specifically does it target trans kids though?
moistrain t1_izldd0v wrote
Online communities are often all we have, especially when you're in bigoted communities like that. Friends, discord, reddit, or other resources; these things save lives, no joke. By forcing kids off the internet, you take that away. And considering how Texas has been ramping up their nonsense against queers, this is gonna be a big deal. It benefits no one except the texan establishment.
SereneDreams03 t1_izlf0xx wrote
Yeah, I can understand that, it definitely could be isolating for teens that have no one like themselves to talk to, especially living in bigoted communities as you pointed out.
It would not be a law I would support, even though I do think their are a lot of negative effects of social media, especially for teens. I'm not sure what the answer is, but this bill does seem to go too far, and thank you for pointing out some of the possible motivations behind it.
moistrain t1_izlisnb wrote
For sure. I know social media is also another horrid beast to tackle, but this simply is not the way.
Gizshot t1_izkxbs1 wrote
because then theyre forced to communicate with people around them
moistrain t1_izldgx6 wrote
Nah, that they'll have to talk to shit people who don't support them instead of supportive communities that let them escape that shit for a sec (source: my many texan friends)
[deleted] t1_izmho9w wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izjlhk7 wrote
[removed]
Tess_Tickle8 t1_izis8ma wrote
There may be hope for the new generation, less addicted and more of an attention span than 20 seconds
Mydogroach t1_izjget1 wrote
also less informed. the vast majority of information that people collect and consume comes from social media, in one form or another.
this is horrible news. classic authoritarian saying what you can or cant do.
rocsage_praisesun t1_izjt5ut wrote
>also less informed. the vast majority of information that people collect and consume comes from social media, in one form or another.
a number of people, myself included, think that's precisely the issue.
jps4851 t1_izjwqhp wrote
What are your thoughts about it that make it “the issue?”
Just curious on your take here. Social media has many, many positive benefits when serving as a news type of outlet. Think of a wiki - a crowdsource of unbiased knowledge that’s not being funneled from just one individual. The same could be said about social media. It’s a collective “media” with tons of different perspectives of the same situation.
Aside from all the dancers, fitfluencers, and MLM baddies, social media can be a great thing.
rocsage_praisesun t1_izjxyn2 wrote
>Aside from all the dancers, fitfluencers, and MLM baddies, social media can be a great thing.
guess who puts on the best shows to court these malleable minds, a nawledge dispenser flaunting lambo, or credible news reporters, if the latter even exists on instagram/twitter?
jps4851 t1_izjyd3c wrote
That’s the thing. They aren’t getting news and knowledge from the people flaunting lambos. They are getting “news” from people recording things literally on the streets.
You never answered my question, either.
rocsage_praisesun t1_izk0ir4 wrote
to answer your question, then, which I thought you answered yourself.
​
social media UGC is largely unregulated, and similar to how traditional media's de-regulation caused the programming and public discourse to become increasingly radicalized over the years, is infested with substandard and often outright harmful content disseminated with malicious intent, including but not limited to the MLM you described.
​
look, I'm no fan of the bible belt or its pron-tweet liking senator, but I highly doubt social media would be a sufficient or adequate remedy, if not another plague in and of itself.
evilchrisdesu t1_izjt2v5 wrote
If you're only getting your news from social media that is a huge problem and not justification for something that causes irreparable mental harm. Especially to children
Butwinsky t1_iziitpy wrote
Can't have kids going on social media and learning about how the world works outside of their isolated little town, now can we?
[deleted] t1_izil1mb wrote
[removed]
whatistheformat t1_iziivv9 wrote
The party that whines about the nanny state wants an actual nanny state.
cjwidd t1_izimt9q wrote
Small government
OhHiFelicia t1_izilfdd wrote
I would be interested to hear why you think this is uplifting OP. No shade, I'm genuinely interested in hearing it from your side.
_snowdrop_ t1_izir89z wrote
Don't take my word on this but I think he believes social media is bad for children
[deleted] t1_izjmb71 wrote
[removed]
xilma-34 t1_izihup2 wrote
Hmm..Only if I can change my email bdate.
NetSuiteLyfe t1_izkuxmn wrote
My first thought too. It reads like they are planning to require all users to upload proof of their birthday using an ID. So basically they're passing a bill claiming to protect children but actually making all of us scan in our IDs...sneaky
baseilus t1_izin0e1 wrote
wait....
that is illegal
MadeFromNews t1_izisqoj wrote
Ban guns, tobacco, and social media for kids under 16
BobbyBetc t1_izilcfv wrote
Uplifting news has turned into "political news that me and half the country like, but the other half of the country doesn't."
goldfingaknuckle t1_izinjbq wrote
I think I'd prefer that they ban people OVER 18 from using social media. They seem to be the bigger problem.
I recognize this would include me, but I'd take one for the team if it helped shut down an easy way to organize hate groups and the spreading of misinformation to idiots who believe everything they read on social platforms.
[deleted] t1_j00vhz5 wrote
[deleted]
GingerchimpWaspfeet t1_izis4dt wrote
I read this headline and immediately wondered how out of touch I was. I mean who even is Texas Bill?
Jarsky2 t1_izkcuko wrote
This isn't uplifting in the slightest. Yeah lets just cut teens off from the internet and any support networks they might have outside of school or parents. Oh and god forbid teens be politically active, they might gasp vote progressive.
IncoherentPolitics t1_izl9ztp wrote
Republicans still can't figure out why young people vote hard left by the way. Same people saying vaccines requirements are oppressive support these dumbass bills.
ReintegrationTablet t1_izlb4j9 wrote
Censorship is good news? Not in my world. Conservatives always pretend they're the "free speech" party and then get angry and censor when something offends their precious sensibilities.
Kuriosdrachen t1_izm4ypd wrote
Social media preys on children, this law is good. Kids can still interact digitally off social media, you don't need it.
alissa914 t1_izmefmv wrote
OK, people.... because you're justifying it and you're not restricted by it doesn't make it a good thing necessarily.
Lownarl t1_izmwa2c wrote
So funny…. they have parents, you have absolutely no right or privilege to determine what children can do in their Homes! Stay in your own lane.
AutoModerator t1_izifrxz wrote
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_izih2a4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izilnos wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_izin6s4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izir8u4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izj33s2 wrote
[removed]
rocsage_praisesun t1_izjtqxb wrote
for folks up in arms about this, let me remind you that tech executives do similar things with their own children; granted, mileage may vary significantly because most children lack their many IRL alternatives, but it's still something to consider.
kuroxoxoxoxoxo t1_izk82jd wrote
I dont think social media is like inherently bad but these algorithms literally thrive off polemics and polarization. They prioritize engagement over the quality of whats being said and thats not good for anyone. Really thats what oughta be addressed. Crazy to think about how we're all handling having access to literally all the bad news all the time, too
QuestionableAI t1_izkh573 wrote
What...no Constitutional protections for children, only adults? Restricting the acquisition of the ubiquitous phone, computer, and social media within is somehow going to protect someone from something.
Look, it is easier for some nimbob in Texas to propose a bill rather than SOCIAL MEDIA providing, oh, you know, some technological solution. They just sit back and watch the shit show, make money, and laugh at what representation of the public has become.
Leighhall t1_izkkno5 wrote
How in the world would this be enforced?
alissa914 t1_izmeafa wrote
Same way it gets enforced for kids under 13.... it doesn't. Difference here is that kids at 18 can get a state ID to where they could prove it. But despite that, they're passing a law preventing them from engaging in speech online... probably a 1A violation.
Jellybean-Jellybean t1_izmh3x5 wrote
How exactly do they think they will even begin to enforce this?
[deleted] t1_izmk1ik wrote
[deleted]
Upstairs_Education93 t1_j19gokb wrote
This isn’t uplifting news
IndiniaJones t1_izjnj6k wrote
Looking at society and it's devolution I can't see this as an absolutely bad idea. Social media is a technological drug, and you just have to look around anywhere you go to see people plugged in getting their dose of digital crack. The brain isn't even fully developed until around 25 years old and social media is really creating a whole mess of addiction issues in children that eventually branch off to other addictions such as porn, sex, gambling, drugs, alcohol, etc
moistrain t1_iziimg5 wrote
This isn't uplifting news, it's isolating vulnerable kids in isolated communities. I guarantee the only thing that'll happen is a bunch of depressed kids with literally no escape from the bigoted Texas echochamber. If you have to censor info to control your population, you're already on the losing side of things.