Nanny Cox and the yes men of the so called utah legislature has determined that all social media platforms must confirm the age of members from the theocracy of utah.

Not only that, they have determined that verification may include copies of faces, social security numbers verified by a third party and other measures that violate our privacy.

Will this oversight by the strawmen of the mormon corporation reach is godless all seeing eye to our little group?

To top it off, since the church through the legislation has determined it knows better for our children than we do, there are limitations on when pre missionary youngsters are not allowed on line.

Link for this (please)

Send these folks a copy of 1984;

Big Brother on steroids!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2023 09:46PM by GNPE.

No idea how on my phone.

But google utah age verification for social media and click on the KSL link, it gives the most detail.

here's a link to proposition on the utah gov site https://shorturl.at/myzSX

I posted my thoughts with a link to what the federal government requires down thread.

TL;DR this is an absurd reach, they'll never be able to get sites to implement it, and there are many simple ways for sites to get around it. This lead balloon will end up in court, just like Montana's attempt to ban tiktok from the state.

I would not consider this site to be social media. To me, social media is Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok, etc. But who knows what the Utah legislature has in mind.

I say we're anti-social media!

Dammit! I was going to say that!

Plan B: denigrate it as low-hanging fruit.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

If you practice denigration, you're a racist!!!

How about if I practice delamination?*









*'Tis a real word.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2023 10:45PM by Lot's Wife.

Just don't go preaching delamaniting the Americas!

I'm all for lamanition. Some of my best friends are lamanited.

How!

Hey, don't bogart that pipe over there.

Sorry, I'll pass it along now.

As for many new terms with developing applications & understanding, the ‘real’ answer - determination is pending an objective determination…

Here's a link to the actual bill including its text and status (it's already been signed into law):

https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/SB0152.html

I haven't read the text yet, but I'd be surprised if social media is defined anywhere within it. Also, I believe I've read/heard elsewhere that the ACLU and others are challenging this new Utah law for being too broad and violating the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment right to freedom of speech



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2023 07:24AM by blindguy.

I wonder if they consider freedom of assembly as a valid challenge.

I read it. They are very specific about what social media is and isn't for the purpose of this law. The only problem is that once you get to about 169ish and on in the definitions section, each one is a loophole. For instance, youtube is a social media platform by definition of this law, but the law doesn't apply to online gaming and the creation of entertainment content related to online/interactive gaming. So that's the loophole for all the game streamers. The online shopping clause is the loophole for young influencers who do hauls and try on makeup, clothing, products, in most social media platforms, they can make their content shoppable (so you can buy the shirt/lipstick/whatever in the social media post).

At the end of the day, every listed clause defaults to "subject to state or federal requirements" and the federal requirement is 13 years and over.

It has nothing to do with RFM though, unless RFM has 5 million+ worldwide account holders.

It's as stupid and reactionary as the tiktok ban in montana. It won't hold up to scrutiny, but it satisfies the whole "what about the children" angle. I thought republicans were supposed to be against the "nanny state"

RFM is an old school website forum managed by a private party. Social media is a social interaction service ran by a corporation. Social media gathers data on its members and sells it. it's a business.

If I could bottle RfM's aroma, once I found out what that aroma was good for, I bet I could earn a pretty penny!

Does RfM stink?

Might it be an aphrodisiac?

Tear gas?

we seem to be agreed that the accurate determination (per Rubicon) is in the use / purpose most understood, most applied.


me: in a strict sense, RfM is 'social media', but not as commonly understood by the public at large.

If RfM was a for profit social media company I would have gotten paid!

The UK passed an internet censorshio bill last month. It has the same provisions. Our ruling class don't want you to have any privacy online. They don't want you to have any privacy offline either. It isn't just Utah and it's parochial to imply such.

There are two big differences between Utah and the UK here, and I not talking about any of the law's provisions here.

First, the UK is an entire country (plus Scotland, Wales, and northern Ireland) whereas the Utah law applys only inside the state of Utah. The second difference is that because the Utah law is being challenged in Federal court for violating U.S. constitutional norms or requirements, it is more likely that the courts will end the law in the U.S. than they will in england

I think that RFM is designed better than the types of other social media I spend most of my time with. Facebook is not designed for serious discussion. It is more of a popularity contest. It has too many pictures.

Reading comment sections is fun, but it is hard to grab people's attention in the comments, so it is a very lonely activity. With RFM, it is easier to grab people's attention.

And, of course, on RFM you don't have to look at emjois all over the place.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2023 09:48PM by behindcurtain.

Elderodddog is a living emoji. True story.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
--------------------------------
> Elderodddog is a living emoji.


Yes, she is the Emojene Coca of RfM!

Watch it, Phyllis, or I'll tell everyone who you really are.

Yes. RFM and all forums are social media, they're just not web 2.0 social media. Yahoo groups, car forums, yelp, it's all social media.

This site, like all others, old school or new, should have a disclaimer that people under 13 are prohibited from using the site.

Back in the day (2000's), all sites had this. To sign up or post, you had to check a box to claim you were 13 or older. That was the extent of the site's responsibility when it came to age. Sites involved with content for which there was legal minimum age (alcohol), people were/are still required to enter their birth date to gain access.

The devil is in the details of this proposition.

Here it is (link to the utah gov site) https://shorturl.at/myzSX

It talks a good game but it's nearly impossible for them to track,
And no site is going to integrate some sort of curfew software. (that's a job for parents and can easily just lock and password protect browsers, phone operating systems and even the router if they don't want their kids online past a certain time) It is above and beyond what the federal government requires, you can see that here (link to the relevant material on the efcr.gov site) shorturl.at/pqLX6.

This proposition is idiotic, but it's not targeting RFM, it's targeting sites for children, or sites where children want to post.

All RFM needs to do is:
1. Not collect/track user data - and I believe it doesn't. Simple as that, but let's say it did:
2. Add a bold disclaimer that children under 13 can't read or post, they still will OR add a bold disclaimer that the site is intended for adults 18+ and people under that age can't read it, they still will. A posted disclaimer is all that's needed.
OR
3. Post a notice with links to web anonymizers or proxy sites that young utahans can use to access RFM.

It's interesting to see that utah is so concerned about the health and well being of minors, yet has no restrictions for what, where and how Utahan parents can and do exploit their kids online. If a young kid/young teen can't post provocative pics of themselves online (and they shouldn't), a parent shouldn't either. Lots of these mom-managed socials for child dancers/models/wannabe stars post their 3yos in full face makeup, prostitot outfits and poses. Basically things that, if posted by adults, would be considered thirst traps.

I think the chief offenders in terms of targeting kids and teens are Tik Tok and Snapchat.

There is no substitute for parenting. I've had kids as young as seven tell me that they use Tik Tok. It's like twenty or more years ago, before social media came along, when some seven and eight year olds were telling me that they played Grand Theft Auto. Some parents don't bother to parent.

I'm not sure tiktok and snapchat are substantially more dangerous than LiveJournal from back in the day. I think the speed of the internet now relative to then is creating a situation where pics can be uploaded quickly and easily, and that's causing a lot of the psychological damage.

One of the things the law restricts is marketing and adverting to kids.Not the marketing and advertising of inappropriate things, just marketing and advertising wholesale. It's fine enough to come up with a 4-6 hour block of cartoons on saturday mornings just to sell kids toys, sugary cereal and other products.

But it's true, there's no substitute for parenting. Lord knows companies are trying, I know you work in education, I don't know if gaggle is in your district. Parents just need to put down their phones and sit with their kids sometimes and be entertained together, let the kids tell their parents about the new tiktok drama, or show them some fun or bad trends, etc. Maybe point out some trends or influencers that make the kid feel inferior and bad about their self, and start a conversation with their parent that way.

This stupid bill is just... stupid

I'm a mother. I don't know what all the Bill says (I saw the link to the long version...I didn't read it all. I read the short version that someone posted).

There are some items which I find disturbing.

The following are items I fully would support though. It's listed on the site posting a summary of it.


"Protect minor accounts from unapproved direct messaging

Block minor accounts from search results

In addition, social media companies:

Cannot collect a minor's data
Cannot target minor’s social media accounts for advertising."


I am fully behind laws that do this for minors.

I would be for laws that would protect Me in the same way!