DeSantis signs Florida ban on kids using social media.

At any rate, this is not something that can be enforced.
What is a 12 yr old parent helps them set up an account on one of those nasty websites, whatever they are?
Are the parents likely to be charged and jailed?

 

It's darn near impossible.

Porn sites have always been illegal to under 18 yr olds. Yet, I bet any person under 18 has no problem accessing porn sites.

Just like the old days, when girlie magazines found their ways into the hands of teenagers.
How does one enforce what one reads?

 

Any law is an absolute unto itself, but context actually shows that it’s not. For example, 12 and under is an absolute if you completely disregard kids over 12.

You must be really mad at all the other laws regarding kids like what age they can have consensual sex, what age they can smoke, drink alcohol, use guns, make medical decisions, etc. Should all be a matter of “parental rights” to you huh?

In point of fact you are the one trucking in absolutes. Zero moderation from you whatsoever and as far as you’re concerned kids can go online and get targeted by predators as early as they like. You must enjoy that sort of thing? Something about yourself you’d like to tell the class?

See? One law protecting kids under 12 and that’s all it takes for you to spout off about “waaaaaa nanny govmint it is it is!”

absolutist garbage.

 

Yes, some kind of digital identification method.

 

You must be really mad at pretending to know what everyone in the world thinks and be wrong about them ALL THE TIME.

But, when one has no real point to discuss, make a post about the other posters. Good job

 

Ron DeSantis is a horrible person.

But in this one thing, I find that I agree and appluad him. Bravo FL. For once your in the news for not doing something totally stupid.

 

Where did I say I know what everyone thinks? Are you everyone? I only know what you think since you are the one saying it, and I find it extremely lacking in coherency and logical application to the point where I’m now left wondering about your true motives.

 

online vape does this now, they process your face with a photo from the phone, then you upload your Driver's License, they send both to a 3rd party to verify

sure that information will never be used for identity theft by someone, somewhere

 

Really? Yes, it would have to be something like that, but of course it applies to everyone who uses YouTube, FaceBook, or online discussion forms like this one.

It will be used by China and Russia and God knows who else, because hacking is only a matter of time

 

Most all your posts to all others are what you think you think they mean.
And you're always wrong.

People do that when they don't actually have a valid point to make. Good job.

Find posts of mine stating what you posted about kids and laws as I repost it for you.
You are the only one to make any such intentional untruths.

If you can't find my posts stating any of the above, you are caught being untruthful.

 

So you’re saying statements should never be taken to their logical conclusion in order to point out the flaws in their thinking and only taken at face value?


Do you know how I know I’m on point every single time I do that? The poster never clarifies his position, he just claims that’s not what he said, a convenient and lazy way of not addressing his fallacies by pretending that his statements don’t exist as anything more than in a vacuum.

Hence why you won’t explain how your position does not contradict the logical conclusion your statements require. You will never, ever, explain to me how child laws in one area are not nanny state government while child laws in another are. And any question or statement I ask to get you to explain it merely results in you claiming victimhood. Hence how I know I’m exactly right, and you’re just mad about it.

How utterly pathetic.

 

Yes. For your logical conclusion is not correct.

You are only on point in your own mind. Unless you are a mind reader of all people in the world. And I don't believe in mind readers.

I am not one of those that typically cries about nanny gov'ts.
That is the RW.
They cry all the time about cradle to grave laws. Except when they are the one's creating those laws. Which are plenty. Especialy in regards to who people should sleep with. What women need to do reproductively.
Whether trans people can or can not play a particular sport.

The group that cries the loudest about nanny state, cradle to grave laws, are the one's that want to enact the most.

Positions unrelated to the topic are not that relevant. The world isn't binary and people can have all kinds of different views on all the different issues relating to life or how to raise kids.
Deeply religious people raise their kids completely different from non religious people.
We are not robots and don't all think alike.

You only know you're right because it's all your mind is capable of.
I say you're wrong because I can read your illogical conclusions.

 

Thanks for proving my point that you won’t ever clarify your absolutist opinions therefore they remain absolutes and I am correct in my logical deductions I derive from those absolutes and concluding that your position is fallacy and hypocrisy ridden.

Your position is hereby rejected. Thanks for playing!

 

WOW.
What I posted about is opposite being absolutist.
I am not for and never have been about a 1 size fits all solution to issues. But, you do show you can't understand what people post and do just make up what you want.

 

Then you would be capable of explaining why this single solitary law is automatically a nanny state law for you.

But you can’t. And you haven’t. Absolutism is your bread and dodging is your butter. Bon Apetit

 

It's govt doing the parents job of telling their kids what they can do on social media sites.

It's always been illegal for minors to use porn sites. So, what does this law actually do? And how will it be enforced?