The Louisiana legislature is infested with conservatives who are barely literate. The chances those back-water right-wing dipshits were able to cobble together a functional and enforceable law regarding technology is slim.
(11) “Social media company” means a person or entity that provides a social media platform that has at least five million account holders worldwide and is an interactive computer service.
So, it looks like they passed the law, but still haven’t got their shit together.
D. The division may adopt rules in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act that provide examples of all of the following:
(1) Acceptable processes or means by which a social media company may meet the age verification requirements of this Chapter, including adjusting for new technologies.
(2) Acceptable forms or methods of identification for individuals to verify that they are over the age of sixteen, which may not be limited to a valid identification card issued by a government entity.
(3) Acceptable processes or means to confirm that a parent or guardian has provided consent for the minor to open or use an account pursuant to this Section.
I love this part:
§1754. Parental access to social media account settings; parental supervision
A social media company shall provide a parent or guardian who has given parental consent for a Louisiana minor account holder as provided in this Chapter with a means for the minor account holder or the parent or guardian to initiate account supervision. Such supervision shall include the ability for the parent to view privacy settings of the minor’s account, set daily time limits for the service, schedule breaks, and offer the minor the option to set up parental notifications when the minor reports a person or issue.
Even Facebook, with all of their money, doesn’t have these features.
So this is related to a previous law (the CDA? Not sure) that requires special accommodations for users under 13 years of age in order to separate kids and porn (also kids and predators). For most social media platforms the response was to limit the age in the TOS to 13 years.
Did you click a TOS confirmation when you joined facebook? Congrats, you asserted you’re at least 13 years old. Were you underage at the time? Congrats! You committed a felony violation of the CFAA (though this was fixed somewhere in the mid 2010s). It was never enforced, but the assumption was if you’re tweeting you’re old enough to read swearing.
In time we established that kids who want to see porn will gladly pretend to be an old person to do it. If someone admits they’re underage, and you’re sexually explicit at them, then yes Chris Hanson wants you to have a seat.
(Our rules regarding sex and underage people vary from county to county, and while a teen boy and a teen girl of like ages can get it on without violating the law in every US county, this is not always the case when it comes to two boys or two girls or enbies of any stripe, and very few counties have protections for teens doing anything else, like sexting their sweetheart. So be safe!)
That said, currently all a porn site has to do is put an age-gate where you click to assure you’re over 18 and can witness the content of M-rated video games. If Louisana is going to require more (such as mandating a license check) they’ll have to specify, and in being specific the law will then interact with commonplace rights to privacy, which includes engaging with the internet while staying anonymous.
So far we don’t have a way to prove one’s age without also compromising their specific identity, a consequence which has a chilling effect that most would-be moral guardians depend on. Since the porn industry depends on people obtaining porn anonymously, we can expect there will be some very serious first-amendment and fifth-amendment challenges to this law.
To be honest I also think the same question in regards for GDPR and UK inbound legislation regarding porn and how those might affect the fediverse in general.
Is there a minimum number of users for this to be effective? If so, just keeping you instance under that amou t should work.
Can they really charge someone who is not running the instance for profit? The article states that the social media owner must take “commercially reasonable” action to verify users. Technically, nothing is commercially reasonable if you aren’t running a Comercial business right?
Related to 2. The article says “social media companies”. Most instances aren’t being ran by companies… So again this may be an out for those running instances.
“Social media company” means a person or entity that provides a social media platform that has at least five million account holders worldwide and is an interactive computer service.
I think it’s safe to say no single Lemmy or Mastodon instance will ever be covered by this particular bill.
“Social media company” means a person or entity that provides a social media platform that has at least five million account holders worldwide and is an interactive computer service.
So it’s a nonissue.
Also, is there formatting on here? I just defaulted to my old habit of > for quote text.
Is there a minimum number of users for this to be effective? If so, just keeping you instance under that amou t should work.
Can they really charge someone who is not running the instance for profit? The article states that the social media owner must take “commercially reasonable” action to verify users. Technically, nothing is commercially reasonable if you aren’t running a Comercial business right?
3… Related to 2. The article says “social media companies”. Most instances aren’t being ran by companies… So again this may be an out for those running instances.
Add comment