It appears a lot of people don't understand the implications of laws like Utah's -- which will extend beyond the state, and be copied by many other states -- involving limits on children accessing social media. In order to prevent children from creating social media accounts by themselves, it is required that *ALL* users of social media be identified via government IDs. This is literally the beginning of Chinese-style control and tracking of ALL Internet usage here in the U.S. Nothing less.
Well, so much depends on actual implementation.
An impossible to implement law is just bluster. Annoying, yes, and maybe even expensive to the government trying to pursue it, but it's not clear Utah's law will be anything more than whistling into the wind.
It'd be like a city council outlawing gravity. That's a nice law they've got there, but...
So we'll see. Utah's law so far is little but a political stunt.
@volkris There are firms happy to provide ID/age verification services that would enable the entire scheme.
That's not the critical part for enabling the scheme, though. The state would need a way to enforce it, and that would be difficult.
All the firms in the world trying to sell verification services won't matter if nobody bothers going to them because the law is unenforceable in the first place.
@mnemonicoverload @volkris The UK has already moved farther in this direction. The EU is also moving toward these "child protection" ID models -- in some cases even more radical that in the U.S. This is not a U.S.-only issue, nor an issue of the political right alone - both left and right are rushing in this direction. They all want control of the Internet.
Right, but these are different governments with different designs, different enforcement mechanisms, different legal realities.
Different checks and balances, different notions of federalism, free speech rights codified, statutory realities, legal precedents... I could go on and on.
A state can pass whatever laws it wants. Often enough the just-enacted laws will be instantly irrelevant as if they outlawed the next morning's rising of the sun.
An unenforceable statute is just that.
So let's see what happens.
There's a good chance this will be nothing but a political stunt--paid for by the public--in the end.
You're overlooking the realities of executive branches.
It doesn't matter what courts say if the key parts of the picture aren't even in the jurisdiction of law enforcement in the first place.
The legislature in California can pass a law outlawing jaywalking on New York streets, but regardless of what any court says, California's governor won't be having cops stopping pedestrians in CA that are crossing NY streets because there are no NY streets in CA.
Even if the law is passed unanimously with bipartisan approval, there still aren't any NY streets in CA, so the law is irrelevant from the get-go, as there's nothing the executive is physically able to enforce.
Laws can only be enforced if law enforcement can reach the people involved, regardless of any theoretical or abstract issues.
@volkris There are already similar federal efforts in progress -- bipartisan ones.
Yep, and the same issues apply.
I thought it was really funny how with this week's fracas over TikTok, so many were yelling about outlawing the thing, and for every twenty voices I heard yelling to make it illegal, I heard maybe one voice quietly asking exactly how exactly that would actually be done.
The federal legislature is no stranger to passing unenforceable laws either.
California can't enforce a a law against the sun rising tomorrow. But neither can the federal government, even with all the might of the US government behind it.
@volkris It will be enforceable to the extent that courts permit it to be enforced. Since this path has been endorsed by so many politicians of BOTH parties, as part of their "Big Tech Hate", there is little else (except courts) to stop it, ultimately. And putting your eggs in the basket of the Supreme Court these days is, shall we say, risky.