There's confusion over which companies will be affected:
The law requires social media companies that earn more than $100 million in annual revenue to work with third-party services to verify new account holders' personal information. This is done using "any commercially reasonable age verification method" or government-issued IDs such as photo IDs or driver's licenses. Current account holders won't be affected.
The law states that social media companies are defined as any online forum that lets users create public profiles and interact with each other through digital content.
CNN reports that in the final days of negotiations over the bill, Arkansas lawmakers approved an amendment that appears to exempt some of the world's biggest social media companies. Given all the concern over TikTok's influence and its links with China, it's surprising to see that social media platforms that permit users to "generate short video clips of dancing, voice overs, or other acts of entertainment in which the primary purpose is not educational or informative" are exempt. That would also seem to cover Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, as well as TikTok - but apparently not.
[...] Other exemptions include social media companies that "exclusively" offer subscription content, and those focused on "professional networking" and "career development" (i.e., LinkedIn). Companies that "exclusively offer" video gaming-focused social networking features aren't covered, either, which could include Twitch despite it not really being a social media platform.
At least it will protect the kids from all the remaining $100M/yr companies that weren't covered by the exemptions.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Opportunist on Saturday April 15, @08:35AM (7 children)
Just say what social media platform you're targeting and be done with it. The ridiculous exemptions and limitations only insult the intelligence of your subjects, everyone can easily see that you're ... huh? Oh. Arkansas.
Never mind, nobody to insult there.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheReaperD on Saturday April 15, @09:33AM (6 children)
Actually, it violates the constitution to write a law targeting individuals or organizations by name. Even if a law is too specific in targeting someone, a court may strike it down. So, you have to write laws using criteria that match the people or organizations without identifying them. And, in cases like this where the targets lobby (aka bribe) their way out of the bill, but the sponsors still want to claim a win 'doing something,' you end up with a mind-bending doublespeak bill like this. Of course, this could have just been the politicians being unhappy that they weren't getting that sweet sweet lobbying (aka bribe) money that the tech giants were throwing around Washington D.C. and decided to shake them down, thus this was the intended result all alone. We'll likely never know for sure.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stormreaver on Saturday April 15, @12:40PM (5 children)
This whole law is a First Amendment violation. We've been through this before with porn sites, and the Supreme Court struck down similar laws on First Amendment grounds.
Unfortunately, there are no penalties for politicians violating the Constitution over and over again.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aafcac on Saturday April 15, @04:07PM
Normally, the lack of consequences would be a good thing. Sadly the GOP has been using deliberately unconstitutional laws for fundraising and firing up their base rather than engaging in legitimate legislation for decades.
(Score: 3, Touché) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday April 15, @05:17PM
they get the punishment they deserve.
they get to live in red states.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 15, @05:48PM
Ah shit, we're fucked then.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by gznork26 on Saturday April 15, @07:05PM (1 child)
stormreaver said: "Unfortunately, there are no penalties for politicians violating the Constitution over and over again."
+++++
Hmmm. There's an interesting thought. Imagine if legislators proposing bills (even those written by a 3rd party) were responsible for them being broadly constitutional, with a penalty if they were not. I'm not talking about edge cases that a court would have to adjudicate, just those that on their face violate the constitution.
What sort of penalty makes sense in this case? The intended effect is to make the lawmakers responsible for bills they propose or sign onto as co-sponsors. Do they temporarily lose the right to sponsor or co-sign on new bills? If they are repeat offenders, can they be removed from office? I would think that in such a scenario there would have to be a body responsible for vetting bills for basic constitutionality, but who would they be and how are they held accountable?
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Sunday April 16, @02:42PM
That's more or less the issue. Especially with an activist court like we have now where they feel empowered to skew rulings for political reasons without any constitutional basis. A penalty for being ruled unconstitutional would just encourage that kind of behavior.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 15, @06:56PM (9 children)
I can see a huge increase in the fake ID business, real soon. The moment I am required to verify my identity, I'll be getting half a dozen or more IDs for myself.
Of course, it is well known that there are a bunch of retards writing laws anyway. Let me ask you: Some old grey headed neckbeard comes into your store, and asks for a pack of cigarettes. Or a six pack of beer. Or ammunition. Or anything. You're going to ask for ID to prove that he's over 18? Not just retards, but genuine fuckwits. I enjoy handing them an ID that claims that I'm 21 years old.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Tork on Saturday April 15, @08:18PM (5 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 15, @09:46PM (4 children)
Which guys are you concerned about, exactly? The 20-something cashier? I've made a statement that he/she can clearly understand. The law and/or store policy is an idiocy. The store manager? Again, I've made that clear statement. If you can't tell that I'm an old bastard, you're an idiot, so you can believe that I'm only 21. Corporate management? Again, same statement, but they won't hear the statement unless the store manager forwards the message to them. Lawmakers? I'll remind you that I write my lawmakers pretty frequently.
Who am I hurting here? Idiocy is idiocy. If you willingly participate in the idiocy, then you're an idiot. The message seems to be understood, even by some not-very-bright people that I've dealt with.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Sunday April 16, @02:47PM (3 children)
They're required to do it and if the state finds out that they aren't doing it when they have to, there are major fines and a possible loss of license. Not to mention that the employees are automatically fired. Around here every purchase has to result in the customer being carded of there are any age restricted items being purchased.
In fact we may even have to deny the sale of we suspect that the person is a straw buyer for some kids loitering out front.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 16, @11:31PM (2 children)
What you are clearly stating is, that it is an unjust law. "They have to do it, even when it makes no sense." Thank you for clarifying that.
When men were men, and women were women, no merchant would have tolerated such state interference in the conduct of business. In a world where Supreme Court justices and congress critters alike are unable to define a woman, we get just such injustice.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday April 17, @01:03PM (1 child)
What I'm saying is that you are a jack ass and if you feel this strongly you should be actively working too change the law or not buying any age restricted items. For the rest of us, I'm not sure how restrictions on purchasing items can be enforced if people can't be forced to provide an id.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 17, @05:45PM
You do realize that jack asses have rights? I have the right to not be harassed every time I wish to purchase some "age restricted item". But, you also realize that I don't refuse to show my ID? I don't berate the individual who asks for the ID? I merely point out the stupidity, for that individual to recognize. He may or may not take offense that I have pointed out the stupidity - but that is his problem, not mine.
I do. And, pointing out idiocy is part of that effort. If other people can't or won't recognize just how fucking STUPID it is to card some gray old bastard to see if he's old enough to buy __________, then they need the help.
So, I should give up my rights, so that you feel more comfortable, enforcing an idiot rule, which you seem to have already agreed is stupid.
I have an idea. Just stop worrying that some kid might purchase __________. If it is bad for his health, he will pay the price one day. If it isn't bad for his health, just don't worry. Kids are smoking, right now, despite all the rules and regulations. Kids are having sex, never mind that adults tell them that they shouldn't. Kids drink. Kids have legitimate access to firearms, as well as illegitimate access. Kids do things. Stop thinking that you have to be the world's baby sitter. That is just as bad, or worse, than the US attitude that it has to be the world's police.
Do you understand what freedom is? A police state where every cashier helps the police to enfore the police state's laws is not a free country.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16, @01:06AM (2 children)
I used to work as a cashier at a grocery store with a strict "always ID policy". Lots of people got very upset about having ID checked, but if I was seen on camera not checking I would be fired. If I didn't check and a sting operation got me, I would be fined as well as fired and the store would possibly lose their liquor license. Don't give the poor cashier a hard time over store policy, please.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 16, @02:23AM (1 child)
*yawn*
Pointing out that idiocy is idiocy is a duty we all share. Unless, of course, you believe in the idiocy.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16, @11:12AM
Yes, of course, unless. Um, why are you even saying this? Such a curious comment.