SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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.