Submitted 9 months ago by tardigrada@beehaw.org to technology@beehaw.org
A new law, signed by Republican Governor Mike DeWine in July, is considered as a way to safeguard children’s mental health, citing concerns about the intentionally addictive nature of social media.
DeWine is a fascist shitbag, there’s zero chance this starts and ends with “protecting kids.”
How is it fascist to require trans treatment to be signed off on by a psychiatrist, an endocrinologist, and a bioethicist?
Is it just a matter of trying to control people’s bodies?
As a libertarian I oppose any law that requires any adult to get permission from any other adult before modifying their own body. But I don’t consider the normal method — using doctors to approve treatment plans — to be fascist. It’s just authoritarian.
The only way this if fascist is if it’s also fascist to require doctor’s approval before obtaining adderall or antibiotics.
Except you don’t require an psychiatrist, endocrinologist, and a bioethicist before obtaining adderall, do you? Any single doctor in any hospital can prescribe it for you.
In a quote from the referenced article.-
“Imagine you have diabetes. There are five top diabetes specialists in your state, but you like most patients get your care from your primary care physician. The specialists provide better care, and their patients do better.
Now, imagine the impact of a regulation requiring all patients in your state to get diabetes treatment from one of those five. If you can’t see one of them your diabetes goes untreated.
If you’re an ordinary patient, the most likely outcome is that you lose treatment for your diabetes entirely. You don’t get improved care- there are still just five specialists, and they have no where near the capacity to see everyone with diabetes in the state.”
There’s a reason that these sorts of laws get overturned on anti-discrimination grounds, becuse they apply requirements to trans care that don’t apply to anyone else, including cis people taking the exact same medication.
Protecting children would mean knowing which users are children, which would mean knowing the actual legal identity of every user of the platform. It’s never going to happen.
You don’t think that the data the companies collect and analyse from their users don’t already give them a decent idea? How do you think targeted advertising works?
That data is a very good guess, but not appropriate for legal application.
Really? That’s the basis of the lawsuit? That kids were being protected?
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 9 months ago
Anytime someone’s claim is the protection of children, you should apply a VERY heavy dose of scepticism and scrutiny.
conciselyverbose@kbin.social 9 months ago
I absolutely agree, but "you need parental consent to have an account" doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
regul@lemm.ee 9 months ago
If you take it at face value, which you should really never do when conservatives are involved.
By my estimation, this (and bills like it) are intended to do two things:
JCPhoenix@beehaw.org 9 months ago
Doesn’t COPPA already require this for children under 13? This state bill raises it to under 16.
I guess it comes down to the particulars. Is there something more onerous in the Ohio bill than in COPPA? Because I don’t think I’ve heard of any company seriously getting mad that COPPA is a thing.