Concerns of a nanny state side, this experiment is going to miss the mark. Social media bans is a collective action problem. Being the only teenager amongst your peers without social media is a very different situation to you _and also all of your friends_ not having social media.
As a British teen I concerned my parents a lot with my computer usage, with all they had heard about the dangers of over use. But for me that was an outlet in a pretty miserable childhood and turned into my career, I was programming and learning how stuff worked. I don't envy the kids that found an outlet doing something productive only to have a nanny state eventually rip it away from them.
You messing with a computer and teens doom-scrolling social media are two entirely different things.
Yes, some teens are creative with uploading videos, most are not. But teens can still be creative with a smart phone, just don’t post that stuff on social media.
There were pedophiles, porn, extreme gore, cults, scams and a primitive notion of brainrot. Music and games (not that I played games, but honestly my mum thought that this is why I liked computers and what I was doing) were generally thought to turn kids into killers.
Computer users even in the best conditions (and not children) were looked at negatively- as if they were no life losers. The techbro thing, and the normalisation of computer use is a very modern notion.
FWIW I had the same exact situation as the parent, and heard it all from my mum. The computer was considered undesirable at best and actively harmful at worst.
I was playing brain dead Game Boy games when I was a kid and adults around me were saying games need to be outlawed because they're making my generation stupid. Now I'm a game developer and pretty happy with it.
Every generation has grumpy old people complaining about the youth. I see the dumb TikTok videos that grumpy old people complain about today, and they're about 2 steps above the absolute slop Gen X adults used to watch in the early 2000s: reality TV. Now grumpy old people watch political streamers saying we need to ban (new thing) because it's making kids stupid.
And we're finally going back to a time where if a kid is even a little bit different from those around them, they're robbed of finding any type of community that doesn't ostracize them.
you dont think the amount of bullying and pressure to fit in on social media by teens isnt a huge problem? this isnt internet forums and online communities of the 90s, it’s in-your-face constant advertising and pressure by peers every second of every day
Is HN in complete denial about what is happening to the younger generations right now? My whole family are teachers, and they are all sounding the alarm. A majority of kids are basically unable to read books now. Not just children - young adults studying English literature at college...
Parents are up against some of the wealthiest companies on earth, and the fear of socially excluding their kids by limiting their usage. Systemic change is never going to come from parents on this one.
The problem seems to be that many students going to college can't seem to read any substantial texts anymore, while somehow getting themselves into college. It's pretty worrying imo. There's a bunch of articles about this as well: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/11/the-eli...
It's not about literacy, it's about attention span. My SIL is an English professor and she's stopped assigning long texts now, because she knows the kids won't read it and will get an AI to summarize it for them.
Society has a responsibility and an interest in parenting your kids as well. That's why it mandates some level of education and offer parts of it for free. It's why it has stores/bars check ID for buying alcohol or cigarettes. It's why banks don't give loans or credit cards to kids. It's why kids that commit a crime are not treated like adults.
So I never really understood that argument that society shouldn't also be worried and want to put some measures in place to protect kids from social media harm.
That clearly is required here, but the scale of the existing and potential harm is such that relying on parenting only is the equivalent of using paper instead of plastic straws when the worlds biggest companies and militaries are burning down the environment.
I’ve got three kids, albeit two somewhat older. It’s not a panopticon prison. There’s trust. The social media thing just isn’t a big thing for them. They all use WhatsApp and that’s about it. I mean one has instagram and that’s marketing for part time job while she’s studying.
Edit: just asked her and she’s on book 7 this year. That’s a whole lot better for you than doom scrolling.
I don’t think that at all. I just make sure they get to experience the rest of the world first. Literature, art, music, games, conversation, meeting people in real life, jumping on a plane and going places and seeing things.
There’s a lot to do in the world. Social media isn’t very attractive if you go and do those things. I’d you don’t then it becomes a portal to a narrow view of the world and then there is trouble.
The problem is a framed as a question of protection (who doesn't want to be protected?) with the intended effect of over-reach (spying).
The coordinated track that governments around the world are on (sponsored by corporations), is that governments and corps will be able to monitor and track individuals online - people will be deanonymised (via OS logins, no side loading, 'protect the children'). The ostensibly kind desires are just sugar.
Even if you accept that fact that people are online too much (by choice), teens are drinking/smoking less. When you push one thing another pops out. Forcing 'good' conformity on others, is actually psychological meddling. In my view meddling with another's desires (even if it's for their own good, in your opinion) is a form of psychological abuse. Inner re-engineering of others should not be normalised or accepted because it is done by government.
Banning it is tackling the problem at the wrong end. Social media, and Big Tech in general, should be heavily regulated, and certain behavior strongly fined, including criminal prosecution and prison sentences for repeat offenders.
But we all know this is not happening because governments profit greatly and have much to gain from their symbiotic relationships with tech companies. So it's easier to hassle tax payers, or in this case children to gain political points.
I ask again: What is "social media"? This appears focued on apps. Ok. What about web interfaces? Is youtube? Will kids be allowed to use signal?
We all talk about some great thing but we never define that thing. If we are going to move forwards with laws we need specifics. Is this place, HN, considered social media?
(As this is a law regulating both online speech and the safety of children, in the UK, bypassing will likely come with draconian penalties.)
For some reason, conversations on HN and in tech circles are behind the curve when it comes to social media bans.
Most countries are looking at social media bans, and there is a deep groundswell of public opinion against tech today.
Yes, in the 90s, tech was the good guy, but today people are frightened and upset with tech companies.
This would be less of a problem, if governments globally were not tending towards authoritarianism.
Governments are more than happy to appear responsive to voter needs, while also finally getting some form of control over (primarily American) tech firms.
As it stands though - safety is a bad word, enshittification is an actual word, and profit seems to be the final word.
The Techlash is real, but it doesn’t seem to feature in calculations and discussions on HN.
The problem with that is that it just creates a blind spot, and a miscalculation in the energies underlying such drives.
The OSINT report from r/linux got more traction, even if it was riddled with issues, giving birth to the belief that this is all driven by Meta.
A reading of the same data sits comfortably with Meta simply taking advantage of the macro trends to push onerous burdens onto its competitors.
I am sorry for the meta comment, but the blind spot in logic is annoying to me since it results in a mis-estimation of the energies at play here. That in turn means the responses or ideas people have are not calibrated and scaled correctly.
People are going to respond to incentives and instigate for their needs to be met.
My guess is that if tech invested significantly in customer support and safety, being more responsive to user needs, perhaps the underlying anger can be alleviated.
——
Anecdotes:
There needs to also be actual signal sharing between safety teams in tech. Same for customer support - Far too many please for help go through slack and WhatsApp.
I know of posts on reddit where people are asking for help reporting and taking down NCII found on Instagram/Threads. ideas.
Meta may be manipulating things to try to ensure they don't pay for age verification, but I think the state's true goal is more about foreign influence.
The very fact that we allow armies of state-actor paid posters to work diligently to undermine the views of our own citizens, and even more important our impressionable children, is beyond bizarre. Advertising works, manipulation works, and in an age where you can make up any story you want, create any visual appearance you want, create any history you want, this sort of manipulation is at an entire new level.
There is always more than one reason for any action, but I think a primary for this literal world wide push to add age verification, and eventually identity verification, is because states are finally waking up to the wide-scale manipulation happening on platforms today.
States take years and years to make policy change.
From the perspective of the state, they already know who you are when posting domestically. What they're gaining is an enhanced ability to ban externals from posting. To end or significantly reduce sock-puppetry.
Corps like Meta, X, etc would hate this on its own, for an enormous amount of accounts are fake accounts. Realistically, however, it would be a one time correction...
Anyhow.
Point is, when you see every democracy passing these laws, it isn't Meta.
None of this is nefarious, either. An example? Every decade or so every country in the world sends representatives to discuss ... effectively, "roads" and "road safety". One thing they do is, try to make the rules of the road as similar as possible everywhere.
An example is, in BC, Canada, a 'flashing green light' used to mean 'pedestrian crossing is active'. I kid you not. Meanwhile in Ontario, it meant 'turn left is OK'.
That's not how it works any more. BC now changed that flashing green light, and everywhere has almost completed the 15+ year long migration to an actual left arrow for 'turn left'.
Road lines were yellow in Canada most of the time, even in the middle of lanes. The logic was, you can see yellow easier than white, when there is some snow on the ground. Now, all lines tend to be white in Canada. Why? Because they're white everywhere.
The goal with road signs, is to have them as pictures, rather than words, and the same everywhere on the planet, so anyone of any language can understand them.
This is the sort of generic collaboration that happens in the background constantly. And its sensible, everyone wants tourism, everyone wants drivers to be safer, understand the rules of the road when traveling, and so on. Everyone benefits.
So from my perspective, to see all democracies passing laws, I simply see that probably there was a conference somewhere, and everyone discussed it, and thought "yeah, this is a problem".
> Point is, when you see every democracy passing these laws, it isn't Meta.
Sure. And the outpouring of support for ratification of OOXML as an ISO standard wasn't Microsoft. Nor was the large influx of new "P" members who arrived just in time to vote to adopt OOXML. Absolutely.
The fact that those "P" members refused to meet their obligations to cast a vote in any later ballots (resulting in the failure of several key ballots, bringing ISO to a standstill) only strengthens the claim that their actions were genuine grassroots activity. No. Doubt.
Megacorps never use their massive gobs of money and influence to co-opt processes that require all participants to mostly operate in good faith. Nope.
> States take years and years to make policy change.
The USian post-9/11 hysteria would like to have a word with you. Authoritarians rarely miss an opportunity to manufacture (or inflame) a crisis in order to present their pre-prepared rules changes that just happen to further expand their power and influence.
> I think the state's true goal is more about foreign influence. ... From the perspective of the state, they already know who you are when posting domestically.
Not in the US, no. Not without a fair bit of legwork. Though, I don't know much about the situation on the ground in countries like Britain and Germany. Perhaps things are so now bad there that you need to attach your Posting Loicense/Papers to everything you post, IDK.
> What they're gaining is an enhanced ability to ban externals from posting.
Yeah, here it is. "Keep those fuzzy foreigners out of our discussions!".
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that banning and/or jailing "Those People" is a reasonable thing to want to do. [0] The problem with this is that once you deploy and normalize this sort of "social technology", it always, always creeps further. Today it's "dangerous foreigners" with their "subversive ideologies". Five, ten years from now, it's whoever is the equivalent of today's LGBT&etc underclass.
[0] It's absolutely not. The remedy for bad speech is more speech. The remedy for falsehood is truth. The remedy for invalid attempts to sow discontent is to show how those attempts are not grounded in fact.
The UK is turning in the very definition of a nanny and police state under the usual guise of think of the children.
And don't get me wrong I'm just all for banning social media entirely.
>the effects of social media on kids is too strong, and too negative to deny at this point.
Bold claim that really needs some evidence. Is there research which shows that kids who grow up with social media are less likely to succeed as adults because of social media exposure?
Everyone likes to say the UK is a police state. It’s a bit of a meme. I mean we are literally going through legal reform at the moment to make it less of one while people with a masked presidential police force scream at us for being a police state.
Keep in mind that the UK government is currently locking people up for FB posts. Not exactly a police state but close enough that its a distinction without a difference. Oh, and they are debating if to get rid of jury trials so they can just lock up people for FB posts without a trial. If it quacks like a duck...
Firstly the incumbent legislation is actually being rolled back at the moment by Mahmood. The FB posts are all inciting violence against others which should not be protected speech. As for the jury trials, have you ever been in a jury? I'd rather not thanks myself. My peers are mostly fucking idiots. And they're changing that as well.
Concerns of a nanny state side, this experiment is going to miss the mark. Social media bans is a collective action problem. Being the only teenager amongst your peers without social media is a very different situation to you _and also all of your friends_ not having social media.
As a British teen I concerned my parents a lot with my computer usage, with all they had heard about the dangers of over use. But for me that was an outlet in a pretty miserable childhood and turned into my career, I was programming and learning how stuff worked. I don't envy the kids that found an outlet doing something productive only to have a nanny state eventually rip it away from them.
You messing with a computer and teens doom-scrolling social media are two entirely different things.
Yes, some teens are creative with uploading videos, most are not. But teens can still be creative with a smart phone, just don’t post that stuff on social media.
We don't need a nanny state to help with either of the two things. We can just have parents do their jobs if they wish to restrict social media usage.
You walked right into his point.
There were pedophiles, porn, extreme gore, cults, scams and a primitive notion of brainrot. Music and games (not that I played games, but honestly my mum thought that this is why I liked computers and what I was doing) were generally thought to turn kids into killers.
Computer users even in the best conditions (and not children) were looked at negatively- as if they were no life losers. The techbro thing, and the normalisation of computer use is a very modern notion.
FWIW I had the same exact situation as the parent, and heard it all from my mum. The computer was considered undesirable at best and actively harmful at worst.
You would most probably have it taken away by endless stream of brain sugar like TikTok, if it existed back in your days.
I was playing brain dead Game Boy games when I was a kid and adults around me were saying games need to be outlawed because they're making my generation stupid. Now I'm a game developer and pretty happy with it.
Every generation has grumpy old people complaining about the youth. I see the dumb TikTok videos that grumpy old people complain about today, and they're about 2 steps above the absolute slop Gen X adults used to watch in the early 2000s: reality TV. Now grumpy old people watch political streamers saying we need to ban (new thing) because it's making kids stupid.
> I don't envy the kids that found an outlet doing something productive only to have a nanny state eventually rip it away from them.
99% of today's social media usage is the opposite of productive, too bad the laws concentrate on policing internet use though.
This doesn’t really take the computer away. It takes walled addictive social media apps away.
We just didn’t have those back in the day.
And we're finally going back to a time where if a kid is even a little bit different from those around them, they're robbed of finding any type of community that doesn't ostracize them.
you dont think the amount of bullying and pressure to fit in on social media by teens isnt a huge problem? this isnt internet forums and online communities of the 90s, it’s in-your-face constant advertising and pressure by peers every second of every day
I already do this with my <16. It’s called parenting.
They can use their computer however. That’s fine. It’s the engagement based social media and constant comms via messaging that’s the issue.
I find that she doesn’t actually use it all the time and goes and does other stuff like reading and recently drawing and painting.
Is HN in complete denial about what is happening to the younger generations right now? My whole family are teachers, and they are all sounding the alarm. A majority of kids are basically unable to read books now. Not just children - young adults studying English literature at college...
Parents are up against some of the wealthiest companies on earth, and the fear of socially excluding their kids by limiting their usage. Systemic change is never going to come from parents on this one.
Not to state the obvious but, isn't literacy an entry requirement for a college course?
The problem seems to be that many students going to college can't seem to read any substantial texts anymore, while somehow getting themselves into college. It's pretty worrying imo. There's a bunch of articles about this as well: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/11/the-eli...
It's not about literacy, it's about attention span. My SIL is an English professor and she's stopped assigning long texts now, because she knows the kids won't read it and will get an AI to summarize it for them.
Nope.
https://www.live5news.com/2025/02/28/former-high-school-hono...
The problem is also discussed briefly in this recent paper: https://senate.ucsd.edu/media/740347/sawg-report-on-admissio...> It’s called parenting.
Society has a responsibility and an interest in parenting your kids as well. That's why it mandates some level of education and offer parts of it for free. It's why it has stores/bars check ID for buying alcohol or cigarettes. It's why banks don't give loans or credit cards to kids. It's why kids that commit a crime are not treated like adults.
So I never really understood that argument that society shouldn't also be worried and want to put some measures in place to protect kids from social media harm.
> It’s called parenting.
That clearly is required here, but the scale of the existing and potential harm is such that relying on parenting only is the equivalent of using paper instead of plastic straws when the worlds biggest companies and militaries are burning down the environment.
> It’s called parenting.
There are multi-billionar dollar industries targeting the attention of your child. Many adults have problems resisting.
Are you using any technical measures to limit what they can see or do?
I’ve got three kids, albeit two somewhat older. It’s not a panopticon prison. There’s trust. The social media thing just isn’t a big thing for them. They all use WhatsApp and that’s about it. I mean one has instagram and that’s marketing for part time job while she’s studying.
Edit: just asked her and she’s on book 7 this year. That’s a whole lot better for you than doom scrolling.
If you think youre such a great parent that you or your kid is safe from the insidious danger of social media, I think youre being naive.
I don’t think that at all. I just make sure they get to experience the rest of the world first. Literature, art, music, games, conversation, meeting people in real life, jumping on a plane and going places and seeing things.
There’s a lot to do in the world. Social media isn’t very attractive if you go and do those things. I’d you don’t then it becomes a portal to a narrow view of the world and then there is trouble.
Half of me worries about the nanny/surveillance state aspect of this.
Half of me wants us to ban it for adults too.
The problem is a framed as a question of protection (who doesn't want to be protected?) with the intended effect of over-reach (spying).
The coordinated track that governments around the world are on (sponsored by corporations), is that governments and corps will be able to monitor and track individuals online - people will be deanonymised (via OS logins, no side loading, 'protect the children'). The ostensibly kind desires are just sugar.
Even if you accept that fact that people are online too much (by choice), teens are drinking/smoking less. When you push one thing another pops out. Forcing 'good' conformity on others, is actually psychological meddling. In my view meddling with another's desires (even if it's for their own good, in your opinion) is a form of psychological abuse. Inner re-engineering of others should not be normalised or accepted because it is done by government.
Banning it is tackling the problem at the wrong end. Social media, and Big Tech in general, should be heavily regulated, and certain behavior strongly fined, including criminal prosecution and prison sentences for repeat offenders.
But we all know this is not happening because governments profit greatly and have much to gain from their symbiotic relationships with tech companies. So it's easier to hassle tax payers, or in this case children to gain political points.
I can already hear people piss and moan about censorship then too though.
Pretty much. There is a very narrow middle way but I doubt we can take that.
Live long enough and eventually it will suck.
I can see bored guys setting shit on fire again :D
I ask again: What is "social media"? This appears focued on apps. Ok. What about web interfaces? Is youtube? Will kids be allowed to use signal?
We all talk about some great thing but we never define that thing. If we are going to move forwards with laws we need specifics. Is this place, HN, considered social media?
(As this is a law regulating both online speech and the safety of children, in the UK, bypassing will likely come with draconian penalties.)
At this point the UK should just raise people's children for them and drop all pretences. Sheesh.
Hello yes we would like to invade the privacy of your child in the name of children everywhere
Some seem to support this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47513098
Which is a platform being fined for not spying on children.
For some reason, conversations on HN and in tech circles are behind the curve when it comes to social media bans.
Most countries are looking at social media bans, and there is a deep groundswell of public opinion against tech today.
Yes, in the 90s, tech was the good guy, but today people are frightened and upset with tech companies.
This would be less of a problem, if governments globally were not tending towards authoritarianism.
Governments are more than happy to appear responsive to voter needs, while also finally getting some form of control over (primarily American) tech firms.
As it stands though - safety is a bad word, enshittification is an actual word, and profit seems to be the final word.
The Techlash is real, but it doesn’t seem to feature in calculations and discussions on HN.
The problem with that is that it just creates a blind spot, and a miscalculation in the energies underlying such drives.
The OSINT report from r/linux got more traction, even if it was riddled with issues, giving birth to the belief that this is all driven by Meta.
A reading of the same data sits comfortably with Meta simply taking advantage of the macro trends to push onerous burdens onto its competitors.
I am sorry for the meta comment, but the blind spot in logic is annoying to me since it results in a mis-estimation of the energies at play here. That in turn means the responses or ideas people have are not calibrated and scaled correctly.
People are going to respond to incentives and instigate for their needs to be met.
My guess is that if tech invested significantly in customer support and safety, being more responsive to user needs, perhaps the underlying anger can be alleviated.
——
Anecdotes:
There needs to also be actual signal sharing between safety teams in tech. Same for customer support - Far too many please for help go through slack and WhatsApp.
I know of posts on reddit where people are asking for help reporting and taking down NCII found on Instagram/Threads. ideas.
Meta may be manipulating things to try to ensure they don't pay for age verification, but I think the state's true goal is more about foreign influence.
The very fact that we allow armies of state-actor paid posters to work diligently to undermine the views of our own citizens, and even more important our impressionable children, is beyond bizarre. Advertising works, manipulation works, and in an age where you can make up any story you want, create any visual appearance you want, create any history you want, this sort of manipulation is at an entire new level.
There is always more than one reason for any action, but I think a primary for this literal world wide push to add age verification, and eventually identity verification, is because states are finally waking up to the wide-scale manipulation happening on platforms today.
States take years and years to make policy change.
From the perspective of the state, they already know who you are when posting domestically. What they're gaining is an enhanced ability to ban externals from posting. To end or significantly reduce sock-puppetry.
Corps like Meta, X, etc would hate this on its own, for an enormous amount of accounts are fake accounts. Realistically, however, it would be a one time correction...
Anyhow.
Point is, when you see every democracy passing these laws, it isn't Meta.
None of this is nefarious, either. An example? Every decade or so every country in the world sends representatives to discuss ... effectively, "roads" and "road safety". One thing they do is, try to make the rules of the road as similar as possible everywhere.
An example is, in BC, Canada, a 'flashing green light' used to mean 'pedestrian crossing is active'. I kid you not. Meanwhile in Ontario, it meant 'turn left is OK'.
That's not how it works any more. BC now changed that flashing green light, and everywhere has almost completed the 15+ year long migration to an actual left arrow for 'turn left'.
Road lines were yellow in Canada most of the time, even in the middle of lanes. The logic was, you can see yellow easier than white, when there is some snow on the ground. Now, all lines tend to be white in Canada. Why? Because they're white everywhere.
The goal with road signs, is to have them as pictures, rather than words, and the same everywhere on the planet, so anyone of any language can understand them.
This is the sort of generic collaboration that happens in the background constantly. And its sensible, everyone wants tourism, everyone wants drivers to be safer, understand the rules of the road when traveling, and so on. Everyone benefits.
So from my perspective, to see all democracies passing laws, I simply see that probably there was a conference somewhere, and everyone discussed it, and thought "yeah, this is a problem".
> Point is, when you see every democracy passing these laws, it isn't Meta.
Sure. And the outpouring of support for ratification of OOXML as an ISO standard wasn't Microsoft. Nor was the large influx of new "P" members who arrived just in time to vote to adopt OOXML. Absolutely.
The fact that those "P" members refused to meet their obligations to cast a vote in any later ballots (resulting in the failure of several key ballots, bringing ISO to a standstill) only strengthens the claim that their actions were genuine grassroots activity. No. Doubt.
Megacorps never use their massive gobs of money and influence to co-opt processes that require all participants to mostly operate in good faith. Nope.
> States take years and years to make policy change.
The USian post-9/11 hysteria would like to have a word with you. Authoritarians rarely miss an opportunity to manufacture (or inflame) a crisis in order to present their pre-prepared rules changes that just happen to further expand their power and influence.
> I think the state's true goal is more about foreign influence. ... From the perspective of the state, they already know who you are when posting domestically.
Not in the US, no. Not without a fair bit of legwork. Though, I don't know much about the situation on the ground in countries like Britain and Germany. Perhaps things are so now bad there that you need to attach your Posting Loicense/Papers to everything you post, IDK.
> What they're gaining is an enhanced ability to ban externals from posting.
Yeah, here it is. "Keep those fuzzy foreigners out of our discussions!".
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that banning and/or jailing "Those People" is a reasonable thing to want to do. [0] The problem with this is that once you deploy and normalize this sort of "social technology", it always, always creeps further. Today it's "dangerous foreigners" with their "subversive ideologies". Five, ten years from now, it's whoever is the equivalent of today's LGBT&etc underclass.
[0] It's absolutely not. The remedy for bad speech is more speech. The remedy for falsehood is truth. The remedy for invalid attempts to sow discontent is to show how those attempts are not grounded in fact.
[dead]
The UK is turning in the very definition of a nanny and police state under the usual guise of think of the children. And don't get me wrong I'm just all for banning social media entirely.
I reckon in 20 years most countries will be doing this - the effects of social media on kids is too strong, and too negative to deny at this point.
Also in what way is the UK a police state? The amount of police is falling - we're strapped for cash...
>the effects of social media on kids is too strong, and too negative to deny at this point.
Bold claim that really needs some evidence. Is there research which shows that kids who grow up with social media are less likely to succeed as adults because of social media exposure?
Everyone likes to say the UK is a police state. It’s a bit of a meme. I mean we are literally going through legal reform at the moment to make it less of one while people with a masked presidential police force scream at us for being a police state.
Keep in mind that the UK government is currently locking people up for FB posts. Not exactly a police state but close enough that its a distinction without a difference. Oh, and they are debating if to get rid of jury trials so they can just lock up people for FB posts without a trial. If it quacks like a duck...
This is paranoid bullshit.
Firstly the incumbent legislation is actually being rolled back at the moment by Mahmood. The FB posts are all inciting violence against others which should not be protected speech. As for the jury trials, have you ever been in a jury? I'd rather not thanks myself. My peers are mostly fucking idiots. And they're changing that as well.
20 years seems long to me. I give it less than 5. Just think of what the internet was like in 2006, these things can happen fast.
I guess imprecise wording. I suppose they mean unholy crossover of Kafqueske and Owellian state.
[dead]