The US state of Louisiana requires social media companies to get parental permission for users under 16.

  • elboyoloco@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    3 things.

    1. Is there a minimum number of users for this to be effective? If so, just keeping you instance under that amou t should work.

    2. Can they really charge someone who is not running the instance for profit? The article states that the social media owner must take “commercially reasonable” action to verify users. Technically, nothing is commercially reasonable if you aren’t running a Comercial business right?

    3. Related to 2. The article says “social media companies”. Most instances aren’t being ran by companies… So again this may be an out for those running instances.

    • substill@vlemmy.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      From the Act:

      1. “Social media company” means a person or entity that provides a social media platform that has at least five million account holders worldwide and is an interactive computer service.

      So it’s a nonissue.

      Also, is there formatting on here? I just defaulted to my old habit of > for quote text.

      • freamon@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also, is there formatting on here? I just defaulted to my old habit of > for quote text.

        Yeah, same markdown as Reddit

  • Zoidsberg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would just say its a good thing that no social media companies are running Lemmy instances, then.

  • elboyoloco@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    3 things.

    1. Is there a minimum number of users for this to be effective? If so, just keeping you instance under that amou t should work.

    2. Can they really charge someone who is not running the instance for profit? The article states that the social media owner must take “commercially reasonable” action to verify users. Technically, nothing is commercially reasonable if you aren’t running a Comercial business right?

    3… Related to 2. The article says “social media companies”. Most instances aren’t being ran by companies… So again this may be an out for those running instances.

  • colonial@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think a hobbyist-hosted instance would count as a social media company.

    Also, what’s Louisiana gonna do if the instance is outside their state? Send them strongly-worded emails?

  • hellequin67@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be honest I also think the same question in regards for GDPR and UK inbound legislation regarding porn and how those might affect the fediverse in general.

  • BurnTheRight@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Louisiana legislature is infested with conservatives who are barely literate. The chances those back-water right-wing dipshits were able to cobble together a functional and enforceable law regarding technology is slim.