Using social media is not a crime. I think what we’re talking about here is child welfare or child protection laws (which all 50 states probably also have).

▲

john_strinlai 7 hours ago | parent [-]

if disallowing social media use below the age of 16 becomes a law (like the article's proposed bill), and a kid breaks that law, this seems like a perfect example of holding the parents liable?

but also yes, child welfare laws and such are also pretty fitting examples. i dont think the person asking for an example was really asking in good faith, anyhow.

▲

kieranmaine 7 hours ago | parent [-]

My understanding in this case the social media company is liable for allowing a child to access social media. So is not a crime for a child to use social media.

> Children cannot be left with the responsibility for staying away from platforms they are not allowed to use. That responsibility rests with the companies providing these services. They must implement effective age verification and comply with the law from day one

From the original press release https://www.regjeringen.no/en/whats-new/norwegian-social-med...

▲

john_strinlai 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

sure, that sounds right for how it is currently. my parenthesis above is probably wrong.

but the whole point of my example was showing that its absolutely possible to hold parents accountable for their childs actions. there are dozens of laws that do so already. so there is no excuse why a social media ban could not be written in the same fashion as those laws, rather than moving parental responsibility onto tech companies.

▲

wrs 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Laws hold parents accountable for their childrens' crimes, not their noncriminal actions. Nothing about this is saying that accessing social media is a crime -- that would be more similar to drug possession laws, firearms licensing, etc.

If your child is drinking: they are violating the alcohol possession age limit themselves; you are liable for their crime plus child endangerment if you gave them the alcohol; and whoever sold or supplied them the alcohol is violating a separate law. Sounds like we're trying to apply the same structure to social media, except (so far) with no possession/usage law.

	▲	4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]