Ron DeSantis Signs Social Media Age-Verification Bill
The law would require platforms to use invasive measures to prevent most teenagers under 16 from making social media accounts and bar all minors from sexually explicit sites.

On Monday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill enacting sweeping restrictions on minors' access to social media in the state. This comes just weeks after DeSantis vetoed a different age-verification bill, citing concerns that the first bill was too broad.
But the latest bill approved by DeSantis still places draconian limits on young people's ability to make social media accounts—and requires sites to infringe upon everyone else's privacy in the process.
Under House Bill 3, most social media sites will be required to deny accounts to those under 14 years old and terminate any accounts already held by kids under 14—including accounts that the platform isn't certain are held by someone under 14 but that the company "treats or categorizes as belonging to an account holder who is likely younger than 14 years of age for purposes of targeting content or advertising." Accounts held by 14- and 15-year-olds are also targeted for deletion under the law, though these teenagers can keep their accounts with parental permission.
The bill further states that any "commercial entity" that publishes content that is "harmful to minors" on a website or social media application must use age-verification measures to ensure that users under 18 cannot access the material. This section of the law appears to be written to prevent minors from accessing pornography websites, defining material "harmful to minors" as content that "appeals to the prurient interest," "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual content," and "when taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
"You can have a kid in the house safe, seemingly, and then you have predators that can get right in there into your own home," DeSantis said during a press conference. "You could be doing everything right but they know how to get and manipulate these different platforms."
Companies that violate the law could face severe penalties, including up to $50,000 in damages per violation—and a payout of $10,000 more if they are sued by an individual minor over a violation of the law.
While the bill does not specify how exactly social media sites should verify a customer's age, with such large consequences for violating the law, it's likely that companies will require customers to hand over their government ID, submit to a facial scan, or otherwise hand over sensitive information.
"HB 3 forces Floridians to hand over sensitive personal information to websites or lose their access to critical information channels. This infringes on Floridians' First Amendment rights to share and access speech online," Carl Szabo, the vice president and general counsel of NetChoice, an organization that has sued to stop similar laws, wrote in a Monday press release. "We're disappointed to see Gov. DeSantis sign onto this route. There are better ways to keep Floridians, their families and their data safe and secure online without violating their freedoms."
Should the law face a constitutional challenge, it's likely to be overturned. Similar laws in California, Arkansas, and Texas have all been struck down by federal judges who said those bills violated the First Amendment by requiring social media sites to censor content.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Glad he dropped out.
But it's for the children!!!!! I'll bet you wanna kill grandma, too.
+100000. My thoughts exactly.
vaccine passports bad
internet passports good
no hypocrisy here
vaccine passports bad
internet passports good
no hypocrisy here
Because barring someone from entry to some places is the same as barring them entry without documentation for all places?
We don’t need your sub-4th grade level understanding of logic to help our cause, thanks. I hear the left is openly recruiting anyone with a pulse and a name to mail ballots.
freedom is too scary for the bible humpers ... your cause is not a libertarian one ... no where close to a leftist but certainly not a theocrat
So you're saying I don't meet whatever arbitrary rules you've erected around libertarianism to be allowed into by you?
As indicated, take your ball and go home junior, we don't need your Bush League idiocy around here. With people like JFree, M4E, sarc, and mtrueman, we're full up on retardation as it is.
the argument for <16 year-olds on social is?
I think "fuck you" is a sufficient argument because the burden of proof is on those who want to use force, not the other way around.
>>I think “fuck you” is a sufficient argument
expecting more would be an own goal.
If the burden of proof is not on you, no argument is needed. You should know this.
I can ask a fucking question for asking's sake.
Sure you can. and when the question is “Why should people have freedom” I think “fuck you” is the sufficient if not appropriate answer.
🙂
+100000000000... Very well said all the way down.
Especially THIS -----------> "the burden of proof is on those who want to use force, not the other way around."
He spent all morning defending the state trying to get 500M from Trump.
This is the intellectual discourse sarc brings day after day. Then bitches at others.
"Freedom" is a sufficient argument.
The abject failure and massive unintended consequences of every other attempt at legislating-morality-through-prohibition should be another.
The continuing research on the adverse consequences of infantilizing our young adults is another.
Finally, I'd close with the many failures of one-size-fits-all legislative "solutions" when local entities (in this case, parents) are able to make decisions that fit the individual needs of the circumstance.
wasn't asking for legislation thanks was asking why children require social but fuck me is the answer apparently see above
Why do they require mail or telegraph or telephone or ham radio or cell phones or...? This is just the evolution of communication.
Off topic, go to any good shows lately? The Kills were awesome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7Sp3f4CumA&t=67s
Old guy who held my place when I got a drink described her as a female Robert Plant.
saw tool in early february. have phish @the sphere in vegas in a couple weeks. haven't been to vegas ever, so ...
Figured out that &t=67s starts it sixty seven seconds in before I could edit the link.
Hmmm… That’s two of us that didn’t understand your question the first time. I’ll translate it to “Ignore the legislation; why should I as a parent want my kid to be on social media?” Is that fair?
If so, sarc has the trivial answer that nobody (of any age) needs social media – but many people want it. They find value whether I do or not (personally, mostly not).
I’m also still going to point to the evidence against infantilizing our young adults. I didn’t let my kids have phones or unsupervised accounts until we thought they were mature enough to handle it. But once they were old enough, I would have done them no favors by hiding it from them. Better to get some experience while parents are still around to coach and supervise than throwing them into the deep end when they leave for the first time. Or worse, driving it underground.
It’s the same logic that says you should let your kids try alcohol at home in a controlled, supervised setting to take away the allure instead of pretending they’re abstinent, then watch them start binge drinking at college.
Some social media is actually educational and (mostly) healthy. Remember that Wikipedia counts as social media. With proper cautions and oversight, you can learn a lot from reading it (and more from learning how to edit it). The comments sections here also count as social media and I learn a lot here. (Not from every commenter but learning how to ignore the trolls is also a life skill.)
Facebook is my wife’s and mother’s primary picture-sharing method. If my kids didn’t follow them on Facebook, they’d know almost nothing about their extended family.
Those are a couple responses. I still think the strongest argument is “they (and presumably their parents) want it”. And to go past your question, if their parent’s don’t want it, they have lots of better alternatives than legislation.
thank you for the thoughtful response.
You just lit the Groomer Jeffy signal.
Because it's actually none of your damn business. It's up to the parent to decide at what age their child gets to do certain things.
Will some parents make poor choices? Of course. But who are we to judge them? Would we want them judging us?
It always comes down to if we empower government to parent our children whose "right way" will be used. Sure, maybe for the next 4 years the guys in charge mostly agree with you but will they be the same people in charge in 10 years?
We started off with a tiny little income tax of a few percent on people who made a lot of money a bit over 100 years ago and now look where we are at.
Best I can come up with is that it's someone else's kid.
If it's your kid, say no social media if you want. If it's someone else's kid, well, not your problem.
Kind of like an R rated movie where children are allowed with a parent, but not unaccompanied. If you don't take your kid, that's your choice, but if another parent does that's their choice. (I'm against movie ratings, too, but this is all just debating your honest question)
Here's another. Social media is not, by definition, a purely adult space. It is not really anything. The moment the government defines it, then demands certain actions for access, the ability to create a new sort of internet service ceases because you have to comply with the government's regulations, and definitions of social media. So innovation stops, legacy companies in that space become further entrenched, and a startup with a fresh idea cannot compete because government regulations now stipulate the framework companies must operate in.
You have to define it to regulate it, and then everything outside that definition is running a risk. What if someone comes up with a wonderful service that parents WANT their 14 year old to use, but it buts up against legislation barring under 16s? Well, that service will never exist, that's what happens.
Anyway, all that said, fuck Facebook and similar toxic cesspools on the internet. But just because I think they are shit doesn't mean anything to anyone else. I just don't use them, personally.
I don't use any of them and thanks for the response.
As a practical matter, the state is putting the onus on providers to invent, implement, and maintain a system of verifying every user's age. And if the state, after the fact, thinks you didn't do a good enough job, then you're on the hook for not meeting their vague standards.
If the state truly thinks this is a worthy goal, then it needs to be involved in creating the system that providers will use for age verification, and then say "as long as you're using the system we set up, you're good." Absent that good faith guarantee, this law is less about "protecting minors", and more about being a sword of Damocles above the heads of legitimate businesses.
As a historical matter, the state is setting itself up as the arbiter of what should and shouldn't be censored for minors. And let's face it, no government, ever, has fulfilled that role fairly. Even if you 100% agreed with what the government of Florida says it is censoring today, odds are good that within 5 years there will be something that makes you go "why the hell are you banning that?!" This is not a role that governments are equipped to play.
As a philosophical matter, this is in loco parentis to an absurd degree. The kids already have parents or legal guardians, let those people do their jobs and get out of it. Censoring information sources doesn't help anyone other then the tyrants.
I bet he's got a closet full of shoes with buckles on them.
I would wonder about your closet, but it isn’t relevant, as you live in a garbage can like Oscar the Grouch.
Besides being a hoarder, what other ways are you destroying your home?
Poor libs are always tying themselves into knots about minors and agency.
Can a minor choose to take hormone pills? Yes
Can a minor act in a porno? no
Can a minor vote? no
can a minor get a tattoo? no
can a school nurse give a minor tylenol without parental permission? no
Can a minor get an abortion without parental permission? yes
Ehh...I think a few of those aren't correct when it comes to the activists. They are definitely pushing to lower the voting age. They don't seem upset about sexualizing kids or body modifications. I really don't know who is behind the not being able to give tylenol problem
Now Buttplug will have to resort to luring children into a windowless panel van, like in the old days.
I thought we were past that?
Good one!
Can a minor below the age of 13 sign up for a Gmail account? No.*
Can a minor view age-restricted content on YouTube? No.
DeSantis signs bill in line with existing Federal Legislation… Reason pounces.
*The first has been in conformance with US law since 1996. The second has been generally true since YouTube’s inception and specifically true since Wojcicki took over circa 2014.
You know who were anonymous writers back in the day? Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison when they wrote the Federalist Papers...Haley's proposal to ban anonymous speech online — similar to what China recently did — is dangerous and unconstitutional. -Ron DeSantis
https://twitter.com/RonDeSantis/status/1724595747125928099
"and then you have predators that can get right in there into your own home"
LOL... What a F'En joke.
Those social media devices just grew legs and broke into everyone's houses and "got right in there". Surely they didn't get there by any action to purchase the device huh?
You DeSantis are a joke and an embarrassment to the Republican Platform of LIMITED government.
This is not really different than controlling minors' access to alcohol. Parents are responsible for children's growing up (until apparently Reason has it's way and it becomes a function of the State). Schools and peers are a big part, and can not really be controlled by parents. The "World is Flat" social media is indeed controllable.
There is no reason not to put it in parents' control. NO ONE should be pressing to afford rights to children's messaging to completely irresponsible organizations like social media, nor the government that controls it, until SCOTUS actually does its job and tells government it may not in the pending case.
MORE PROHIBITION please!!! /s
And No. Social Media isn't a bottle of alcohol.
It's never the drunk asking to be kept from the bottle. It's the tea totler who wants it banned. Nobody says "please stop me from watching all this porn!" It's the prude who wants it unavailable.
Right, “Prohibition” is what controlling alcohol consumption in children is. Nice try.
The tyranny seems to work for children about as well as it did for adults huh? Just made 'witches' out of everyone.
Ctrl+f: 'COPPA' - 0 results.
Ctrl+f: '2.0' - 0 results.
Fail.
Oh, weird, Ron DeSantis passes a law that, at the state level, closely, if not less restrictively, mimics COPPA, which has been Federal law for almost 30 yrs. and COPPA 2.0, which cleared the Senate (again, the Federal one) in 2023 and Reason posits this like the idea just came to him out of the blue.
Don't most of these sites have, in their terms, age requirements for accounts?
Like a check box to verify citizenship to vote, it just requires changing the date.
Although roblox now requires an ID to be scanned and sent to them for an age verified account. I was told this wasn't feasibly possible. Probably to keep minorities off roblox.
I guess we found out that this is the "superior" bill that DeSantis was waiting to sign.
How will DeSantis do this age verification thing?
How will DeSantis do this age verification thing?
The same way the Federal Government did the age verification thing for COPPA in '96; they won't. They'll tell web purveyors they have to comply or they'll face fines and legal penalties for not doing so.
Do you live in a world where Facebook wasn't, during the Obama Administration, begging the government to pass enhanced CDA regulations (which also included age/porn restrictions beyond COPPA but was broadly struck down)? Because in this world, they were running ads calling for it on television on all the various broadcast and streaming platforms.
I don’t think a woman get choked with getting fucked up the ass qualifies as free speech.
You don't like art?
There was a lovely episode of the TV show Coupling all about this.
For the record, I am on the side of "Lesbian Spank Inferno" being classified as "Erotica."
Did they ever figure out where the batteries to the TV remotes went?
Yes, they did.
Thankfully for Steve, it couldn't mow the lawn (or something like that. It's been a long time.)