US court rules Ohio can restrict children's use of social media

6/19/2026 at 5:00:18 PM

This does not restrict messaging platforms like iMessage, which are the first "social media" most kids really use, and on which they can be bullied, groomed, etc. Parents still need to involved.

by throwaway-blaze

6/19/2026 at 5:47:31 PM

messaging platforms aren't social media anymore than a telephone is social media

by insane_dreamer

6/19/2026 at 5:22:07 PM

Wait till you hear about recess or the cafeteria

by kjkjadksj

6/19/2026 at 8:08:47 PM

I hear the watercooler is the hip place to be.

by doublerabbit

6/19/2026 at 2:43:30 PM

We bring back Geocities and use the Net like it’s the mid 90s again. No social media required.

by prokopton

6/19/2026 at 2:47:50 PM

As you wish. [1]

[1] - https://neocities.org/

by Bender

6/19/2026 at 2:51:42 PM

Now direct the teens here instead of TikTok.

by prokopton

6/19/2026 at 3:06:09 PM

One could do that but then some of the teens will add interfaces to allow uploading short video feeds that scroll non-stop. The remainder would use Youtube shorts. I would link to one but it may not be appropriate for all audiences.

by Bender

6/19/2026 at 5:48:16 PM

I'm all for it. Social media contributes little value to society.

by insane_dreamer

6/19/2026 at 2:01:31 PM

If this was actually about children the law would just enforce 18+ tagging on websites and parents could decide whether or not to use a browser that enforced those restrictions.

This isn't about children, and never was. Its about the government restricting anonymity and free expression in the only place it still exists.

by idiotsecant

6/19/2026 at 4:44:39 PM

> parents could decide whether or not to use a browser that enforced those restrictions

You have to break the network effect as a community. This is why rich communities are successfully deploying cell-phone bans in schools while poorer students don’t have that option.

> Its about the government restricting anonymity and free expression

It’s the government restricting ad-fueled rage and propaganda machines. Your suggestion for pervasive 18+ tagging is far more intrusive.

Where I agree with the general sentiment is in that these restrictions should be on the social media giants. If a child is on X, X gets fined. But at the end of the day, the people calling their electeds and mobilizing in primaries want any ban.

by JumpCrisscross

6/19/2026 at 5:43:13 PM

>You have to break the network effect as a community. This is why rich communities are successfully deploying cell-phone bans in schools while poorer students don’t have that option.

Huh? Is your position that poor kids are being somehow oppressed by...not having phones banned? I am honestly baffled what point you're making here.

> the government restricting ad-fueled rage and propaganda machines. Your suggestion for pervasive 18+ tagging is far more intrusive.

In what world is putting the onus on content providers to self-label content intrusive? It's literally an html tag set and it's a existed for decades without offense so far. It doesn't even require government interaction at all - if it's unrated the browser doesn't load it.

I'm tired of parents pearl clutching away my civil liberties so that they don't have to parent. You made the decision to have kids, not me. Take responsibility for it. The entire world doesn't need to bend to make the lives of parents slightly more convenient.

by idiotsecant

6/19/2026 at 6:43:19 PM

> You made the decision to have kids, not me. The entire world doesn't need to bend to make the lives of parents slightly more convenient.

I'm curious, how does Ohio restricting children's use of social media affect you specifically?

by HelloUsername

6/20/2026 at 3:35:26 AM

Forced age verification for anyone in Ohio using social media and soon nationwide then worldwide.

by ipaddr

6/19/2026 at 8:30:05 PM

> poor kids are being somehow oppressed by...not having phones banned?

I never used the word oppressed. Poor kids are stunted by device exposure compared to rich kids. The iPad-kid effect is a depressingly-consistent class indicator in kids under ~10.

> In what world is putting the onus on content providers to self-label content intrusive?

It regulates all speech. Every content provider has to tag their content in that system. I’m just calling for social media companies to be regulated.

> doesn't even require government interaction at all - if it's unrated the browser doesn't load it

Obviously doesn’t work in practice given the massive collective-action requirement with no penalty for lying and no incentive for participating.

> tired of parents pearl clutching away my civil liberties

You think social media companies don’t know how old you are?

This political will is being stupidly expressed in many jurisdictions, granted. Pushing age verification to the OS is overkill. But parents are calling their electeds. Civil-rights groups, to my knowledge, have been able to muster no similar civil response. So the bans will come into play however they may, and then hopefully they can be amended down the road. Given the political nihilism running rampant in tech circles, I’m grumpily okay with this.

by JumpCrisscross

6/19/2026 at 2:26:09 PM

tbf, I think many people also want this. Is there anything more offensive than some internet niche subculture living differently, to those who came online during covid?

by forshaper

6/19/2026 at 2:54:14 PM

On social media?

by prokopton

6/19/2026 at 5:50:40 PM

> anonymity and free expression in the only place it still exists

please explain how social media platforms are the only place where these things still exists

in fact, there's no anonymity and questionable free expression on those platforms

the open web, yes, but these measures have nothing to do with that. my teen can keep his geocities-hosted blog and read yours.

by insane_dreamer

6/19/2026 at 2:27:19 PM

> This isn't about children, and never was.

This is 100% about children.

At the moment, there is world wide pushback on children using social media. Ex countries pursuing this right now: Australia, United Kingdom, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, France, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Italy, Greece, Austria, Poland, Slovenia, South Korea, and Thailand. I'm sure I missed a few too.

And in the US, no federal efforts (yay dysfunctional legislature!) but at the state level; Florida, California, Tennessee, Utah, New York, Nebraska, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, Virginia, Mississippi, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Vermont, and Ohio are all pursuing different forms of age restriction.

The science is pretty clear at this point: social media is terrible for mental health, attention, and addictive behaviors.

Now how to effectively restrict it without trampling on privacy rights? That's a very difficult question requiring some compromise. (I don't have the answers...)

by not_a_bot_4sho

6/19/2026 at 3:43:16 PM

The answer is to define and regulate addictive design, and ideally outlaw algorithmic feeds. Companies holding personal data must consider it a liability, not an asset to monetize.

by tencentshill

6/19/2026 at 5:45:58 PM

There is absolutely no need to regulate 'addictive design'. That's what parents are for.

by idiotsecant

6/19/2026 at 3:07:24 PM

Isn't the synchronised effort suspect to you?

Porn is arguably as damaging and addictive as social media. How do you explain the inaction regarding child access to porn in the last 25 years?

by aand16

6/19/2026 at 4:45:45 PM

> Porn is arguably as damaging and addictive as social media

I haven’t seen evidence for this. Which is why I’ve personally pushed for social media bans on under-14s and restrictions on under-18s. But have not particularly cared to agitate similarly for any restrictions on porn.

by JumpCrisscross

6/19/2026 at 4:56:02 PM

[dead]

by decremental

6/19/2026 at 3:37:08 PM

> Isn't the synchronised effort suspect to you?

People bring this up, but these efforts aren't very fast and they cause a lot of noise, and social media has been terrible for people and children for a while now so... If I'm a politician and I hear of someone proposing something about it elsewhere, I'm going to do it too. If it works out, there's a race to claim credit; if it fizzles out, no harm for being the one to bring a fizzly bill; if it ends up terrible, you still get name recognition, so it's not so bad.

> How do you explain the inaction regarding child access to porn in the last 25 years?

Legislative bodies have tried lots of things in the last 25 years, just nothing terribly effective.

by toast0

6/19/2026 at 3:49:21 PM

The brainrotting effects of social media are increasingly being recognized. The effects of porn are not as noticeable in schools and workplaces.

by mopsi

6/19/2026 at 5:44:53 PM

So if it's unhealthy for children, let parents regulate it. It's not the role of the state to destroy my civil liberties so that parents don't have to think too hard about what to allow their children to interact with.

by idiotsecant

6/19/2026 at 1:14:59 PM

The law would require parental consent. Parents should parent better right?

by 2OEH8eoCRo0

6/19/2026 at 5:06:46 PM

That's already an option. The only problem is it's lack of efficacy. If that worked, it already would have.

by kelseyfrog