3 ms·
The article talks mostly about who sponsored the bill. I would like to hear more about what the ramifications of the bill are.
by tmaly 4y ago
The article talks mostly about who sponsored the bill.
I would like to hear more about what the ramifications of the bill are.
- rcpt 4y agohttps://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/24/dear-california-law-makers-how-the-hell-can-i-comply-with-your-new-age-appropriate-design-code/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/24/dear-california-law-make... Yeah I was the same way but they link to their analysis.
- wilde 4y agoYeah, the OP article is trash but the analysis has valid concerns. It seems to boil down to: There’s lots of very vague language in the bill that we’re going to need to wait for the agency to actually define in regulation. The article authors would rather the law more clearly define things to keep the agency from overreaching.
- EdwardDiego 4y agoThat still didn't help me understand his concerns. It's just a rant. However he links to something a little more coherent. https://www.techdirt.com/2022/06/29/california-legislators-seek-to-burn-down-the-internet-for-the-children/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/06/29/california-legislators-s...
- incompatible 4y agoSomething about websites needing to do <something> for their visitors who are aged under 18? Will it be resolved by adding another annoying warning that visitors must be aged 18+ to use the site?