5 ms·
Here's who it applies to directly from the bill[1]: A business that provides an online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by children. Chi
by Alupis 4y ago
Here's who it applies to directly from the bill[1]:
A business that provides an online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by children.
Child is being defined as[1]:
"Child" or "children," unless otherwise specified, means a consumer or consumers who is are under 18 years of age.
Meaning all websites, including your blog. No one will be capable of making a bullet-proof argument their site is unlikely to be accessed by a child.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2273 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
- TulliusCicero 4y ago> "A business that provides an online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by children" This seems stupidly vague.
- Alupis 4y agoAs with many of these types of laws in California, I suspect they are deliberately vague. If people/businesses have to guess at what's compliant, then they will often choose the most restrictive form of compliance out of an abundance of legal caution.
- dane-pgp 4y agoPossibly even unconstitutionally vague.[0] If a law requires someone to accurately predict the future actions of large numbers of people they've never met, then that seems (to my non-expert understanding) like an unreasonable burden on citizens. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine
- Alupis 4y agoFrankly put, and regardless of your personal views on the subject - if the California Pro-2nd Amendment folks haven't been able to get anywhere with this "Vagueness Doctrine", then neither will website operators.
- nimih 4y agoYou should also quote the following section: (4) “Likely to be accessed by children” means it is reasonable to expect, based on the following indicators, that the online service, product, or feature would be accessed by children: (A) The online service, product, or feature is directed to children as defined by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 6501 et seq.). (B) The online service, product, or feature is determined, based on competent and reliable evidence regarding audience composition, to be routinely accessed by a significant number of children. (C) An online service, product, or feature with advertisements marketed to children. (D) An online service, product, or feature that is substantially similar or the same as an online service, product, or feature subject to subparagraph (B). (E) An online service, product, or feature that has design elements that are known to be of interest to children, including, but not limited to, games, cartoons, music, and celebrities who appeal to children. (F) A significant amount of the audience of the online service, product, or feature is determined, based on internal company research, to be children. I can't speak for the GP poster, but my own personal blog meets none of these criteria.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoYou're going to fall under (B), if nothing else. Kids are curious. They go places to see what's there. Kids visit your blog, whether you intend for them to or not. (They may not come back for a second visit, but a number have come for a first...)
- nimih 4y agoIt's very unclear to me who, exactly, is going to be able to determine that significant numbers of children are accessing my website if I'm not tracking any sort of analytics beyond hits/day. Even taking into account section (D), it's hard to imagine the California AG, even if acting in bad faith, is going to be able to find a blog that is "substantially similar" to mine which has analytics data pointing to traffic showing those sorts of demographics. Also, to be clear, I'm not trying to be pedantic or split hairs here, I'm trying to explain my own actual thought process in reading the law and considering my own risk/exposure. As I mentioned in a reply to a sibling comment, this law looks genuinely awful, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over the likelihood of getting sued by the state of California for a personal website where I mainly make a half-assed effort to write about the nerdiest shit possible (i.e. computer programming and board games that are best played with the aid of a spreadsheet).
- tshaddox 4y agoI’m not personally a business, so a plain reading of the line you posted pretty clearly wouldn’t cover my blog if I had one.
- Alupis 4y agoAlso of note is "Business" is not defined here, which is odd since these types of laws always do. Deliberately vague...