3 ms·

but are they made available by a "social media company"? and should that be relevant?

• falcolas 4y ago
  Well, here’s their definition of such a company (from the same link): 155 (9) "Social media company" means a person or entity that: 156 (a) provides a social media platform that has at least 5,000,000 account holders 157 worldwide; and 158 (b) is an interactive computer service. So, size is really the only relevant discriminator.
  • dragonwriter 4y ago
    > So, size is really the only relevant discriminator. No, its not, see the vast horde of use/function based exclusions starting at line 165 comprising code section 13-63-101(10)(b).
    • falcolas 4y ago
      None of which clearly protect GH or SO, the subjects of this thread branch.
      • dragonwriter 4y ago
        > None of which clearly protect GH or SO, the subjects of this thread branch. I disagree, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35310413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35310413 (especially considering that because this law creates a penalty, and because it restricts speech, its definitions of the covered parties and conduct must be read narrowly – and its exceptions read broadly [0] – per the rule of lenity in statutory construction.) [0] if, in the first instance, it is Constitutional at all.
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]