4 ms·

This seems like a disingenuous take. The article highlights this part of the opinion which makes clear that a requirement to file a purely factual form (as in t

This seems like a disingenuous take. The article highlights this part of the opinion which makes clear that a requirement to file a purely factual form (as in the California privacy law) would not violate the first amendment: > That obligation to collect, retain, and disclose purely factual information about the number of privacy-related requests is a far cry from the CAADCA’s vague and onerous requirement that covered businesses opine on whether their services risk “material detriment to children” with a particular focus on whether they may result in children witnessing harmful or potentially harmful content online. The compelled speech here is “for every feature of your website, provide a narrative evaluation of how it might hurt kids and how you are going to mitigate that risk”. That’s quite a bit different than “put a number in a box telling how much money you made this year”.

Aeolun 2y ago
I find this falls in the same category as ‘you agree to the terms and conditions even if nobody actually reads a 200 page document’. It’s not that I disagree the law is nonsense, but the argument doesn’t make any sense in my opinion. There is nothing preventing anyone from filling out that evaluation with exactly the same ‘It will not materially impact children’ every time, any more than it stops people from adding the same zero to all fields on their tax forms.
- burnerthrow008 2y ago
  Again, you are being disingenuous. Whether it materially impacts children is not a fact but a judgment. The code is designed such that it is nearly impossible to say anything other than “it may impact children”. Websites are effectively forced to write a document that says “be believe that our site may negatively impact children”. Now, what are the odds that a future politically-motivated DA won’t “accidentally” leak that “secret document which admits they knew they were harming children” when they want to go after someone for something unrelated?

Aeolun 2y ago

I find this falls in the same category as ‘you agree to the terms and conditions even if nobody actually reads a 200 page document’. It’s not that I disagree the law is nonsense, but the argument doesn’t make any sense in my opinion. There is nothing preventing anyone from filling out that evaluation with exactly the same ‘It will not materially impact children’ every time, any more than it stops people from adding the same zero to all fields on their tax forms.

burnerthrow008 2y ago
Again, you are being disingenuous. Whether it materially impacts children is not a fact but a judgment. The code is designed such that it is nearly impossible to say anything other than “it may impact children”. Websites are effectively forced to write a document that says “be believe that our site may negatively impact children”. Now, what are the odds that a future politically-motivated DA won’t “accidentally” leak that “secret document which admits they knew they were harming children” when they want to go after someone for something unrelated?