>Appreciate recommendations on any neutral analysis about this topic Same here. This article can't pause its criticism of the law for even one sentence to desc

>Appreciate recommendations on any neutral analysis about this topic Same here. This article can't pause its criticism of the law for even one sentence to describe what the proponents of the law hope to accomplish or how. ADDED. Some other site says that the law prohibits collecting certain kinds of personal info on children and "A business may not use dark patterns to lead or encourage children to provide personal information beyond what is reasonably expected to provide its Online Service or to take any action that it knows, or has reason to know, is materially detrimental to the child’s physical health, mental health, or well-being" -- and a few other things. ADDED. The text of the bill used the phrase "dark patterns", but doesn't try to define it, so I'm tentatively glad the law was struck down because laws should draw sharp lines whereas "no dark patterns" is a very fuzzy and ambiguous line. (I know that is not why the Court struck down the law.)