> experts told PopSci platforms also oppose the laws because they don’t want to be responsible for collecting and maintaining torrents of sensitive users’ data that could pose a ripe target for cybercriminals.
Good thing these laws specifically ban them from storing that information that they don't want to store.
The implication here is so strange. Kids generally don't have a way to buy VPN services (I suppose they could mail cash to mullvad), so mission accomplished?
> Some of the anti-porn laws, like the one enacted in Utah, already possess language explicitly prohibiting online platforms from letting minors “change or bypass restrictions on access.”
That's a social media law, not a porn law, and it's about parental controls that the parent set up on an account that's been marked as a child account (so only the parent account can modify controls on the child account: duh!).
Absolutely garbage article. Didn't even link to the actual laws. And people complain that no one will pay for "journalism" like this.
Good thing these laws specifically ban them from storing that information that they don't want to store.
The implication here is so strange. Kids generally don't have a way to buy VPN services (I suppose they could mail cash to mullvad), so mission accomplished?
> Some of the anti-porn laws, like the one enacted in Utah, already possess language explicitly prohibiting online platforms from letting minors “change or bypass restrictions on access.”
That's a social media law, not a porn law, and it's about parental controls that the parent set up on an account that's been marked as a child account (so only the parent account can modify controls on the child account: duh!).
Absolutely garbage article. Didn't even link to the actual laws. And people complain that no one will pay for "journalism" like this.