Hacker News (curated)new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs| show hidden

I don't consider that sensible at all. The law is supposed to protect children. It's hypocritical to exempt certain operating systems from the law, and, to be honest, I'm astonished this is legal/constitutional in California.


Of course the underlying law is idiotic.

What I meant is that if we take the law as a given, then the exemption we are discussing here are very good and sensible. I wish they weren't needed, but given that they are, the language seems sensible.


This issue should be independent of whether or not you think the law is idiotic. The exemption is unwarranted and likely illegal no matter what you think about the law because it's unjust to exempt some operating systems and include others.

The law didn’t protect children before, and it continues to not protect children now, so there’s no change.

This law was never going to succeed at those aims.


Agree, I think the law will be challenged on that basis, and ultimately thrown out. Millions of taxpayer dollars wasted, when they could have been actually solving the problem by making platforms responsible for the content they distribute.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact | github