> Those filters could only be removed if consumers pay a $20 fee.
Wait, what? Why should a fee to opt out exist?
Wait, what? Why should a fee to opt out exist?
They encourage retailers and manufacturers to charge more than the $20 and pocket the difference. They are marketing the bill as pro-business.
I believe the suitable phrase is now "I can't even."
> the retailers can set the amount to be what it feels the market can bare.
I'm hoping that wasn't intentional.
I’m sorry to do this, but I think you mean that the writing and grammar are terrible, not that they is terrible.
Fish and chips is what I had for dinner.
I disagree. Authoritarians are always obsessed with being able to control peoples access to sex. Because that's a powerful lever you can use to control people.
For instance dominionist evangelicals and polygamist Mormons are obsessed with taking sexual rights away from women and commoditising access. Keeping young people and especially young men from access to porn, same deal.