The article mentions legitimate and important objections, and seems to reflect the public interest.
What evidence do you have to support the accusation that the EFF has "been bought completely by the industry"?
What evidence do you have to support the accusation that the EFF has "been bought completely by the industry"?
The new-account poster (you?) was prompted to support the serious accusation.
I may be misinterpreting their wording, but they appear to me to just be lying:
> platforms would be prohibited from offering virtually every functional recommendation algorithm and basic input, such as who a user follows or what posts they like, to anyone under 16.
Are they saying the bill bans subscriptions? Because it explicitly says that that's not considered an "addictive feature".
Characterizing these sites as forming some kind of "community" and like they're some sort of mecca for people to "develop their own voices and perspectives, whether that means sharing art, practicing religion, or engaging in politics" is frankly insulting to the reader.
If you're going to bat for these companies, just say we think we should draw a libertarian line in the sand and not cross it. Fair enough. Same as if you think people should be free to do drugs. But let's not pretend that the crack-den is actually a classical forum where philosophers come for debate, and that we'd be somehow excluding kids from some important part of society.
This is like when companies pretend the EU made them make cookie banners; no, you could just not track and sell user data.
It specifically says platforms are allowed to have users under 16. They need only "implement reasonable measures to ensure that users under 16 years of age are not provided any addictive feature on the covered platform."