I hadn't thought about GitHub -I'm guessing the authors of the bill didn't either - but you're right, that is somewhat concerning. Still, I don't think it's the end of the world...

> The requirement is also that developers will request the signal. No scoping to developers that have a reason to care?

I don't see that requirement. Here's the sum total of the developer's responsibilities (emphasis added):

> A developer with actual knowledge that a user is a child via receipt of a signal regarding a user’s age shall, to the extent technically feasible, provide readily available features for parents to support a child user with respect to the child user’s use of the service and as appropriate given the risks that arise from use of the application, including features to do all of the following:

> (A) Help manage which accounts are affirmatively linked to the user under 18 years of age.

> (B) Manage the delivery of age-appropriate content.

> (C) Limit the amount of time that the user who is 18 years of age spends daily on application.

It would be nice if it had specific carve outs for things that aren't expected to interact with this system, but it seems like they're leaving it up to court judgment instead, with just enough wiggle room in the phrasing to make that possible.

If your application doesn't have a concept of "accounts", then A is obviously moot. If you don't deliver age-inappropriate content, then B is moot. The only thing that can matter is C, but I'd expect that (a) nobody is going to complain about the amount of time their kids are spending on Vim and (b) the OS would just provide that control at a higher level.