it says that, but the action of hardening devices effectively contradicts what it says

to be charitable, let's say that it "enhances" parental controls by taking on some of that parental enforcement at the state level

▲

gzread 15 hours ago | parent [-]

What action do you mean?

▲

muyuu 15 hours ago | parent [-]

the action of forcing any sort of verification or certification on devices or operating systems

this is taking the parental control largely into their own hands

▲

gzread 14 hours ago | parent [-]

This law doesn't force any sort of verification or certification, so it's fine then?

▲

hellojesus 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Does it effectively outlaw general computing for minors by requiring account holders to set up accounts for minors where account holders are defined as being 18+?

Im honestly not sure; but I could see that being the result of the law and companies like best buy disallowing minors from purchasing hardware with cash for fear of liability.

	▲	gzread 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, it doesn't.

▲

muyuu 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

it is obviously enforcement by proxy, trying to pretend otherwise is laughable but then again so is most of the shilling supporting this legislation

▲

gzread 10 hours ago | parent [-]

What is "enforcement by proxy" and how does it apply to this law?

▲

muyuu 8 hours ago | parent [-]

it is extremely simple

for instance, the government can effectively ban you from saying something they don't want you to say by forcing all companies that may provide any substantial platform to you to implement their code speech

that way they have enforced a ban on you by proxy

the same way they can verify/certify the id of people totally or partially when they go online, by forcing all vendors who provide the systems that you may use to go online to enforce it for them

and this law absolutely does that

	▲	gzread 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So how is mandating the existence of a parental controls feature that?