On the one hand, I'd love a judge to respond 'yes' to all of these, if only to confirm how ridiculous they are and that a reasonable implementation is impossible. On the other hand, I'd hate for a judge to respond 'yes', because then the enforcement of said ridiculousness becomes vindicated.

▲

dataflow 3 hours ago | parent [-]

These aren't all yes/no questions. And what I'm saying is I think anyone who thinks there's some sort of paradox in answering these will be in for a rude awakening. E.g., "How do you fine someone per child affected?" Idk, maybe the parents that become aware of their children being affected would join a lawsuit, and others would not be parties to the suit?

▲

akdev1l 2 hours ago | parent [-]

so many people start asking random questions like these acting as if judges are drooling baboons or something

“What’s even an operating system will this apply to my toaster?” - probably not, a judge would ultimately decide.

	▲	bee_rider 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That seems pretty annoying for people who sell computing appliances like smart toasters, routers, and televisions, and videogame consoles—do they preemptively start implementing in case a judge decides they are covered? Why not write an easy-to-interpret law in the first place?