I think you, as the reader, are expected to mentally append “in NYC” when a link comes from nyc.gov. It seems very silly for a given municipality to need to qualify every sentence on its own website.

▲

henryfjordan 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The municipality is already qualifying the sentence! Instead of "NYC announces click-to-cancel law" they qualify it with "landmark".

I think it's silly for a municipality to lie (by omission?) in their own press announcements.

▲

woodruffw 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s a landmark change in NYC.

Again: this is NYC’s official website. It might (as a stretch) be a “lie by omission” on a national newspaper’s website, but this is a website that is solely dedicated to NYC itself.

▲

henryfjordan 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Now I'm being super pedantic, but every town can't have the same "landmark" law. What makes a law a "landmark" is that other municipalities look to it for direction.

In a world where the California law exists, and the New York Times has been used as an example of the success of that law for years already, claiming some sort of moral victory with the "landmark" qualifier is objectively wrong.

Does any of this matter? No, but I like arguing about it.

	▲	woodruffw 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you want to be pedantic, NYC is a different “land” to have a “landmark” for :-) (I like arguing too. Nothing wrong with that. I think in this case it suffices that they’re regulations in different states with relatively different political histories, even if the political valence of the two is somewhat similar. I would agree if this was a “landmark” change for Irvine, CA.)