[RobertMiller]

They aren't required to disclose any DMCA removals, but choose to anyway, citing the law by name. Pointing out that a law is requiring them to do something is the least anybody can do if they object to that law's requirements. The omission of such a statement is sufficient evidence to conclude they are willing collaborators. A tech corporation like Google does not deserve the benefit of the doubt anyway.

[MiroF]

Are you still not following that this "omission" is something you've entirely made up in your own mind by selectively copying one quote from an entire article?

[RobertMiller]

The text you quoted does not seem to convey any displeasure at the law. Think what you like.

> This added step is informed by

Why so passive? Why not "required by"?

> We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.

Why not omit this apologia?

Also, that statement about the DMCA is on every single search page with DMCA omissions. Do you think Google is going to cite the ID law by name on every page requiring it? I guess we'll find out, but I'm not holding my breath for this.

[MiroF]

Wait, but they do point out the law requires them. And as you said,

> Pointing out that a law is requiring them to do something is the least anybody can do if they object to that law's requirements

Generally, I prefer comments blatantly contradicting each other to at least be a little more spaced out than yours are.

Have a good day.