[Braxton1980]

Why?

That's what the bill's intentions are.

If you think it won't work or not be effective that doesn't change the stated intention.

If you think one or more of the proponents are lying that doesn't change what the article should state unless there is evidence

They already said "aimed at" which implies that's the goal instead of writing "that will stop child..."

It's not an opinion piece they are simplifying conveying information from both sides. The article even details that there is an opposition to the bill.

[JoshTriplett]

> Why? That's what the bill's intentions are.

It's always the stated intention, because it's hard to argue against "think of the children". From commentary on similar legislation in the UK:

https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2...

> The U.K. Online Safety Act was (avowedly, as revealed in a recent High Court case) “not primarily aimed at protecting children” but at regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse.”

I have every expectation that Chat Control is either similar or is a blatant cash-grab by people interested in peddling technical "solutions", or both.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45508537

[croes]

Because the bill obviously can‘t do that even if they would scan every message.

They are doctoring at the symptoms than the real issue. But that would mean more personnel and more money needed and less side effects like mass surveillance

[nofriend]

They could say "notionally aimed at". The accusation of detractors would certainly include that that isn't the real goal, so to repeat it uncritically is a bit odd.