[peyton]

It’s compelled speech. A transmission of expression required by law. The argument settled in 1791. The First Amendment does not permit the government to compel a person’s speech just because the government believes the expression thereof furthers that person’s interests.

[gzread]

It's also a consumer product regulation, of which many already exist. The government compels you to speak about the ingredients in a food product you manufacture, and we don't seem to have a problem with that.

[VLM]

A better analogy would be regulation of addictive activities like gambling and regulation of addictive substances like painkillers. Given that the platforms being regulated were intentionally engineered to maximize addictive potential, this seems a fair and reasonable response.

[hellojesus]

But you can just block the domains on the device or router... This law is wholly unnecessary.

[gzread]

No you can't, because the software industry spent a lot of effort encrypting DNS and HTTP so that intermediaries can't tamper with or spy on it.

[hellojesus]

I am a parent. The devices my child uses have root certs that allow me to decrypt traffic that must pass through my proxy to be relayed to the internet. Voila. Problem solved with current tech.

[gzread]

You're lucky the browsers eventually relented and allowed custom root certs. That was seen as a vulnerability and almost patched.