[jacobgkau]

"If parents want drug stores to not sell liquor to their kids, then the proper thing is for someone to build that solution and make a fortune selling it, IMO." See how that makes zero sense in the context of a society?

Content providers are not incentivized to care about the problem, and will serve any content with ads next to it that they can unless they are forced not to. Ad-hoc solutions attempting to paper over that behavior on the consumer end are not adequate or effective. That's why they have a rationale at all for the laws here.

[pianoben]

I don't see the incongruity. It's one thing to mandate that retailers not sell alcohol to children, but it's quite another to require that all computers must report on the identities of their users just so that children don't see porn. The proper analogy would be require verification on the part of the porn sellers.

[jacobgkau]

> all computers must report on the identities of their users

Literally not what's happening with these bills. There is no identity, you would only have to type in a valid date (and nobody's forcing you at gunpoint to make it your actual birth date).

> The proper analogy would be require verification on the part of the porn sellers.

Red states tried that first, and it was very poorly received by the left and the porn industry, among other parties. Asking anonymously at the device level and leaving it to parents to enforce it is more privacy-respecting and less of a burden to adults. Which is exactly why blue states are now trying to do it this way (and is one of the reasons why Aylo & others have been asking for it to be done this way, with the other reason being it's also easier & cheaper on their end).

[SoftTalker]

This bill doesn't require reporting identities. It requires that computers be able to communicate "this is a child" to websites, social media platforms, and apps.