[pdonis]

Would this website (HN) be a "covered platform" according to the bill?

As far as I can tell, the answer is no, because it doesn't do what's described in Section 201 (E):

"Uses the personal information of the user to advertise, market, or make content recommendations."

Neither does, for example, my bank's website, or someone's personal blog, or many other discussion sites like this one. So from what I can see, while the set of covered platforms is certainly not negligible, it's still a lot smaller than "basically every website on the Internet that anyone cares about". So the title of the EFF article is overstating the case; the thing the bill would require age checks for (in effect, if not by the explicit language of the bill) is not "get online" but something more like "get on social media".

[zmgsabst]

Your bank almost certainly uses your personal information to advertise or market to you — and so seems like it would be covered by that definition.

[pdonis]

That's true, but the bank also already knows my age.

Also, a bank would not satisfy section 201 (B), (C), or (D), so it wouldn't be a covered platform anyway. (I should have left "bank" out of my original post, I was really thinking more about discussion sites like this one, blogs, etc.)

[jolmg]

Wouldn't imply their needing any more information than they'd already have.

[insane_dreamer]

they have your SSN with that they can get the rest

[AlienRobot]

You need to be more realist.

"Uses the personal information of the user to advertise"

Is 99.9% of all websites. So long as websites don't sell things, they will be having ads.

This includes Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, Imgur, TikTok, Twitch, Youtube, etc. I think even Steam and other game platforms would fall into this category despite the fact they make money selling products. Naturally search engines also fall into this category.

Websites like HN are the exception, not the norm.

It's also disingenuous to say "a personal blog" would be exempt from this when most people don't have blogs in first place since they start microblogging instead. In fact, most people don't want to go through the trouble of maintaining their own blog, dealing with spam, hosting, hacking attempts, software updates, etc., when they can just use tumblr and pin the responsibility on the platform anytime something bad happens.

[pdonis]

> Is 99.9% of all websites.

Not at all. You named eleven. Even if I'm generous and raise that by a couple of orders of magnitude, it's still a miniscule fraction of all websites.

Of course it's close to all big tech platforms, but that's not the same thing. And if one of the results of this whole kerfluffle is to make more people realize that the big tech platforms are not the same as "the Internet" or "the Web", that would be a good thing.

> Websites like HN are the exception, not the norm.

Which makes it even more important to ask the question of whether "exception" websites like this one can continue to survive if this bill becomes law. Sure, HN users are a tiny fraction of all Internet users. But that's supposed to be one of the things the Internet is for--to give even very small communities a place where they can be a community, and not have to worry about all the other crap that's out there, and not have to be micromanaged by politicians and lobbyists and tech giants.

> It's also disingenuous to say "a personal blog" would be exempt from this when most people don't have blogs in first place since they start microblogging instead

Not all blogging platforms use targeted ads. And if this gives more of them an incentive not to, that would be a good thing.

[TurdF3rguson]

You're way underestimating how many boring websites there are. County records websites, tax filing websites, dmv portals, shipping trackers...

[1over137]

> …is not "get online" but something more like "get on social media".

Which for ordinary people is the same thing, alas.

[9x39]

No, because:

with respect to which more than one-third of the material made available thereon is sexual material harmful to minors; and (C) with respect to which the provider of such platform knowingly makes available the sexual material harmful to minors described in subparagraph (B).

(look for line 19 to see the covered platform)

Of course, it's a delicious web they're trying to weave - pass it now by casting the think of the children spell, amend and reinterpret later to soften the guardrails until everything is in scope and demands commercial ID checks, driving ID check industry software and adoption, until psuedo-anonymity on the web is virtually gone. Or do it with any combination of other bills.

[pdonis]

You're looking at section 102 of the bill, which is a different part than the one I was looking at (and that the EFF article is referring to). The bill is a mismash of several different proposed bills all squashed together into one. Title I, which is what you're looking at, is more restrictive about what platforms it applies to than Title II, which contains the section I quoted.

[antonvs]

It’s not just “social media”. Any site that’s funded by advertising fits that description.

[pdonis]

But there are also other requirements in section 201 for a "covered platform", which advertising-funded sites that aren't "social media" most likely don't meet. For example, a typical personal blog, even if it shows ads, doesn't meet subsection (C), because its primary purpose is not to share user-generated content (e.g., comments by readers)--it's to share the blog author's content.

(HN itself doesn't meet at least one other requirement besides subsection (E): subsection (D), "Uses a design feature to promote user engagement on the platform".)

[__MatrixMan__]

Only if it's targeted.

[antonvs]

True, but in practice, the vast majority of advertising-funded sites use targeted advertising, because they use standard ad networks. There are very few ads networks that don’t do targeted ads.

[__MatrixMan__]

Right but if we could kill that business model by making platforms chose between age verification and non-targeted ads, that would be a win right?

That's not so say I'm in favor of age verification, just pointing out the silver lining.

[pdonis]

You're assuming that platforms that tried age verification in order to show people targeted ads would lose enough users to make that business model no longer viable. While I would fervently like to believe that's true, I'm not so sure it is. I think there might well be enough people who will hand over their personal identifying info without a second thought in order to continue to use targeted ad-supported platforms, to keep them in business. I hope I'm wrong.

[__MatrixMan__]

I don't think it'll come down to people being too principled to participate. I think I'll come down to them being too lazy to bother completing the auth ritual.

[AlienRobot]

Yeah, but you could also kill that business model without any legislation by simply... not visiting those websites.

[__MatrixMan__]

I already don't, and yet I still have to deal with the fallout from its harmful effects on society. More drastic measures are needed.