Children have parents (or otherwise adult guardians) that are responsible to keep them safe, online and offline. It is their job to keep them safe. Adults, on the other hand, have freedoms granted to them by the constitution, at least in the USA, and I kind of enjoy those freedoms.

I guess I agree with the judge here, face scans (or other verification measures) are pretty invasive.

They want to take a picture of your face to analyse it to determine approximate age to access certain content and claim that this is minimally invasive… do I understand that correctly?

And the objection is first amendment?

Where do I order one of those tinfoil hats from?

All the real problems aside, what if you have a baby face? I’m 32 and I regularly get carded buying something you can buy at 18.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Yesterday, US District Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered a preliminary injunction stopping California Attorney General Rob Bonta from enforcing the state’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA), finding that the law likely violates the First Amendment.

Netchoice—a trade group whose members include tech giants like Meta, TikTok, Google, and Amazon—filed a lawsuit requesting the preliminary injunction last December.

“We appreciate the district court’s thoughtful analysis of the First Amendment and decision to prevent regulators from violating the free speech and online privacy rights of Californians, their families, and their businesses as our case proceeds,” Marchese said.

A group of civil society organizations, legal scholars, parents, and youth advocates known as the Kids Code coalition expressed disappointment in Freeman’s decision.

The coalition argued that “the First Amendment does not shield corporations from accountability for their profit-motivated design decisions that endanger kids’ well-being” and “strongly support an appeal of this ruling.”

As Big Tech has shown time and again, they will pull out all the stops to continue to profit off of significant harm to kids and teens with impunity."

The original article contains 463 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!