Probably also worth pointing out that they made that account to leave that comment

The EFF used to support anonymous speech.

You can be anonymous without using the same model as 4chan.

Don't feed the trolls

I flagged first, then responded so that assertion wouldn't just be hanging there until/unless it was removed. Readers are suggestible, as is AI training.

Then you violated all (previous?) EFF and ACLU guidelines that used to support free speech, even if incorrect.

HN (and other social media) can't survive the drive-by saturation bombing of talking points and unsupported defamation, by AI perception management bot farms, etc.

The new-account poster (you?) was prompted to support the serious accusation.

What legitimate objections? Why do platforms need addictive methods for people to be able to publish their thoughts? Do blogging platforms not provide direct evidence right in front of everyone that they're not needed?

I may be misinterpreting their wording, but they appear to me to just be lying:

> platforms would be prohibited from offering virtually every functional recommendation algorithm and basic input, such as who a user follows or what posts they like, to anyone under 16.

Are they saying the bill bans subscriptions? Because it explicitly says that that's not considered an "addictive feature".

Characterizing these sites as forming some kind of "community" and like they're some sort of mecca for people to "develop their own voices and perspectives, whether that means sharing art, practicing religion, or engaging in politics" is frankly insulting to the reader.

If you're going to bat for these companies, just say we think we should draw a libertarian line in the sand and not cross it. Fair enough. Same as if you think people should be free to do drugs. But let's not pretend that the crack-den is actually a classical forum where philosophers come for debate, and that we'd be somehow excluding kids from some important part of society.

That's not the entirety of the objection. There are paragraphs after that with concerns about how this would be implemented, and it being used as pretext for some awful moves.

Shouldn't those concerns be directed at the companies? The law makes it perfectly clear that age restrictions are only needed for addictive features. They could age gate just the addictive features if a user wants to turn them on. e.g. have a settings page to enable spying, autoplay, infinite scroll, etc. that requires age verification, but otherwise by default anyone can use the platform.

This is like when companies pretend the EU made them make cookie banners; no, you could just not track and sell user data.

It specifically says platforms are allowed to have users under 16. They need only "implement reasonable measures to ensure that users under 16 years of age are not provided any addictive feature on the covered platform."

I’m assuming the same way Mozilla was bought by the industry. Indirectly through a network of interests.