[1] https://www.pcworld.com/article/528214/browser_speed_compari...

[2] https://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/03/google-chrome-bund...

Having to take an action is the opposite of no impact to me.

The problem is caused by social media companies designing their products to be addictive. This law puts a lot of requirements on parties other than the social media companies.

If you want to sell alcohol, it is your responsibility to check the age of the person consuming the alcohol. If you want to sell tobacco, it is your responsibility to check the age of the person consuming the tobacco. But if you want to push addictive social media feeds, it is apparently now the job of device manufacturers, operating system developers, and parents to do the verification work for you.

Don't you think it's a little odd that Meta is spending money pushing these bills that shift responsibility onto other parties?

>Or are you waiting for some science-fiction proposal that will be completely perfect, which you know will never happen.

Yes, I'm waiting for a sci-fi proposal like "companies should be responsible for their actions and shouldn't require other companies to do their work for them".

In the current conversation, the policy could have been based on research about where and how cartels were doing their laundering, and designed in a way that minimized the impact on non-cartel immigrant communities.

In all of those cases, the system is the result of choices that lead to the current outcomes, and I think that's the part that's worth thinking about.

I know lots of parents and lots of kids, and I don't think this is accurate. In my experience the breakdown is parents who care what their kids are doing online, and parents who assume it will all turn out fine because they had AOL or even Facebook as teenagers and didn't get into too much trouble. The first group is already keeping an eye on their kids and might even have decent parental controls set up, and the second group doesn't care what happens as long as charges don't show up on the credit card.

These bills punish the first group of parents and OS/device makers for the transgressions of social media companies. The uninvolved parents won't even be in the room when the age question comes up.

Requiring my kids' devices to advertise their age (or their age "bucket", as if that was a meaningful difference) to protect them is not doing me or my kids any favors.

Beyond that, a lot of these cooldown criticisms assume everyone will use the same length, which isn't how it has to work. There are people who run Arch because they want the latest version of everything, and there are people who run Debian because they never want a new version to break their system. Some people camp out for the newest iPhone on day 1, and some people wait to see reviews and find out if the antenna is sensitive to how the phone is held. Adjustable cooldowns let everyone choose their own balance between getting the latest features and getting something that is tested.

https://scrollpods.app/

Likewise, taking elements from many influences and combining them involves a lot of creative choices about which pieces to take from which influence while copying one thing exactly involves no creative choices and is just reusing someone else's effort. It's the difference between baking someone a cake or getting one from the store.