(As for elections, history has shown that there is no excuse for outright cancelling them; that is an autocratic ploy to become a despot.)

Really, the question seems better turned around: why use a known bad proxy for physical ability when another one might be better?

New cars are being fitted with cell modems to ping cell towers.

With respect to ideological bias, I strongly doubt that other Presidents never made "false or misleading statements" but I can't seem to find, for example, the page of "False or misleading statements made by Joe Biden". It seems a stretch to say he made none, to the point one might wonder about the discrepancy.

You are taking an overly literal interpretation of my comment and offering more sophistry in response. Apologies for the short reply but none of the rest seems relevant.

Indeed, it is trolling, even if you think it's not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

joe_mamba's use of "diversity" reads as being about diversity of opinion; it only appears to be about race given the context you pointed out.

Seriously, what part of "United people are dangerous for the elites" suggests that the people should segregate themselves and each other?

You are misinterpreting something. "Diversity" is not exclusively about race.

Ask yourself the same question about personal health data and the answer reveals itself: the CEO and CIO know (or should know) that the vendor needs to be HIPAA-compliant or it's their necks (the CEO's and CIO's), so they look for a vendor who advertises as being HIPAA-compliant.

Pass legislation to the same effect for all PII and the CEO and CIO will then make requirements of the vendor. If the vendor lies, they get fired because the company hiring them is culpable. The vendor may also be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties. It seems simple, other than the fact that we have a federal legislature with no apparent interest in solving this problem, alongside a populace which either doesn't notice or doesn't care about that.

To answer the question more pithily: communication.

But now I wonder: I doubt the law would actually consider that you let your kids outside and thereby gave them access to the unsecured device they found in a dumpster. From what I understand of the CA law, you would not be the "operating system provider" in that context, because you do not develop, license, nor control the operating system. I think, at that point, a prosecutor would probably be looking at neglect (if they really want to go after the parent) as the most viable charge, which would be protected by the independent kid laws.

Still, to your point, that doesn't mean the OS law in question will be effective at what it's meant to do, so I similarly do not see a reason to support it. (One could assume "what it's meant to do" is remove liability from social media service providers, but that's not the ostensible reason even if it is the likely reason; regardless, I also wouldn't necessarily see that as a reason to support it.)