• Archr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I appreciate the insight. And you are right, that was my lack of understanding about how it could be struck down in court.

    I do want to talk briefly on your point about these other devices where the law might actually apply since I have seen a few people bring up this point.

    I the definition of an OS provider the law asserts that an OS is “computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.” (emphasis mine)

    To me this clearly excludes those other types of devices because routers, tvs, etc are not general purpose.

    As far as public computers I think that is a really good point and speaks to the vagueness of the law. There is no clear direction on how that works in such a common use case.

    Coming from the engineering side as well and I’ve put more time, thought, and effort into project proposals than it feels like they put into this law.

    • just_another_person@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Solid point on the “single purpose” nature of some devices, but that’s also the legalese going to work here in that “Depends what the meaning of IS, is” 🤣

      Making laws with vague definitions will get challenged, as you point out.