That too! The bundling of "restrict kids from seeing content that's harmful to minors" with the actual data privacy provisions of this bill are what really sinks it. I gave the lawyers like two dozen examples of how that was not only going to chill protected speech but also have a disparate impact on specific groups of our users so they could pick which ones they thought advanced their argument best (and was very pleased they went with the example of "multiple states claim that providing information about gender-affirming health care to trans teenagers is harmful to minors, however, the only thing that has shown to reduce suicidality in trans teenagers is accessing gender-affirming health care, therefore both restricting and not-restricting that content will cause us to incur liability under this law" because it's such an obvious contradiction) but the ways in which various marginalized groups are more likely to have their content deemed "inappropriate for children" just for existing infuriates me.