The legislative history is interesting but the arguments in the article aren't great. From invented phrases like "neo-regulators" (I think they are just called regulators and that is their job), to "25% of them didn't have an email account", a lot of it boils down to "Ok boomer, you don't understand the internet".<p>I don't understand at all how technical details of the internet should be guideline for the limits that the law imposes on online platforms.<p>If there is a social norm and already laws that prohibit say, pornography being available to children, on every medium, then internet platforms shouldn't get a free pass simply because they're internet platforms. (opinions on the particular issue aside for a minute).<p>I'm a little tired of somehow having to accept that internet giants can do what they want and deserve a special role in society because they're internet companies, and every critic is brushed off with personal attacks.