If they want to do business in the US then it follows that they would need to follow us law when conducting that business. It is the same reason that valve has to follow California law despite not being headquartered in California.

If that weren’t the case then businesses would just move to international waters and claim to only need to follow maritime law.

I would highly recommend actually reading the full text of the bill. It is a lot more than what is in the body of the post.

It is not clear to me whether a site would need to be hosted in the US to fall under this law or if they would just need to be accessible in the US.

I would post the definitions but there are 7 titles under this law and 5 of them each have their own definition.

Edit: just to be clear. I hate this law too. ID requirements will kill many platforms or people will use vpns to circumvent.

gofuckyour.self

Sounds pretty funny. Can’t wait to see what is hosted there.

I would guess either 50-50 it is a meme site or pron. No in between.

Not sure that I would really agree that these are backdoor. Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device. Just a consequence of how they designed them to not be circumvented by the operator.

Can you provide any sources for these? Maybe a california legislator saying they plan to do this? Or a proposed law? Otherwise it is just the slippery slope fallacy. While that doesn’t disprove what you said it does not provide a valid argument for it either.

This is just the slippery slope argument.

The California law does not require verification. Only attestation.