I like the way the author describes the intentions of the bill at face value (protecting children!) exactly as the authors do, without any journalistic analysis of that being true or not. Could have ended the article with actual information from somewhere like the EFF, but instead, mentioned a concern from a nonprofit that “receives money from tech companies.”

What an absolute joke to call this journalism. No wonder they’re losing their jobs to algorithmic language models with no concern for anything other than sensible use of English grammar.