Anonymous #1 2d

Although in the end, the state by state approach for privacy laws kind of worked itself out, because most states followed California’s model or Virginia and Colorado’s model. The lone exception is Maryland, which is wayyy different from most other laws. So companies only really have to check compliance with 3 models. You could argue that states might go this way with AI regulation too

1

Anonymous #1 2d

Oh no! Companies have to do work?! The horror! Who cares buddy. The supremacy clause doesn’t mean the states can’t be stricter it just means they can’t be more relaxed

12

Anonymous #2 2d

If companies have to do more work, they’ll make even more of an effort to kill the bill or water it down, and pro-business politicians will help. And the supremacy clause absolutely means states can’t be stricter, unless specific provisions are made to defer when states like Illinois have stricter laws. In the past, we tried to handle all of these problems, and the bill became so watered down that civil rights and privacy advocates withdrew their support for the bill, and we ended up passing…

1

Anonymous #1 2d

…absolutely nothing instead of something that might have helped a little bit

1

Anonymous #2 2d

There’s a whole other issue because we haven’t actually adopted privacy as a basic constitutional right, while other countries have. It sounds wild, but we unfortunately have court precedent that says some uses of data are considered speech. Congress is understandably hesitant to make laws that could immediately be struck down, so lawmakers have to be super careful about how they discuss this and how it’s written

1