Right, my comment wasn't intended to be an argument against your points; quite the opposite, I was pointing out that many people see the value in letting kids be independent. Really, the context was that I had assumed the pull quote to be referring to over-protective parents and their ilk (the "this" in the first sentence) and I just wanted to show that some people have more sense, though I can see how it's not clear what I was getting at. Disallowing your kids from going outside for fear of potential danger is logically equivalent to disallowing them from using the internet for the same fear.

But now I wonder: I doubt the law would actually consider that you let your kids outside and thereby gave them access to the unsecured device they found in a dumpster. From what I understand of the CA law, you would not be the "operating system provider" in that context, because you do not develop, license, nor control the operating system. I think, at that point, a prosecutor would probably be looking at neglect (if they really want to go after the parent) as the most viable charge, which would be protected by the independent kid laws.

Still, to your point, that doesn't mean the OS law in question will be effective at what it's meant to do, so I similarly do not see a reason to support it. (One could assume "what it's meant to do" is remove liability from social media service providers, but that's not the ostensible reason even if it is the likely reason; regardless, I also wouldn't necessarily see that as a reason to support it.)