Excellent questions. haven't read the Ohio bill; for CA 976, the definition of "addictive feed" is similar to the one in Washington we stoppedl last leg session (AB 1834). Bearing in mind that I'm not a lawyer, my take on it is that with the definitions, in https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202320240sb976 Mastodon's Home feed might well be considered an addictive feed.It's selected based on who a user is following, which is information provided by a user, so it's an addictive feed unless one of the exceptions (1) - (6) apply.Following a user might qualify as "expressly and unambiguously requested ... media by the author, creator, or poster of the media" in (4). But if I'm following user X, and they reply to user Y, the decision about whether to select that in my feed is based on whether or not I'm also following Y -- which is "other information provided by the user"(There are other complexities too, for example if somebody turns on autoplay for videos then the exception in (4) doesn't apply.)As to what admins are doing about SB 976 ... well it's an "actual knowledge" standard until 2027 so for now as long as people don't have known minors on their site it's not an issue. Also Netchoice is still suing, so it's possilbe the age verifiation requirements will get enjoined before they kick in. In general my impression is that a lot of fedi admins outside of the UK have ignoring age verification laws and hoping that they don't target smaller fedi sites.@paul @cd24