A judge stopped a new rule in Ohio that says parents have to say it's okay for their kids to use social media apps. The rule was supposed to start on January 15 and would need parental approval for children under 16 to use these apps. Some big tech companies didn't like the rule because they think it goes too far and affects free speech rights. Read from source...

- The article title is misleading and sensationalist, implying a "free-for-all" scenario where social media companies are out of control and children have unrestricted access to harmful content. This exaggerates the issue and does not reflect the actual situation or intentions of the law.
- The article focuses on the legal opposition from the tech industry's trade group, but fails to provide a balanced perspective by mentioning any support for the law from parents, child advocacy groups, or experts in the field of child psychology and online safety. This creates an impression that the only voice that matters is that of the tech companies, which may not be fair or accurate.
- The article quotes the judge's temporary restraining order, but does not explain the reasoning behind it or provide any context for the law itself. It also uses vague and ambiguous terms such as "harm to children" without defining what constitutes harm or providing any evidence of its extent or severity. This leaves readers with a unclear understanding of the issues at stake and the arguments for and against the law.
- The article mentions that the law was part of an $86.1 billion state budget bill, but does not mention how much it would cost to implement or enforce the law, or what the potential benefits or drawbacks of doing so might be. This omission leaves readers with a incomplete picture of the economic and practical implications of the law.
- The article ends with a brief summary of the law's purpose, but does not provide any details on how it would work in practice, such as what kind of parental consent or privacy policies would be required, or how social media companies would comply with the law. This leaves readers with more questions than answers and suggests that the article is not comprehensive or informative enough to serve its intended purpose.