[kiklion]

Websites aren’t sentient beings, but they are more similar to commercial entities than people. Even if not intentional, websites gain traffic and can display ads. They have Google ranking. They have an audience and can get paid to share information with their audience.

Would there be an issue if they sent out letters to businesses asking how they comply with a California regulation?

[ziddoap]

>Would there be an issue if they sent out letters to businesses asking how they comply with a California regulation?

I think this is where you may be overlooking the context.

People aren't mad they asked about compliance with a law, they are mad about the way it was asked: from fake personas implying legal threat, while cataloguing the replies for their study no one asked to be involved in.

[pessimizer]

That seems like a pretense.

The researcher was an actual human being, so all they would have to do to require a response is to register on the site before sending the email. If they had registered accounts, then requested their information be sent to them and required its deletion, it would have been an order of magnitude more work for the site owners than just sending answers about the process (which, if the site is subject to the law, should already be prepared.)

I think people are mad precisely because they were asked about compliance with a law. Largely because emails went out to sites that were not commercial or too small to be bound by the law, so they weren't aware of it and panicked.