The bill [1] is ambiguous on the definition of user data (§ 2(9)). There is latitude with this definition, from rich portability (as you describe) to bare-bones portability (simply metadata, e.g. X commented on Y's post on such and such data).
> There's no such thing as exporting a single node in a network, you need the entire network
Graphs are divisible. My export need not contain every user in Kazakhstan's data.
A bill written by a bunch of clueless lawmakers to legislate technology - there couldn’t possibly be any unintended consequences.
This has been Silicon Valley's party line for why we can't be regulated by governments, and should instead be left to self regulate. While I agree with that for start-ups, it's patently failed with Big Tech.
Now freelancers in other industries who don’t want to be employees are having to jump through hoops.
I agree, it's a mess. But the solution isn't to bar all regulation ex ante as illegitimate.
I think the a Web itself already has had a 'network effect' larger than that of Facebook or any individual subnetwork.
What does this mean?
I appreciate the theory of your approach and how it can be used, and while it does directly respond to the immediate statement I made, I don't think it realistically captures how my statement applies to the broader context, when and if this law becomes implemented.
If I'm on facebook and want to export all my comments, that would require exporting all the status updates of the people who's posts I've commented on, which then also includes those contacts, too.
There's no such thing as exporting a single node in a network, you need the entire network.