The article doesn’t say what the rules are, so I did some searching and found this:

According to the rules:

• Political advertisements must be made available with a transparency label and an easily retrievable transparency notice. These must clearly identify political advertisements as such and provide some key information about them, including their sponsor, the election or referendum to which they are linked, the amounts paid, and any use of targeting techniques.
• Targeting political advertising online will be permitted only under strict conditions. The data has to be collected from the data subject and it can be used only after the data subject have given explicit and separate consent for its use for political advertising. Special categories of personal data, such as data revealing racial or ethnic origin or political opinions, cannot be used for profiling.
• To prevent foreign interference, there will be a ban on the provision of advertising services to third country sponsors three months before an election or referendum.

The second point seems to be the most painful. Meta is all about nonconsensual data collection and targeting.

Why do all of them fail this question?

Plot twist: the author fixed it themselves to make it appear that someone would pay for it.

Someone definitely took this XKCD too literally.

I won’t say that they really have separation of church and state until they remove mentions of god from their currency.

Also, the fact that this even became a state law just shows how backward their society is.

They would rather stop showing those extracts in Switzerland than pay the fee.

TIL that the country whose name literally means “southern” is a part of the Global North.

Banning abortions is also a religious absurdity, and a more dangerous one. After all, no one died from not having a dog.