SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
fight for the future
Senate Panel Advances Kids Online Safety Package Despite Civil Liberties Concerns
Critics like Fight for the Future fear that "these bills would allow Trump's FTC to wipe abortion, sex ed, and LGBTQ resources off the internet while instating nationwide age verification requirements."
Aug 05, 2026
The US Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday advanced a package of bills intended to protect children online, despite free speech and privacy concerns long raised by civil liberties groups about such proposals, particularly those that require or urge websites to implement age verification systems.
The panel moved forward the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA)—versions of which have been considered in Congress for years—as well as the Children's Artificial Intelligence Toy Safety Act; the Children's Health, Advancement, Trust, Boundaries, and Oversight in Technology (CHATBOT) Act; and the Youth AI Privacy Act
Some advocacy groups welcomed the development, with Fairplay executive director Josh Golin saying that "the Senate version of KOSA is the most protective, popular, and bipartisan of all children's online safety legislation under consideration. It would be the most important new law to protect kids online in nearly 30 years."
"We are also pleased to see the committee advance both the Youth AI Privacy Act and the CHATBOT Act," Golin continued. "The danger AI chatbots pose to children and teens is a growing crisis. These bills would add deeply needed protections to help mitigate chatbot harms, including strong default settings for long-term memory use, a ban on advertising to minors through a chatbot, a ban on using the data of minors to train AI models, and prohibitions on features that cause compulsive use."
The committee did not advance the Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net (SCREEN) Act, which would require pornography websites to verify users' ages so they can block minors, because low attendance led to a failure to meet quorum.
Ahead of the bill markup, the Center for Democracy & Technology wrote to committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to raise alarm about KOSA, the CHATBOT Act, and the SCREEN Act, while acknowledging that the Youth AI Privacy Act "would create important safeguards for the use of minors' data by generative AI services."
The group also stressed that "enacting comprehensive consumer privacy legislation that meaningfully realigns consumer expectations and incentives for online business models is the best path forward to protecting children and everyone online and to addressing root causes of harms related to minors’ activities on social media, generative AI models, and other internet-enabled services."
CDT supports tackling the data practices that put young people at risk. But proposals that encourage age verification or restrict access to lawful content risk undermining privacy and constitutional rights. Read our letter:
[image or embed]
— Center for Democracy & Technology (@cdt.org) August 5, 2026 at 12:09 PM
The Senate action came after a bipartisan vote by the House of Representatives in June to pass the Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act, which "took portions from 14 digital safety bills—including the SCREEN Act," as The Hill reported Wednesday. "The House's version of KOSA eliminated a 'duty of care' provision that is a redline for the Senate's co-authors, Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who called the package 'dead on arrival' in the Senate last month."
"The provision would have legally required platforms to 'exercise reasonable care' to prevent harms to minors. Harms include eating disorders, suicide, substance use disorders, and sexual exploitation," the outlet detailed. "The KIDS Act faces long odds in the Senate as a result, making Cruz's decision to take up some of the bills individually instead not surprising."
Earlier this week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that "the Senate should reject KOSA's privacy risks," emphasizing that the duty of care obligations included in the upper chamber's version "only work if online services know which users are minors. That means more platforms will be pressured to implement age verification or age estimation systems."
Ahead of the House vote earlier this year, the ACLU's Jenna Leventoff and Christopher Anders similarly noted that "KOSA, although purporting not to require age verification, would nevertheless strongly incentivize it."
The ACLU experts warned that age verification will "severely jeopardize user privacy by turning droves of information over to platforms" and "threatens the First Amendment rights of adults," who may not be able "to verify their ages (because they lack valid identification, face technological difficulties, or lack digital skills), or can but "might still be reluctant to access information online over a fear that a data breach could lead to the disclosure of sensitive information contained within their browsing history."
After the Senate votes on Wednesday, Leventoff reiterated: "Bills that incentivize or require age verification promise safety, but all they deliver is a future where everyone has to undergo invasive identity verification measures that will almost certainly put their sensitive data at risk. We shouldn't need to fork over our IDs, biometrics, or personal information to access the internet, but that's exactly what will happen if these bills become law."
"When the data used to verify a users' age is combined with other commercially available data," she warned, "it can enable adversarial nations to track and attack troops, allow stalkers to locate their victims, and allow scammers to target those who will be most susceptible to their schemes."
Together, these bills would allow Trump’s FTC to wipe abortion, sex ed, & LGBTQ resources off the Internet while instating nationwide age verification requirements. This could mean scanning your face or sending in your government ID just to post on Bluesky! ❌Take action: fftf.link/bib
[image or embed]
— Fight for the Future (@fightforthefuture.org) August 4, 2026 at 12:09 PM
Fight for the Future also called out the Senate panel on Wednesday, with campaign director Sarah Philips saying that "Congress is once again doing political theater instead of actually meaningfully regulating the business model of Big Tech companies."
"The Senate Commerce Committee is rushing out bad internet bills so they can go out and campaign on them even knowing they are doomed to failure, either because they will be rejected by the House or overturned by the courts for being unconstitutional," Philips said. "Young people have been calling and emailing Congress on this issue for years, and have been rallying around the world against proposals to fence them off from the internet for a reason. They can see through these efforts. They know more censorship and surveillance, more data collection for companies, and all of us having to turn over ID in order to interact online is not safety."
"We've had hearing after hearing on this issue for the last few years instead of actually moving against the tide of tech corporate power that is making our future unlivable and exploiting our data for profit," Philips added. "We want to protect kids, but we want those proposals to actually do the work, instead of just making an easy headline for congressional leadership. Anyone in Congress still pushing censorship and surveillance bills under the facade of kids safety has failed us, especially members that claim to support trans kids and every community currently being attacked by the Trump administration."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Fight Is Nowhere Near Over,' Privacy Advocates Warn After GOP Again Punts FISA Vote
"We won't stop fighting for a self-evident truth: The government should not be able to bypass the courts to surveil Americans," said one privacy campaigner.
Apr 15, 2026
A controversial federal spying power is set to expire next week, but Republican leadership in the US House of Representatives again delayed a reauthorization vote on Wednesday amid persistent demands for reforms from across the political spectrum.
President Donald Trump is pushing for a "clean" 18-month extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows for warrantless spying on the electronic communications of noncitizens located outside the United States.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) "canceled a vote scheduled for Wednesday evening... amid a hard-liner rebellion, making it more likely the program could expire in five days—but said the House would try again Thursday," Politico reported.
As for whether there would be the necessary votes on Thursday to adopt a rule to proceed to consideration of the bill, Johnson said: "I think we will... We're working through some final details."
Although GOP leaders are plowing ahead with their reauthorization effort, Demand Progress senior policy adviser Hajar Hammado still welcomed the delay, declaring that "this time, fearmongering was not enough to overcome a bipartisan movement fighting for the privacy rights of all Americans."
"We rarely ever see the full force of the White House and the intelligence agencies fail to browbeat Congress into giving them what they want," Hammado noted. "That this happened today is a testament to the tireless work of our movement, which has been successfully bringing Republicans, Democrats, and Independents together for a common cause."
"Of course, this fight is nowhere near over," she added. "Speaker Johnson can still force a vote any time with extremely short notice, but our coalition feels the wind at our backs, and we won't stop fighting for a self-evident truth: The government should not be able to bypass the courts to surveil Americans."
Hammado's group has been a leader in the growing coalition calling for reforms—including for lawmakers to close the "data broker loophole" that intelligence and law enforcement agencies use to buy their way around the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which is supposed to protect Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures.
It's not just congressional Republicans under pressure. Demand Progress Action and Fight for the Future took aim at House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-Conn.)—who has signaled that he will support renewal and vote against adding privacy protections—with a Sunday print advertisement in the Connecticut Post.
We teamed up with @demandprogress.bsky.social to call out @jahimes.bsky.social for supporting Trump's mass surveillance efforts by trying to push through Section 702 without reform.
[image or embed]
— Fight for the Future (@fightforthefuture.org) April 14, 2026 at 8:38 PM
On Tuesday, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-NY), Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), and Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) spearheaded a letter to Democratic and Republican leaders in both chambers arguing that "this authority ought to include meaningful Fourth Amendment protections for Americans in its renewal package."
"The Trump administration has demonstrated an unparalleled appetite for collecting and exploiting Americans' personal data," the caucus leaders and members wrote. "The administration has built profiles on American citizens, demanded that artificial intelligence (AI) companies assist in mass domestic surveillance, and paid hundreds of millions of dollars to build a megadatabase of Americans' personal data. Without independent guardrails on Section 702, this administration has
repeatedly shown that it cannot be trusted to police its own use of this sweeping surveillance authority."
Over 30 civil society organizations—including Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Indivisible, Project On Government Oversight, RootsAction, and more—endorsed the congressional letter. POGO policy counsel Donald Bell commended the leadership of the caucuses "in seeking real guardrails and accountability that protect our constitutional rights," while Hammado urged "all members of Congress to follow the lead" of the three groups.
Meanwhile, The American Prospect reported Monday that "the Congressional Black Caucus will quietly support an effort to reauthorize surveillance powers that were used to spy on Black Lives Matter activists in 2020," which "comes after Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the powerful ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, successfully lobbied CBC leadership to stand down on reforming the vast intelligence authority."
After publication, Meeks told the outlet that "I support FISA reauthorization, but the only vote I've been whipping is my war powers resolution to end the war in Iran. Whip operations are traditionally conducted by the ranking member of the committee that has jurisdiction over the legislation being considered. Any claim that I'm whipping the CBC on FISA is false."
In response to that reporting,Re Access Now, Fight for the Future, and STOP Spying NYC said in a joint statement that "if the heat of the glares aimed at Rep. Meeks right now could melt him, he'd be dripping like a snowman on the pavement in July. No one in Queens wants everybody in the federal government to have total access to the intimate details of their lives with the tap of a mouse."
Highlighting the danger of continuing the spying power sans privacy protections as Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers roam US streets, the groups said that "it is a total betrayal of the Fourth Amendment and the dignity of everyday people in this country to treat us all as if we are guilty until Big Brother Trump proves us innocent by watching our every move. And worse—it's impossible to predict how these troves of records may be weaponized in the future against racial justice activists, trans and queer families, abortion patients and providers, anti-war activists, or anyone who acts out of step with MAGA."
"It's supposed to be the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, not the Forever Indiscriminate Surveillance Act. Rep. Meeks' colleagues are proposing real safeguards to protect people against this indiscriminate government surveillance," the trio added. "He is not only failing his constituency, he is disrespecting them and putting them in danger. It's not too late for Rep. Meeks to get on the right side of history."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Coalition Urges Congress to Block All Funding for ICE 'Surveillance Panopticon'
"Milquetoast calls for better identification, bodycams, and training fall far short of what is required of you to meet this moment."
Jan 20, 2026
A broad coalition of organizations is calling on the US Congress to block funding for the mass surveillance programs being used by federal immigration enforcement officials.
In a letter sent to members of Congress, the groups decry US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents for "leveraging a multi-billion dollar budget to terrorize our communities and build a surveillance panopticon" with no accountability from elected officials.
The letter then singles out several mass surveillance projects being carried out under the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that it says are worthy of defunding, including "building databases of biometrics, sensitive personal data, and daily movements of not only immigrants, but everybody in the US"; "purchasing technology to surveil all the phones in a neighborhood without a warrant"; and "recklessly relying on facial recognition technology that is banned in some states, and misusing that data to intimidate protesters and witnesses."
The groups call on Congress to completely defund ICE or, if that is not politically feasible, to "severely restrict what ICE can spend money on, including a complete moratorium on the purchase and use of surveillance tech" such as facial recognition and license plate readers.
"We urge you to do everything within your power in order to block ICE’s reign of terror in our communities and halt the build out of surveillance tech infrastructure that will make it impossible for everyday people to do anything at all without Big Brother watching," the groups conclude. "Milquetoast calls for better identification, bodycams, and training fall far short of what is required of you to meet this moment."
Signatories of the letter include the Yale Privacy Lab, digital rights organization Fight for the Future, and several local chapters of progressive political organizing group Indivisible.
ICE's big investments in surveillance technology were documented in an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) report published earlier this month, which found ICE "is going on a shopping spree, creating one of the largest, most comprehensive domestic surveillance machines in history."
The EFF report highlighted the role played by Cellebrite, a company that helps ICE unlock protesters' phones and "take a complete image of all the data on the phone, including apps, location history, photos, notes, call records, text messages, and even Signal and WhatsApp messages."
This is particularly important, the report noted, because the number of phones searched by ICE and other agencies has been steadily increasing, hitting a record high last year.
ICE also has a contract with Paragon, the company behind the spyware Graphite that "is able to harvest messages from multiple different encrypted chat apps such as Signal and WhatsApp without the user ever knowing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Advances 'Nonprofit Killer' Provision in Budget Bill to 'Crush Dissent'
"This measure would undoubtedly be weaponized by a White House with a track record of attacks against any speech that displeases our authoritarian president," warned one critic.
May 14, 2025
Free press, civil liberties, and community groups on Wednesday sounded the alarm after House Republicans added a provision in their budget reconciliation package that would empower U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit the executive branch deems supportive of a terrorist organization.
The House Ways and Means Committee voted along party lines to advance Republicans' reconciliation bill, which contains an amendment based on the language of the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, or H.R. 9495.
The ACLU warned Tuesday that the provision—dubbed the "nonprofit killer" by critics—would grant the executive branch the power to "effectively shut down" entities including independent media like Common Dreams, universities, religious institutions, political organizations, advocacy groups, and charities under the guise of combating terrorism. The contentious language was buried on page 380 of the reconciliation bill prior to its markup.
"No president should have the right to destroy nonprofits for no reason."
More than 200 groups collectively condemned the proposal in a Wednesday statement, warning, "Charities that feed the hungry, churches and faith communities that comfort the grieving, veterans' groups that care for our heroes, and countless other service providing organizations are at risk today because of this legislation."
"Nonprofits are on the frontlines of meeting every community need," the coalition continued. "Whether it's an organization providing healthcare in a disaster, a small rural church, or a local food bank, no organization is safe if this becomes law."
H.R. 9495 was first introduced in the previous Congress but failed to receive a Senate vote before the legislative term expired last year. It allows the treasury secretary "to accuse any nonprofit of supporting terrorism—and to terminate its tax-exempt status without due process," the advocacy group Free Press Action explained in statement, warning the ostensibly anti-terror provision would be used to "crush dissent."
Civil liberties groups say its lack of clarity regarding the determination of whether or how a nonprofit supports terrorism would enable Trump to follow through on his threats to cancel the tax-exempt status for organizations he does not like.
"Today, the legislation formerly known as H.R. 9495 has returned to wreak havoc against dissenting voices across the country's nonprofit sector," Free Press Action advocacy director Jenna Ruddock said Wednesday.
"Like too many other overbroad and easily abused powers, this measure would undoubtedly be weaponized by a White House with a track record of attacks against any speech that displeases our authoritarian president," Ruddock continued.
"The bill would have a widespread chilling effect not only on nonprofit groups but on the millions of people across the United States who rely on these organizations to help them access crucial services and engage in the political process," she added.
"We've already seen the Trump administration falsely conflate students protesting in support of Palestinian rights with Hamas, deport immigrants to a [Salvadoran] prison without due process, and detain students thousands of miles away from their loved ones for criticizing U.S. foreign policy," ACLU senior policy counsel Kia Hamadanchy said Tuesday.
"It is not a stretch to imagine how this bill could be used to pressure universities to shut down student groups, scare human rights organizations away from working with vulnerable communities, and further stifle dissent in this country," Hamadanchy added.
Ruddock of Free Press Action said that "it's not hard to imagine how the Trump administration would use [the bill] to exact revenge on groups that have raised questions about or simply angered the president and other officials in his orbit."
Lia Holland, campaigns and communications director at the digital rights group Fight for the Future, called the proposal "a five-alarm fire for nonprofits nationwide."
"This is a First Amendment issue—no president should have the right to destroy nonprofits for no reason," Holland added.
While the provision's proponents argue it is necessary to crack down on nonprofits that raise money to fund terrorism, Holland said that is "a bald-faced lie, as there are already laws that prohibit and punish such activities without taking away our civil liberties."
Ruddock warned: "Chilling free speech doesn't keep Americans safe. Instead, it gives an authoritarian regime another tool to violate the rights that form the foundation of a healthy democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Need Calls Now!' Republicans Slip Nonprofit Killer Bill Into Tax Package
"If Democrats capitulate to the wanton destruction of crucial civil society institutions, they had better expect civil society to burn them to the ground for that betrayal."
May 13, 2025
House Republicans on Monday quietly revived a proposal that would grant the Trump administration broad authority to crush nonprofits it views as part of the political opposition, from environmental justice organizations to news outlets.
Fight for the Future and other advocacy groups called attention to the measure, which was buried in the final pages of the House Ways and Means Committee's draft reconciliation bill, starting on page 380.
A markup hearing for the legislation is scheduled to take place on Tuesday at 2:30 pm ET.
The proposal would empower the U.S. Treasury Department to revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofits deemed material supporters of terrorism, with only a hollow simulacrum of due process for the accused organizations. It is already illegal for nonprofits to provide material support for terrorism.
"The House is about to hand the Trump administration the ability to strip nonprofits of their 501(c)3 status without any reason or recourse. This is a five-alarm fire for nonprofits nationwide," said Lia Holland, campaigns and communications director at Fight for the Future. "If the text of last autumn's H.R. 9495 is passed in the budget, any organization with goals that do not line up with MAGA can be destroyed with a wink from Trump to the Treasury."
The measure passed the Republican-controlled House late last year with the support of more than a dozen Democrats, but it never received a vote in the Senate.
"This terribly thought-out legislation means that under the current administration, every environmental, racial justice, LGBTQ+, gender justice, immigration justice, and—particularly—any anti-genocide organization throughout the country may be on the chopping block," said Holland. "If Democrats capitulate to the wanton destruction of crucial civil society institutions, they had better expect civil society to burn them to the ground for that betrayal."
WE NEED CALLS NOW! HR 9495, now known as Section 112209, if passed, would give the Trump administration unprecedented power in suppressing nonprofits, by allowing the administration the power to strip organizations of their tax exempt status! Call 319-313-7674
[image or embed]
— Fight for the Future (@fightforthefuture.org) May 12, 2025 at 7:53 PM
The GOP's renewed push for what opponents have called the "nonprofit killer bill" comes as the Trump administration wages war on nonprofit organizations, threatening to strip them of their tax-exempt status as part of a sweeping attack on the president's political opponents.
"In the months since inauguration, Trump and his Cabinet have found other means of cracking down on political speech—particularly speech in favor of Palestinians—by deporting student activists and revoking hundreds of student visas. He has already threatened to attempt to revoke the tax-exempt status of Harvard University, part of his larger quest to discipline and punish colleges," journalist Noah Hurowitz wrote for The Intercept late Monday.
"But the nonprofit clause of the tax bill would give the president wider power to go after organizations that stand in his way," Hurowitz added.
Robert McCaw, government affairs director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Monday that "this provision is the latest in a growing wave of legislative attacks on constitutional rights."
"CAIR is urging every member of the Ways and Means Committee to VOTE NO on the inclusion of this provision and to support an expected amendment to strike the language," the group said in a statement. "Three Democratic members of the committee—Reps. Brad Schneider (Ill.), Tom Suozzi (N.Y.), and Jimmy Panetta (Calif.)—previously voted in favor of the Nonprofit Killer Bill on the House floor last year. They must reverse course and vote to oppose it in committee."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US-Trained Military in Uganda Targets Oil Pipeline Protesters
"The arrest of climate activists against EACOP is a blatant move to silence crucial advocates for change," said Fridays for Future Uganda.
Aug 26, 2024
Police and soldiers from Uganda's U.S.-trained army cracked down on demonstrators at two Monday protests against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, continuing the globally condemned oppression of EACOP opponents.
In the capital city of Kampala, where protesters tried to march on Parliament and the Chinese Embassy "there are 21 people arrested, they included 19 males and two females," defense attorney Samuel Wanda told Agence France-Presse. They were taken to the city's central police station and charging details were not yet available. Eight protesters would be directly impacted by the project.
As AFP noted, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation has an 8% stake in EACOP, which is set to carry crude nearly 900 miles from Uganda's Lake Albert oilfields to the port of Tanga in Tanzania. Ugandan and Tanzanian state-owned companies each have a 15% stake, and the remaining 62% is controlled by the France-based multinational TotalEnergies.
"The arrest of Stop EACOP activists in Kampala today is an attack on democracy and the right to protest," said climate campaigner and environmental consultant Ashley Kitisya on social media. "We condemn this crackdown and call for the immediate release of all detained activists. Peaceful voices demanding justice must not be silenced. #StopEACOP."
Fridays for Future Uganda declared that "the arrest of climate activists against EACOP is a blatant move to silence crucial advocates for change."
"Many affected are misled and unaware of the true risks," the youth-led group added. "We must oppose this injustice and demand EACOP’s immediate halt to protect people and the environment."
Hundreds of peaceful pipeline opponents—including breastfeeding mothers—also gathered in Hoima City, according to the Kampala-based Monitor. They were at a Kitara Secondary School (SS) and planned to demonstrate at regional EACOP offices but "were surrounded by heavily armed police" and Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF) soldiers "who foiled the protest."
As the outlet noted last year, declassified U.S. State Department data shows that from 2019-21, Uganda received $8.5 million in military training assistance from the United States, and from 2012-16, the African country got grants for equipment worth $21.9 million .
On Monday, Christopher Opio told Hoima Resident City Commissioner Badru Mugabi that the project affected persons (PAPs) he represents had not received a government response to an April petition "so, we decided to say we can again put our concerns in writing. Today, we were taking our petition to the offices of EACOP, and Petroleum Authority of Uganda (PAU) peacefully."
As the Monitor detailed:
Mugabi responded saying: "If you have a court case and the court has not heard you, please come to our offices. We shall put these courts to order, or we shall appeal to their supervisors. But walking to these offices will not change the status quo legally."
Later, Mugabi selected a few PAPs' representatives and escorted them to deliver their petition to the offices of EACOP and PAU while the rest of the aggrieved locals were left at Kitara SS under tight security.
In a series of social media posts, the StopEACOP campaign called out law enforcement for blocking the peaceful protest in Hoima, highlighting the threats and intimidation faced by PAPs and local climate activists.
Despite the oppression in Uganda, protests are planned in Tanzania on Thursday, according to the global climate organization 350.org.
"The EACOP project threatens local communities, water resources, biodiversity, and efforts to curb climate change while providing little to benefit ordinary Ugandan and Tanzanian people," the group said Monday. "Already, tens of thousands of people along the pipeline's route and near its associated oil drilling sites have been forcibly displaced, losing their land, livelihoods, and traditional ways of life. Many have been relocated to inadequate homes on infertile land, making it impossible to grow crops or sustain their families. Others have received inadequate compensation or none at all, leaving them unable to rebuild their lives."
"Additionally, community members and activists face escalating threats, including violence, intimidation, arrests, harassment, and even abductions for resisting the project," 350 added. "Impacted communities and land, human rights, and environmental defenders in the project's host countries are taking to the streets to demand an end to EACOP and justice for the harm that has already been caused."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups Warn Senate-Passed Online Safety Bill 'Makes Kids Less Safe'
Sen. Ron Wyden echoed their concerns that "a future MAGA administration could still use this bill to pressure companies to censor gay, trans, and reproductive health information."
Jul 30, 2024
As the U.S. Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed legislation intended to better protect children on the internet, rights groups renewed their intense criticism of parts of the package.
The Senate voted 91-3 on the Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (KOSPA), which includes the Children's and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) as well as the controversial Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which opponents say "makes kids less safe."
KOSA requires online platforms to enable the strongest privacy settings for children by default as well as prevent and mitigate specific dangers to them. It also requires independent audits and research. Critics argue some provisions would "threaten young people's privacy, limit minors' access to vital resources, and silence important online conversations for all ages."
The trio who voted against the bill on Tuesday was Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a longtime privacy advocate who said on social media last week that "the final version of this bill is improved" but he would still vote no.
"The changes that I, LGBTQ+ advocates, parents, student activists, civil rights orgs, and others have fought for over the last two years have made it less likely that the bill can be used as a tool for MAGA extremists to wage war on legal and essential information to teens," Wyden said.
"While constructive, these improvements remain insufficient," he continued. "I fear KOSA could be used to sue services that offer privacy technologies like encryption or anonymity features that kids rely on to communicate securely and privately without being spied on by predators online."
Wyden added that "I also take very seriously concerns voiced by the American Civil Liberties Union, Fight for the Future, and LGBTQ+ teens and advocates that a future MAGA administration could still use this bill to pressure companies to censor gay, trans, and reproductive health information."
The ACLU and Fight for the Future reiterated those concerns on Tuesday, joined at a press conference by leaders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, TransOhio, and Woodhull Freedom Foundation.
"We need legislation that addresses the harm of Big Tech. And still lets young people fight for the type of world that they actually want to grow up in," declared Evan Greer, director at Fight for the Future.
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, said that "as state legislatures and school boards across the country impose book bans and classroom censorship laws, the last thing students and parents need is another act of government censorship deciding which educational resources are appropriate for their families."
The bill still needs to get through the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives. Already, two of the chamber's leading progressives, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) have come out against it. Leventoff declared that "the House must block this dangerous bill before it's too late."
Last week, the ACLU led over 300 students in a lobbying day on Capitol Hill to oppose the package.
"It's called the Kids Online Safety Act, but they have to consider kids' voices, and some of us don't think it will make us safer," Anjali Verma, a 17-year-old high school senior, said Tuesday. "We live on the internet, and we are afraid that important information we've accessed all our lives will no longer be available. We need lawmakers to listen to young people when making decisions that affect us."
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) celebrated the package's passage, joined by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
Cassidy and Markey spearheaded COPPA 2.0, which has not elicited criticism from rights groups the way KOSA has. They said in a joint statement that their bill's passage "is an overdue and much-needed victory" for young people and with the vote, "the Senate has sent a clear message that Big Tech's days of targeting and tracking kids and teenagers online are over."
"Enough with harmful targeted advertising," the senators said. "Enough with collecting deeply personal information on young people. Enough with ignoring the health and well-being [of] millions of young people. Enough with leaving teens and parents powerless to delete a mistaken social media post. Enough with lining Big Tech's pockets at the expense of our young people."
"To the parents, advocates, and young people who have been heroically fighting for these privacy protections for more than a decade, we thank you. We would not be here without your passion, commitment, and bravery," they added. "This vote is a breakthrough moment for tech regulation in the United States with Congress finally stepping up to the plate and putting real guardrails on Big Tech's pernicious business model."
Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay and co-founder of ParentsSOS, said that "today's historic vote is a testament to the tireless efforts of parents who have lost their children to Big Tech's greed and an incredible coalition that believes a better internet for young people is possible. We thank Sens. Blackburn, Blumenthal, Cassidy, and Markey for introducing this game-changing legislation and call on the House to follow the Senate's lead."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Signs TikTok Ban—Among the 'Stupidest and Most Authoritarian' Tech Bills
One critic said that "the bill doesn't touch the homegrown spyware U.S. companies churn out" and "also strikes at the First Amendment right to receive information."
Apr 24, 2024
Digital rights defenders on Wednesday slammed the passage of a U.S. foreign aid package containing a possible nationwide TikTok ban as unconstitutional, xenophobic, and ill-advised during an election year in which President Joe Biden desperately needs as many young votes as possible.
Biden signed the $95 billion bill late Wednesday morning after senators voted 79-18 the previous evening to approve the package, which includes tens of billions of dollars in U.S. military assistance for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel—which is waging a genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza.
One of the bill's provisions would force ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, to sell the app to a non-Chinese company within a year or face a federal ban. Approximately 170 million Americans use TikTok, which is especially popular among members of Gen-Z and small-to-medium-sized businesses, and
contributes tens of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy annually.
"Whether it's dressed up as a ban or a forced sale, the bill targeting TikTok is one of the stupidest and most authoritarian pieces of tech legislation we've seen in years," Fight for the Future director Evan Greer said in a statement.
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, called the provision "nothing more than an unconstitutional ban in disguise."
"Banning a social media platform that hundreds of millions of Americans use to express themselves would have devastating consequences for all of our First Amendment rights, and will almost certainly be struck down in court," she added.
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University,
said:
The First Amendment means that the government can't restrict Americans' access to ideas, information, or media from abroad without a very good reason for it—and no such reason exists here. Repackaging the government's reasons for the ban in the language of "national security" does not change the analysis. There's no national security exception to the First Amendment, and creating such an exception would make the First Amendment a dead letter.
Proponents of the possible ban attempted to spin it as something else and pointed to precedents including the 2020 forced sale of the popular LGBTQ+ dating app Grindr, formerly owned by a Chinese company.
"I want to be very clear: This is not a 'TikTok ban,'" Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who voted to approve the bill, said in a statement. "I have no interest in banning TikTok. This bill will simply make TikTok safer by separating it from the Chinese Communist Party so that the data of 170 million Americans—many of whom are children—is protected."
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said before Tuesday's vote that "Congress is acting to prevent foreign adversaries from conducting espionage, surveillance, maligned operations, harming vulnerable Americans, our servicemen and women, and our U.S. government personnel."
"Banning TikTok without passing real tech regulation will just further entrench monopolies like Meta and Google, without doing anything to protect Americans from data harvesting or government propaganda."
However, Kate Ruane, who directs the Center for Democracy & Technology's Free Expression Project, asserted that "Congress shouldn't be in the business of banning platforms. They should be working to enact comprehensive privacy legislation that protects our private data no matter where we choose to engage online."
Greer said that "not only is this bill laughably unconstitutional and a blatant assault on free expression and human rights, it's also a perfect way to derail momentum toward more meaningful policies like privacy and antitrust legislation that would actually address the harms of Big Tech and surveillance capitalism."
Greer continued:
Banning TikTok without passing real tech regulation will just further entrench monopolies like Meta and Google, without doing anything to protect Americans from data harvesting or government propaganda.
We could be months away from another Trump administration, and top Democrats are busy expanding mass surveillance authority and setting the precedent that the government can ban an entire social media app based on vague 'national security' concerns that haven't been explained to the public.
Some critics questioned the wisdom of Biden signing off on a potential ban of the most popular social media app among many young users during an election year in which many younger voters are disappointed in the president's record on climate, student debt relief, the Gaza genocide, and more.
One user of X, the social platform formerly known as Twitter, said earlier this year that signing the bill would demonstrate a "comical level of political malpractice, the equivalent of seeing the rake on the ground and purposefully stepping on it."
Moments after Biden signed the bill, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew
vowed, "We aren't going anywhere."
"The facts and the Constitution are on our side and we expect to prevail again," he said, referring to the three times when federal judges blocked efforts to ban TikTok.
TikTok CEO Shou Chew responds to the bill that could ban the app: “Make no mistake, this is a ban, a ban of TikTok and a ban on you and your voice.”
“Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere.”
pic.twitter.com/qElI8JvY0D
— philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) April 24, 2024
In the most recent case, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy ruled last December that a Montana law that would have banned the app "violates the Constitution in more ways than one" and had a "pervasive undertone of anti-Chinese sentiment."
It is unclear who would buy TikTok. Analysts estimate the platform is worth upward of $100 billion, placing it out of reach for all but the biggest U.S. tech titans and, ironically, setting up possible antitrust challenges from the very administration that ultimately forced the sale.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Blatant Censorship': Critics Blast US House Vote for TikTok Ban
"Don't ban TikTok," said Fight for the Future. "Pass a goddamn privacy law."
Mar 13, 2024
U.S. progressives on Wednesday decried what they called a xenophobic censorship bill passed by House lawmakers that would ban TikTok if its Chinese parent company doesn't sell its stake in the popular social media app, with critics arguing that Congress should instead pass a comprehensive digital privacy law.
Lawmakers passed the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act in an overwhelmingly bipartisan 352-65 vote. The legislation "prohibits distributing, maintaining, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary-controlled application" like TikTok, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese tech company ByteDance.
Fifty House Democrats and 15 Republicans voted against the bill.
"I voted no on the TikTok forced sale bill," Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said in a statement. "While I have serious data privacy concerns with TikTok, this bill was rapidly rushed to a vote by the Republicans with almost no public scrutiny—and that's a recipe for unintended consequences."
"We need well-vetted, robust protections for TikTok users," Casar added. "Today's bill simply may not work."
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who also voted no, said on social media that "not only are there First Amendment concerns, this is bad policy."
"We should create actual standards and regulations around privacy violations across social media companies—not target platforms we don't like," she added.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), another no vote, said that "rather than target one company in a rushed and secretive process, Congress should pass comprehensive data privacy protections and do a better job of informing the public of the threats these companies may pose to national security."
Proponents of the bill, which was rushed to a vote after a closed-door hearing, argue that because ByteDance is beholden to the Chinese government, TikTok could be compelled to disclose data on the approximately 170 million Americans who use the app.
If passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Joe Biden—who has vowed to approve the legislation—ByteDance will have six months to divest from TikTok or it will be banned from U.S. app stores and web hosts.
Responding to the vote, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin accused the U.S. government of "resorting to hegemonic moves when one could not succeed in fair competition."
Wang added that the move "disrupts the normal operation of businesses, undermines the confidence of international investors in the investment environment, sabotages the normal economic and trade order in the world, and will eventually backfire on the U.S. itself."
"The rhetoric fueling a TikTok ban is a xenophobic, moral panic about the content on TikTok."
Civil liberties and digital rights groups blasted the House vote, with the ACLU accusing lawmakers of "violating the free speech rights of millions of Americans who use the platform daily to communicate and stay informed."
Fight for the Future said that "the rhetoric fueling a TikTok ban is a xenophobic, moral panic about the content on TikTok, disregarding... users in the U.S. that use the app for news, small business, community organizing, and free expression."
"Don't ban TikTok," the group asserted on social media. "Pass a goddamn privacy law."
Other critics highlighted U.S. tech giants' rampant abuse of user privacy. RootsAction called the bill a "serious First Amendment violation and an infringement upon free speech" that "does very little to address broader concerns about privacy rights, as U.S. based social media companies extensively violate those rights."
Jenna Ruddock, an attorney at Free Press Action, said in a
statement:
TikTok isn't perfect, but banning it is the wrong solution. Like all popular platforms, including those that Meta and Google own, TikTok collects too much data on its users. But unilaterally dismantling spaces for free expression limits people's access to information and cuts off avenues for creators to build community. The legislation also fails to meaningfully protect our privacy or address the national security concerns the bill's sponsors have raised.
"Banning a single platform will not address the problem at the root of the entire tech landscape," Ruddock contended, for "at any given time, dozens of corporations are tracking us, analyzing our behavior, and profiting off of our private information."
"It's ridiculous for Congress to single out one app while failing to act on this huge problem that's prevalent across all social media," she added. "Lawmakers should instead pass a federal privacy law that would limit how all companies collect, store, analyze, and sell our personal data."
Some critics linked the legislation to U.S. support for Israel's genocide in Gaza and TikTok users' prolific advocacy for Palestine, with RootsAction noting that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee was the leading campaign contributor to bill author Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) during the 2021-22 election cycle.
The peace group CodePink quipped, "As Israel drops U.S. bombs on civilians daily, they'd rather ban an app than a genocide."
The legislation now heads to the Senate, where Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) only said that the chamber "will review" the bill.
"Make no mistake: The House's TikTok bill is a ban, and it's blatant censorship," ACLU senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff argued. "Today, the House of Representatives voted to violate the First Amendment rights of more than half of the country. The Senate must reject this unconstitutional and reckless bill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Study Finds Over 33 Million Instagram, TikTok Posts Promoting Harmful Content to Kids
The Ekō report came as a U.S. Senate panel held a hearing about online child sexual exploitation featuring testimony from five Big Tech CEOs.
Jan 31, 2024
As five Big Tech executives appeared before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, the group Ekō released a report highlighting how "social media companies are not only failing to safeguard young users from harm, but actively profiting from it."
"This briefing serves as an urgent call for legislative action," says the 17-page publication from Ekō—previously called SumOfUs—which is addressed to the Senate panel on the first page and urges constituents to contact their members of Congress.
The report builds on Ekō research from 2021 and 2023. Again, the group focused on TikTok and Meta-owned Instagram, examining posts about "body image issues, skin whitening, mental health issues, including suicide and self-harm, as well as incel and misogynistic content."
"A handful of tech CEOs have manufactured a new public health crisis and it's harming kids with increasing ferocity."
"This updated research, conducted between January 18th-25th, 2024 provides concrete data for members of the committee on how this kind of problematic content not only remains rampant on the platforms but in some cases has increased in volume," the document states.
Ekō's investigation uncovered over 33.26 million posts on both platforms "under hashtags housing problematic content directed at young users."
Specifically, researchers found:
- 8 hashtags about suicide leading to 1.54 million posts—a 33% increase in content since the group's research last year;
- 14 hashtags about involuntary celibate (incel) and manosphere content, leading to over a million posts—a 161% increase from 2023;
- 5 hashtags about eating disorders leading to more than 1.28 million posts;
- 16 hashtags about plastic and body modification surgeries leading to over 24.84 million posts—a 67% increase from 2021; and
- 22 hashtags about skin whitening leading to 4.54 million posts.
Meanwhile, the report points, "social media giants are making a staggering $11 billion in U.S. ad revenue from ads targeted at minors, and despite promising to take action to stop directing personalized ads to children, they continue to do so."
"Health experts are increasingly worried about the role of social media platforms in fueling the child mental health crisis, while
multiple studies have exposed the growing problem of child sexual exploitation online; and academics point to the growing evidence of addiction to social media among young people," the document adds, urging "decisive actions from lawmakers."
Ekō campaigner Maen Hammad echoed that call to action in a statement, saying that "this research underscores what we've known for a very long time now—a handful of tech CEOs have manufactured a new public health crisis and it's harming kids with increasing ferocity."
"Senators can ask Mark Zuckerberg as many questions as they like, but it's not going to fix the problem unless we also get robust new laws," Hammad added, referring to Meta's CEO. "The real question is how much more evidence do U.S. lawmakers need before they act to defend our children from these predatory tech monopolies."
In addition to Zuckerberg, whose company also owns Facebook, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from TikTok's Shou Chew, Snap's Evan Spiegel, Discord's Jason Citron, and Linda Yaccarino of X, the platform formerly called Twitter and owned by billionaire Elon Musk.
Ekō—which supports a full ban on surveillance advertising, the establishment of an algorithmic oversight board, and ending Big Tech's predatory business model based on personal data harvesting—was far from alone in demanding legislative action as the panel held its "Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crisis" hearing.
"Another hearing, more evasions and deflections from big tech CEOs," Josh Golin of the child advocacy group Fairplay said Wednesday. "If Congress really cares about the families who packed the hearing today holding pictures of their children lost to social media harms, they will move the Kids Online Safety Act. Pointed questions and sound bites won't save lives, but KOSA will."
In September, Fairplay acknowledged concerns that KOSA "will have unintended consequences and cut off LGBTQ+ youth from online resources, or expand censorship powers" of right-wing state attorneys general, but said the group had consulted with "attorneys, leading queer advocates, First Amendment experts, and platform design experts who all agreed that any attempt by conservative AGs to censor LGBTQ+ content would not succeed."
However, some digital rights advocates remain concerned about KOSA and other internet-related bills including the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act; Strengthening Transparency and Obligation to Protect Children Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment (STOP CSAM) Act; Cooper Davis Act; and Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act.
"Strict privacy and antitrust legislation would... go a long way toward reducing harm and diminishing the power and dominance of Big Tech giants."
Fight for the Future director Evan Greer said Wednesday that "Big Tech is harming kids. That's not up for debate. We commend the parents and young people who are speaking up and demanding that lawmakers do something. Fight for the Future has worked for years to expose and address the harms of Big Tech monopolies and their surveillance capitalist business model."
"But unfortunately, today's hearing shows once again that many senators are actively helping Big Tech harm kids because they're more interested in creating sound bites for TV than the actual work of legislating," she argued. "Experts have repeatedly explained why, as written, dangerous and misguided bills like KOSA, STOP CSAM, and the EARN IT Act would make kids less safe, not more safe. Hundreds of thousands of young people and others have spoken up, calling for legislation that protects privacy rather than leads to censorship."
Greer suggested that "these bills could be amended to ensure they target specific harmful business practices like autoplay, infinite scroll, and use of minor's personal data to power recommendation algorithms, rather than being a blank check for censorship and expanding surveillance. Strict privacy and antitrust legislation would also go a long way toward reducing harm and diminishing the power and dominance of Big Tech giants."
While praising the Senate panel for "bringing social media CEOs in to testify on the harms their companies cause or exacerbate for kids and families," Demand Progress corporate power director Emily Peterson-Cassin also promoted antitrust bills on Wednesday.
"As the committee considers new legislation to address online harms to youth and families, we urge them to stay open-minded about types of solutions that could address these and other harms," she said. The American Innovation and Choice Online Act and Open Apps Market Act, she noted, "would weaken the power of large companies to command our attention and our money."
The Federal Trade Commission's rulemaking on commercial surveillance "could ensure our privacy and safety against the abuses that stem from a data-hoarding business model," she added. "These all have the potential to make the internet a better and safer place for everyone."
The U.S. 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline can be reached by calling or texting 988, or through chat at 988lifeline.org. It offers 24/7, free, and confidential support.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy