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
meta
Sanders, Casar Proposal Would Forbid 'AI Oligarchs From Building Machines Humans Cannot Control'
"Despite its potential deadly consequences, cutting-edge AI technology is less regulated than the average food truck," Casar said. "That must change."
Sep 03, 2026
Following a rash of incidents involving rogue artificial intelligence agents involved in so-called "breakout" events, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar introduced new legislation Thursday designed to "stop AI oligarchs from building machines humans cannot control."
“Nearly every day, there is a frightening new story about how Big Tech companies are losing control of the technology they are developing, with potentially cataclysmic results,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said on Thursday as he announced the bill, which would ban developers from creating AI programs that are capable of surpassing human cognition and performance.
If enacted, the bill would prohibit programs capable of undermining and overthrowing human governments or that possess the capability to subvert shutdown commands.
“The leaders of the major AI companies publicly acknowledge that they do not fully understand the technology and that it is escaping their control," Sanders said. "It is irresponsible for society to allow them to move forward and make these products even more advanced."
The bill, known as the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, comes in response to major security lapses at leading AI developers, including OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta, in which the companies acknowledged that their programs had escaped human control, eluded internal guardrails, and hacked into other companies' systems.
As the Washington Post explains:
The hacking incident mounted by OpenAI systems in July involved an effort to breach another AI company as a swarm of agents hunted for answers to a test. They evaded internal controls and set up a secret message board to communicate with one another. Their work was only unraveled by the company after the attack was over.
Other top AI developers subsequently disclosed similar incidents involving their latest technology, raising questions about whether companies set up with the mission of building the technology safely were starting to lose control. The speed of progress has spooked even many of those working on the systems, with OpenAI and its rival Anthropic endorsing the idea of the government having a mechanism to slow the industry down.
Last month, Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, led dozens of lawmakers to demand that OpenAI and Anthropic release information about the lapses. In a statement on Wednesday, Casar said that company executives had failed to answer most of his questions, demonstrating that they were “not treating these cybersecurity incidents with the seriousness required.”
Casar said in a video posted Thursday that the OpenAI breach in particular represented an “unprecedented moment in the history of technology” and was shocked at the lack of a serious response. “Nothing," he said. "No new guardrails being passed by Congress. No new protections against this signed into law by the president of the United States.”
Following these incidents, OpenAI and Anthropic have both expressed openness to some government regulation in the event that the development of their products gets out of hand.
During an interview earlier this week, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said that while he was "in awe" of his company's progress, “we have needed more time to catch up with safety, alignment, and security.”
Sanders and Casar are not the only members of Congress pushing to counter the danger of superintelligent AI. Also on Thursday, Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) introduced their own Stop Rogue AI Act, which would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology to publish standards and guidelines for how organizations can safely deploy AI agents.
But while the guidelines in that bill are voluntary, Sanders and Casar are pushing for a much broader and stronger regulatory framework that would give the government a significant check on corporations' power.
In addition to a ban on superintelligent AI, Casar and Sanders' legislation calls for a pause on all "advanced" AI development until a new federal regulatory body can be established to set clear rules and review processes for AI safety. It would also create a new cabinet-level agency to protect the public from the dangers of AI and to enforce the new restrictions.
"Despite its potential deadly consequences, cutting-edge AI technology is less regulated than the average food truck," Casar said. "That must change. In just four years, we have gone from the first version of ChatGPT to AI models so powerful they cannot be properly controlled."
Evading the law would come with steep penalties: companies that illegally develop superintelligent AI would lose the right to do business under the so-called "corporate death penalty." Individuals, meanwhile, could face up to 20 years in prison, which Casar noted was the same penalty incurred for "building a nuclear weapon" without authorization.
As concerns about unchecked AI capabilities have grown in recent years, executives at companies including OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta have committed to halting the development of their technology once it reaches a point at which it can't be operated safely.
But Sanders and Casar said that "none of these companies have taken meaningful steps to back up these words" and that "instead, they are racing to develop more and more advanced AI without proper safety precautions."
"The future of humanity cannot be left in the hands of a handful of Big Tech oligarchs," Sanders said. "The American people and people throughout the world must determine that future.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
$17 Billion Meta Settlement 'Will Make Social Media Less Dangerous for Our Kids,' Says California AG
“This is a watershed moment for the growing movement to protect children from addictive and dangerously designed social media," said the head of one child advocacy group.
Aug 26, 2026
A bipartisan US coalition of 51 state and territorial attorneys generals on Wednesday announced a proposed agreement with Meta in which the tech titan will pay up to $17.1 billion in penalties and implement sweeping policy changes to settle claims its social media platforms were designed to be addictive to children.
"Today, we have secured a settlement with Meta that will make social media less dangerous for our kids and make a world of difference for children and their families," Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “Meta has agreed to make massive transformations that will reduce the risk of harm from its platforms—and will do it within months."
The proposed settlement, which still requires federal court approval, ends a closely watched trial that began last week in Oakland, California. The underlying case was brought by 29 states, while the broader agreement announced Wednesday involves a much larger bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general and jurisdictions, bringing 47 states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands together to take on one of Silicon Valley's most powerful companies.
Just three states are not part of the agreement. New Mexico—which already won a separate trial against Meta—Texas, and Florida, whose Republican attorney general, James Utheimer, scoffed at what he suggested is a paltry penalty.
"The payouts are peanuts compared to the profound harms Meta’s profit-driven addictive features inflicted on kids, and a slap on the wrist for a trillion-dollar [corporation] that’ll pay more to lawyers than to the states," Utheimer said on X. "We’ll see them at trial."
The litigants had accused Meta—which denies any wrongdoing—of using features including algorithmic recommendations, infinite scrolling, notifications, social-comparison tools, and other engagement mechanisms to maximize the amount of time young people spend on its platforms. They also alleged that Meta illegally collected data from children under 13 and misled parents and the public about the safety of its products.
“Children in New York and nationwide are suffering while companies like Meta reap immense profits by intentionally addicting them to their social media platforms,” Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James said after the settlement was announced. “We cannot allow social media companies to continue fueling the growing rates of low self-esteem, isolation, and depression among our youth."
The proposed agreement imposes some of the most extensive restrictions on a major social media platform ever secured in the US. Users under age 18 would face a default two-hour daily limit on Facebook and Instagram, adjustable only by a parent. If other major social media platforms agree to comparable restrictions, the limit would fall to one hour. Meta would also institute a default overnight block from midnight to 6:00 am, again subject to parental override. Notifications would be disabled during overnight hours and during much of the school day.
Other provisions would prohibit Meta from displaying "like" and reaction counts to minors and from providing cosmetic procedure filters to users under 18. Teenagers would also receive an option to use a nonpersonalized feed rather than an algorithmic system designed to select content based on their engagement.
"With significant new resources for our communities and comprehensive restrictions on Meta’s platforms for young people, we are taking a major step towards breaking the cycle of social media addiction," James said. "This groundbreaking plan sets a standard of reforms for all social media platforms, and I will continue to work to extend these protections across the industry.”
Josh Golin, executive director of the child advocacy group Fairplay, issued a statement calling the agreement "a watershed moment for the growing movement to protect children from addictive and dangerously designed social media."
“This settlement also underscores the need for KOSA, the Kids Online Safety Act," Golin added. "As internal documents have shown over and over, Meta and other social media companies deliberately design their products to addict kids, and that is the root cause of so many mental health difficulties and serious online harms for minors."
Earlier this month, the Senate Commerce Committee advanced KOSA, which passed earlier in the House of Representatives and is supported by many child advocacy groups but opposed by the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and other digital rights organizations that argue the bill's privacy risks outweigh its protections.
Wednesday's agreement comes after years of mounting evidence, lawsuits, whistleblower disclosures, and jury verdicts alleging that Meta knew its products could harm young users.
Earlier this year, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million after finding that the company violated state law by putting children at risk. A day later, a Los Angeles jury found Meta and Google negligent in a case brought by a young woman who said she had been harmed by addictive features on Instagram and YouTube.
Following Wednesday's announcement, Meta called on "peers" TikTok and YouTube to "join us in supporting teens" by agreeing to some of the same measures required by the settlement.
Responding to the proposed Meta settlement, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said that “this is a monumental victory for online safety that will affect an entire generation of young people."
"After decades of putting profits before the health and wellness of children, this landmark settlement requires Meta to put our children’s safety and mental health at the forefront,” he continued.
“It is imperative that all social media apps protect our children, and I will continue working with my colleagues toward that end," Raoul added. "This settlement sends a message that we will not hesitate to take action to protect children online."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It Is Not Too Late to Avoid Disaster': Sanders Calls for AI Development Pause
"Mr. Altman, Mr. Amodei, and Mr. Zuckerberg: In the interest of humanity, stand by your word."
Aug 10, 2026
As progressives on Monday urged US House Speaker Mike Johnson to haul artificial intelligence leaders before Congress to answer questions under oath about "the dangers posed by this technology," Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote directly to a trio of AI CEOs.
"Almost every day, there is a new story about how your companies are losing control of the AI technology you are developing, with potentially cataclysmic results," Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote to OpenAI's Sam Altman, Anthropic's Dario Amodei, and Meta's Mark Zuckerberg.
Citing a study published Thursday in the journal Science, he noted that "this week we learned, frighteningly, that AI has been used for the first time ever to create new viruses. As you know, this type of development, in the wrong hands, could lead to new bioweapons that result in the deaths of tens of millions of people."
That revelation came just weeks after "the world found out OpenAI lost control of an AI model," the senator continued. "The result? The model hacked into another company’s computers—a clear violation of federal law. After conducting internal reviews, Anthropic and Meta reported their models similarly escaped their control."
Pointing to recent calls for action from Yoshua Bengio, the most cited living scientist in the world, as well as top scientists at various AI companies, Sanders stressed that the international community wants "to create a safety mechanism—a pause button—to avoid catastrophe."
"And yet, at a moment when we have seen human loss of control and the creation of potentially dangerous viruses, your companies are still racing ahead—investing tens of billions of dollars into a technology that nobody can fully understand, predict, or control," he wrote. "That is absurd, irresponsible, and extremely dangerous. It is also a betrayal of your own stated commitments."
After outlining those commitments from the past few years, the former presidential candidate argued that "AI capabilities HAVE reached a critical threshold. There is a reason why the head of the CIA says that AI models are 'akin to digital nuclear weapons' and 'almost like a doomsday device.'"
"Mr. Altman, Mr. Amodei, and Mr. Zuckerberg: In the interest of humanity, stand by your word. Pause AI development. It is not too late to avoid disaster. Stop building machines that humans cannot control," he urged. "Let me be very clear: If you do not take appropriate action now, my colleagues and I in the US Senate will."
Sanders earlier this year proposed the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, which would give the public "a direct ownership stake" in the largest artificial intelligence companies in the country. The senators is also co-leading a data center moratorium bill.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DuckDuckGo Releases 'Normal Sunglasses' to Troll Meta's AI-Powered 'Pervert Glasses'
"These are the first smart glasses guaranteed to never record nude videos of you and send them to random people. I never thought I’d have to guarantee that, but here we are.”
Aug 07, 2026
As Meta faces heat for selling artificial intelligence-powered sunglasses that record people without their knowledge, the web browser DuckDuckGo responded with what it called "the world's most innovative anti-surveillance sunglasses"... otherwise known as normal sunglasses.
Meta, the Big Tech behemoth that owns Facebook and Instagram, likely did not expect to become the subject of relentless scorn and mockery over its new line of "Meta Glasses," which retail for upwards of $299 and have been plugged by the likes of Kylie Jenner.
But internet users have saddled the shades with the nickname "pervert glasses." For good reason: among other high-tech bells and whistles, the latest version is equipped with photo and video technology that some of the clientele have used to discreetly film strangers.
As the Los Angeles Times chronicles, some women have been approached by bespectacled creeps only to later find a recording of the encounter posted online, entirely without their consent. Although the glasses have a white light to indicate that recording is in progress, some elite-tier perverts have found ways to disable it.
DuckDuckGo, a company that has billed itself as an alternative to its data-mining, privacy-violating competitors, responded to the backlash against Meta by partnering with the eyewear company Knockaround and selling its own pair of glasses whose primary gimmick is that they do absolutely nothing but sit on your face.
"No camera, no microphone, no AI, no battery, no electronics of any kind," reads the website, "Just a beautifully crafted pair of matte black sunglasses with a glossy DuckDuckGo logo, designed to block the sun and never send data to the cloud."
“We’re obsessed with innovation. So when Big Tech started putting cameras in smart glasses, we asked ourselves a radical question: What if we just didn’t do that?” a July 30 social media post from DuckDuckGo said. “These are the first smart glasses guaranteed to never record nude videos of you and send them to random people. I never thought I’d have to guarantee that, but here we are.”
This was not merely a hyperbolic what-if. It's been reported that Meta's AI glasses have recorded videos of users having sex and using the bathroom that were then viewed by Kenyan subcontractors involved in manually training Meta's AI systems.
Internal documents have also revealed plans by Meta to embed facial recognition technology into the glasses, which dozens of rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, warned "would allow anyone wearing them to identify by name any strangers in their vicinity—including at protests, medical clinics, and businesses."
After being secretly implemented for a brief period without being accessible to consumers, the technology was rolled back. But concerns remain that it could be added again, and there have been growing calls from lawmakers and privacy groups in the US and Europe to ban the glasses.
One British activist group called Everyone Hates Elon has begun a viral guerrilla marketing campaign against the Meta glasses.
One satirical ad, placed at a bus stop in London, shows the infamous sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein wearing the frames, with the tagline "glasses for people who don't do consent" next to the Meta logo.
"These glasses feel like they’re making perverts’ and abusers’ lives easier when we should actually be making women’s lives easier. They are pervert glasses," a spokesperson for the group told The Times of London. "We wanted to use Jeffrey Epstein to highlight who these glasses will be used by, and it’s powerful men and abusers.”
In this environment, it's perhaps not a surprise that DuckDuckGo's tech-free alternative has been a hit. The company said that within a week, the shades, which cost $35 a pair, had sold out.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Good Start': Meta Fine Now Nearly $1 Billion for Social Media Giant's Harm to Kids
"We cannot allow Meta to put its short-term profits above the emotional well-being of our kids," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Aug 07, 2026
A New Mexico court on Thursday ruled that Meta must pay an additional $567 million fine on top of the $375 million a jury fined the tech giant in March for harms caused to teens and children who use its Instagram and Facebook social media platforms.
First Judicial District Judge Bryan Biedscheid said in his 68-pager ruling that "significant numbers of people in New Mexico experience harm from Meta’s products due to risks of sexual exploitation, interference with education, and adverse mental health outcomes."
"The harm to the impacted New Mexicans is not doubtful, eventual, or contingent, but an immediate, temporally connected, and highly probable result of Meta’s actions," he continued.
"The youth mental health crisis has inflicted significant and widespread harm in New Mexico in terms of the number of youth suffering mental health harms, the profound suffering they and those in their families suffer, and the resulting interferences with the functioning of the schools, law enforcement, [and] healthcare systems in New Mexico," the judge added.
The case centered on allegations that Meta knowingly designed and operated Facebook and Instagram in ways that exposed children to harmful content, encouraged excessive use, and failed to adequately protect minors from exploitation. New Mexico officials argued that internal company knowledge and outside warnings showed Meta was aware of risks associated with its platforms but did not act sufficiently to address them.
Most of the new fine—$420 million—will go toward funding youth treatment services, while the rest is designated for awareness and prevention, screening services, and other costs.
Biedscheid's order also compels Meta to make changes to its platforms in New Mexico, including removing "like" counts and only showing them to minors with parental consent, and prohibiting overnight push notifications for users under age 18.
"Regardless of whether it is labeled as an 'addiction' or 'problematic use,' the evidence at trial proved that design elements, such as autoplay, infinite scroll, 'like counts,' and push notifications create a product that, particularly for adolescent users, is highly rewarding psychologically and neurochemically," he wrote. "As a result, for many, it is irresistibly compelling to start scrolling and very difficult to stop or abstain from its use."
"In addition," the judge added, "algorithmic content recommendations can create harmful feedback loops and 'rabbit hole' users. Within a similar vein, 'like counts'... can provide a potentially harmful focus for adolescent users."
Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said the company would appeal the ruling, claiming: “We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and have been transparent about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors and harmful content. We remain confident in our record of protecting teens online and will continue to defend ourselves against claims that misrepresent the facts."
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez hailed the ruling, saying that “Meta built products it knew would fuel addiction, deepen a youth mental health crisis, and expose children to sexual exploitation, then lied to parents and policymakers about the danger. Today, it pays for that choice.”
At Fairplay—a children's advocacy group—executive director Josh Golin hailed the "landmark ruling" as "the clearest indication yet that the tide is turning when it comes to protecting kids from social media."
"For the first time, Meta is being compelled by a court to change its dangerous and harmful design," he continued. "And with so many states lined up to sue Meta and other social media companies, we should expect to see a lot more injunctive relief to make online platforms used by young people safer."
“This ruling also clearly indicates why families need the Kids Online Safety Act," Golin added, referring to a controversial bill advanced this week by the Senate Commerce Committee. "The judge said it was up to Congress to address the addictive features on Instagram and other social media platforms. KOSA’s duty of care against compulsive use is the key to ensuring that Meta and other social media companies stop designing for addiction, as addictive design is the root of all social media harms.”
Justin Mazzola, deputy director of research at Amnesty International USA, said in a statement: "This verdict is an important step towards creating safer social media for children and young people. For years, Amnesty International has warned that major social media platforms have been designed to maximize engagement and profit, while failing to adequately protect children’s rights."
“Crucially, the court went beyond imposing a financial penalty," he continued. "By ordering changes to platform features, including removing 'like' counts for people under 18 and restricting overnight notifications, the ruling recognizes that the harms children experience online are often the result of deliberate design choices."
“Amnesty has been calling for exactly this kind of action," Mazzola added. "Child safety must be built into platforms from the start, not added as an afterthought once harms are identified. This decision sends a clear message that social media companies cannot continue to prioritize engagement at the expense of children’s well-being and rights.”
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said on Bluesky: "This is good news. For far too long, Big Tech corporations have put their bottom lines ahead of the health and safety of kids on their platforms."
"Congress must continue to push for accountability and real guardrails for companies like Meta as tech giants continue to grow," added Jayapal, who was critical of the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act approved by the House of Representatives in June.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also welcomed the ruling, posting on X that billionaire Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's "greed is fueling a youth mental health crisis in America."
"Today, a judge ordered Meta to pay a $567 million fine for the damage it has done to our kids," Sanders added. "Good start. We cannot allow Meta to put its short-term profits above the emotional well-being of our kids."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Creepiest Possible Path': Meta Letting Facebook, Instagram Use Your Personal Posts for AI Image Generation
"People should not wake up to discover their face has become raw material for someone else’s AI experiment. This is another invasion of consumers’ privacy."
Jul 08, 2026
Tech giant Meta on Tuesday introduced an artificial intelligence image generation model that critics say is a major potential risk to users' personal privacy.
Meta, the parent company of social networks including Facebook and Instagram, described its new Muse Image model as a "creative partner that knows your world, making it easy to turn your ideas into high-quality visuals that you can download and share anywhere, including directly to your feed, story, or chat."
In its announcement, Meta explained how users can either alter existing images or create new ones from scratch using AI prompts.
"You can describe what you want in simple, conversational language, and Meta AI handles the rest thanks to Muse Image," the company said. "Ask it to mock up an image of you in front of a historical landmark, cleanly erase a photobomber from the background of a shot, or write a custom prompt to build a functional QR code."
However, tech publication The Verge on Tuesday flagged a potentially troublesome feature that could compromise user privacy, noting that "users can... mention other Instagram accounts in Muse Image prompts," which will let the AI model "incorporate their likeness into its output."
According to a Tuesday report from Wired, the feature will let users snatch photos from any public Instagram and Facebook accounts unless those accounts' owners specifically choose to opt out of the system.
What's more, opting out of the system is not a simple one-click operation.
"If you want to avoid these AI generations of your Instagram posts without switching your account to private, you’ll have to dig into the app’s settings," reported Wired. "Open the Instagram app, tap your profile, and then tap the three lines in the top-right corner of the screen. Then, scroll down to the Sharing and reuse tab. Here is where you should see a section labeled 'Allow people to use your content on Instagram and with AI features on Meta,' with a toggle for Posts and one for Reels."
JB Branch, director of federal AI governance and technology policy at Public Citizen, blasted Meta for being careless with its users' privacy by making them jump through hoops to stop others from swiping their photos.
"Meta has once again chosen the creepiest possible path," said Branch. "People should not wake up to discover their face has become raw material for someone else’s AI experiment. This is another invasion of consumers’ privacy. Instead of asking for meaningful consent, Meta quietly defaults users into the system and buries the opt-out in account settings."
Branch added that while Meta had a long history of violating user privacy, forcing them to opt out of its new AI image generation model "crosses what should be a bright line."
"If our faces can be repurposed for AI simply because we posted a public photo, then very little remains off limits," Branch emphasized. "Congress should establish clear privacy protections that require affirmative consent before companies can use a person’s image or likeness for AI products."
Keep ReadingShow Less
You Can Mute Notifications But You Can't Escape the Algorithm
Social media companies have intentionally designed their products to be addictive to young users; the issue cannot be resolved until the entire architecture of the platforms is overhauled.
Jun 14, 2026
You can mute Instagram stories. You can turn off Snap Maps. You can silence every notification on your phone. But try turning off reels. Try removing your “explore page.” Try turning off your TikTok algorithm.
Social media platforms have spent years perfecting the art of giving users just enough control to feel empowered, but not enough to actually break away. The result is a false sense of autonomy. Psychology Today cites that users used to control their feeds by choosing who to follow and which posts to interact with, but most platforms have shifted to algorithms that prioritize content for users based upon its likelihood of engagement. Consumers now get countless settings to reorganize the surface level features of a structure that cannot be fundamentally changed.
These apps enable endless settings to facilitate an illusion of control, whether that be through settings privacy, hiding like counts, or blocking certain pages. But none of these features are meaningful. They all act as a decoy to prevent change from the much deeper issue.
The features you cannot turn off are the ones that keep you scrolling hour after hour. It is the product of years of behavioral engineering, precisely designed to exploit dopamine loops and addiction to keep account holders in a cycle that generates a feeling of continuous rewards. The ability to scroll infinitely on any platform through videos and suggested posts prevents the natural end that a finite feed would create. As time goes on, algorithms adapt to the users employing them. It understands what will make you excited, enraged, or captivated, all at the expense of your attention span and countless unreturnable hours of your life.
The question isn’t about how to not use social media—it's unavoidable. It’s about if you even have the ability to not use it.
In a landmark case in March of 2026, Meta and Youtube were just found guilty of intentionally addicting young users and damaging their mental health. The juries found them both negligent in the design of their platforms, knowing it was dangerous and failing to appropriately warn of the risks. The companies were required to pay $3 million in compensatory damages, and jurors recommended another $3 million in punitive damages.
This verdict is revolutionary because for the first time, the law has indicated that the design of the apps was the issue, rather than the content or the users. It changes the conversation from blaming consumers for being on social media too much to recognizing these apps are designed to make it impossible to walk away. This trial could set the precedent for the over 1,500 similar cases that have been filed against the companies.
The findings of this case are nothing new. For countless years, tobacco companies sold cigarettes knowing the devices engineered customer addiction, while vehemently denying the harm every step of the way. It's easy to reflect on that chapter of history with clearer vision, but it was difficult to spot in the moment. Now we are living through its modern day counterpart.
The difference in these cases is that purchasing cigarettes takes explicit effort, but social media follows you everywhere you go. It’s in your pocket, it’s with you at school, in the office; no place is out of reach and no moment is off-limits. There is no social media equivalent of a “no smoking zone” or too inappropriate of a place to check your phone. It is a socially enabled addiction with no guardrails to limit engagement.
The question isn’t about how to not use social media—it's unavoidable. It’s about if you even have the ability to not use it. When the entire algorithm is designed to keep you from clicking away, and keep the app gaining revenue, it’s not about your personal autonomy anymore, it's about the devices keeping you from being able to physically peel yourself away.
Politicians can see this problem too. California AB 2169 would require companies to provide a copy of their personal data, including behavioral profiles and the digital map of online interactions. It also mandates that platforms build a bridge to allow users to sync their friends and interactions to other apps. Michigan's Kids Over Clicks package SB 757-760 goes further to prohibit platforms from using minors' personal data to fuel recommendation algorithms without parental consent, banning manipulative patterns like streaks and reward systems to incentivize continued app usage, and strictly regulating AI companion chatbots that could encourage self-harm or serve as unlicensed therapists.
While these bills make leaps toward restoring user autonomy, none of them actually address social media addiction head-on. Knowing the features these apps use to trap you into endless scrolling is helpful but doesn’t stop the behavior at its core. The option to turn off these privacy settings and default restrictions is still present. The problem isn’t the content on the apps, but the design. We can’t stop at changing the features and restructuring the settings. The issue cannot be resolved until the entire architecture of the platforms is overhauled.
I’ll leave you with this: We already know how the story ends if we do nothing as we have lived it before. So what are we going to do today to write a different ending?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bearing Witness in the Age of Generative AI
Pushing back against the assault on verifiable reality is a crucial undertaking in the pursuit of justice.
May 31, 2026
The advent of generative AI has made it even harder to distinguish between what’s real and what isn’t, and also easy to claim what is real is fake. This threatens to undermine the very idea of "evidence," which traditionally has been used to enforce accountability, by fracturing shared, verifiable reality.
For example, in Iran authorities attempted to dismiss protest footage as edited or artificially manufactured after AI was used to enhance long-distance footage of someone confronting the military, effectively turning this doubt into a propaganda weapon. Doubt was also a feature in the aftermath of the recent bombing of a girls' school which killed 168 people—mostly children—in Minab, Iran. And in the midst of an already distorted information ecosystem, methods developed to detect AI fakes are now being weaponized to falsely discredit authentic evidence.
This affirms that the emergence of generative AI is not simply a technological issue, but is creating a visual evidence problem. The consequences are already being felt not only by those chronicling and exposing injustice.
Historically, visual media has been an important tool to document injustice. In South Africa, for instance, a generation of photographers used the camera to challenge the prevailing power structures of apartheid. By exposing the apartheid’s injustices and delegitimizing the system, as well as documenting resistance and everyday life, photographers had a huge impact on the liberation struggle in South Africa. So much so, that the camera would be “seen as an instrument of insurrection” by the apartheid regime, resulting in a ban on foreign journalists and documentary photography.
What would have happened if the apartheid regime had claimed that photographs like Nzima’s were faked or AI generated? Would this have created doubt for the audiences who saw it, impacting international support for South Africa’s liberation struggle?
Although they were not the sole targets of apartheid repression, those photographing or filming were often targeted by the regime. Security forces regularly exposed films, confiscated equipment, conducted raids, and banned publications, as well as people. For example, photographer Sam Nzima was harassed by police and placed under house arrest for months following the publication of his iconic photo of the dying 13-year-old Hector Pieterson who was shot by police during the youth uprising on June 16, 1976. The photo not only fueled the liberation movement within South Africa, but also galvanized stronger international condemnation of apartheid. Apartheid Minister Stoffel Botha even referred to those documenting what was unfolding in the country as "media terrorists."
While there have been attempts to deny or downplay apartheid, including from the now late last apartheid president F. W. de Klerk, systemic denial has not been possible owing to the evidence available. This underscores the role of documentation in defending truth, even if incomplete.
What would have happened if the apartheid regime had claimed that photographs like Nzima’s were faked or AI generated? Would this have created doubt for the audiences who saw it, impacting international support for South Africa’s liberation struggle? Today these questions are not rhetorical, owing to the emergence of generative AI.
To be sure for most of the world, the saying, “The camera never lies” has never been true. Visual media was vital to the Nazi regime's propaganda efforts. Before that, it played “a critical role in propagating colonialist myths about Africa,” with colonial states using photographic imagery to cement white supremacy. It would also become a tool for apartheid in South Africa, used to not only legitimize and validate itself, but to also attempt to shape global perceptions of what was happening in the country.
But the story did not end there. Visual media would also become a tool for liberation movements in South Africa and beyond, because documentation impacts how the world is perceived, meaning is made, and reality is verified.
For example, Human Rights Watch recently used geolocated images to verify the Israeli military’s unlawful use of white phosphorus, a highly reactive chemical which ignites when exposed to oxygen, in residential areas in Lebanon. This offers a pathway for accountability in the future. Similarly, the Syrian Archive, which tracks and preserves videos of war crimes in Syria, has used documentation to pursue accountability for the deadly use of chemical weapons in the country.
Documentation is critical in the pursuit of justice, as well as the need to preserve the past to confirm reality. Not only for these worthy ideals, but also so that those who are left to pick up the pieces know that their experiences of injustices are documented, even in the face of denial and propaganda aimed at persuading people otherwise.
Of course the risks and harms are heightened in conflict situations, which does not need to be inevitable. For example, Meta’s Oversight Board recently called for new rules on how deceptive AI content is managed by the platform to enable users to distinguish between what is real and fake. This follows Meta’s failure to appropriately designate an AI-generated video that purported to show significant damage caused by Iranian soldiers in Haifa, Israel. While the board’s recommendations are not binding, should Meta fail to urgently implement these, it will be yet another example of a platform knowing how to address harms but failing to do so. This must change.
To this end, pushing back against the assault on verifiable reality is a crucial undertaking. This includes protecting people's ability to safely document and preserve their documentation; accessible and effective detection tools, alongside transparency for AI-generated content; and democratic policies, laws, and regulations that center human rights considerations.
As history has repeatedly shown us, secrecy is a shield that protects injustice and emboldens bad actors. So, bearing witness, exposing truth, and insisting on justice remains as important now as it was for South Africa’s liberation movement and beyond— even in the age of generative AI.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Leaked Audio, Zuckerberg Tells Meta Workers He's Been Using Them to Train AI Ahead of Mass Layoffs
"AI is a freight train, but the future is not a foregone conclusion," said one engineer, urging his colleagues to sign a petition to stop Meta's use of an AI tracking program. "It’s not too late to pump the brakes."
May 20, 2026
Meta employees reported Wednesday that in the company's offices on the day mass layoffs hit thousands of their colleagues, fliers were taped to walls urging workers to sign a petition in support of stopping the company's new artificial intelligence data tracking program—which CEO Mark Zuckerberg touted late last month as a way for its new AI models to "learn from watching really smart people do things."
A day before about 8,000 Meta employees began receiving emails notifying them that they were being laid off—a process that began in Singapore at 4:00 am local time Wednesday and continued in European and US offices in their respective time zones—the labor-focused media organization More Perfect Union shared a leaked audio file in which Zuckerberg was heard explaining how the AI training program worked.
"The average intelligence of the people who are at this company is significantly higher than the average set of people that you can get to do tasks," said Zuckerberg. "So if we're trying to teach the models coding, for example, then having people internally build tools or solve tasks that help teach the model how to code, we think is going to dramatically increase our model's coding ability faster than what others in the industry have the capability to do, who don't have thousands and thousands of extremely strong engineers at their company."
LEAKED AUDIO: In an all-hands meeting on April 30, Mark Zuckerberg tells employees that he's training AI on them ahead of mass layoffs.
"The AI models learn from watching really smart people do things... The average intelligence of the people who are at this company is… pic.twitter.com/lt9eeJ3cwh
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) May 19, 2026
He assured the company's 78,000 employees that "no human is looking at or watching what people are doing on their computers... None of the data is being used for looking at what people are doing or surveillance or performance tracking or anything like that. It's purely just that we are using this to feed a very large amount of content into the AI model so that way it can learn how smart people use computers to accomplish tasks."
Zuckerberg explained how the employees have been used to train the model that could potentially replace many of them days after Meta announced it was planning to lay off about 10% of its workforce as the company invests heavily in AI, spending $125 billion to $145 billion on the technology—more than double what it spent last year.
The New York Times reported earlier this month that employees "revolted" when they learned about the AI tracking program, and expressed fears that they had unknowingly been training a model that would ultimately replace them.
An engineering manager asked on the company's internal communication platform how workers can opt out of having their computer activity monitored to train the AI model, only to be told by chief technology officer Andrew Bosworth, "There is no option to opt out on your corporate laptop."
Another employee told Bosworth, “Your callousness to the concerns of your own employees is concerning."
On Monday, The New York Times reported, employees learned that in addition to the layoffs, another 7,000 workers will be reassigned to help develop AI tools.
About 2,000 employees began working this month on a new Applied AI and Engineering team, which is set to use the data gathered by the AI tracking program Zuckerberg described to build AI tools. Those who volunteered to join the group would not be included in this week's layoffs, the Times reported.
"Every company is training AI on their employees," said Chen Avnery, an independent adviser on AI governance and data platforms. "Meta just said it out loud. The question stopped being, 'Will AI replace you?' a year ago. Now it's whether you're building the agents or generating their training data."
More than 1,000 people in the company have signed the petition calling to halt the AI data program, according to the newspaper.
Software engineer Mack Ward urged his colleagues to sign on earlier this month, telling them in an internal post that "AI is a freight train, but the future is not a foregone conclusion."
"It’s not too late to pump the brakes and consider how we, society, want to go about this,” Ward said. “Speaking up is never easy, but ‘easy’ isn’t what you were hired to do.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups Warn Against Meta's 'Dystopian' Plan to Add Facial Recognition Tech to AI-Powered Eyeglasses
"Meta’s reported plans to introduce this technology into broadly available consumer products is a red line society must not cross."
Apr 14, 2026
The ACLU and a coalition of 75 other rights organizations on Tuesday issued a warning to tech giant Meta about its plan to install facial recognition technology onto its artificial intelligence-powered eyeglasses.
In a letter organized by the ACLU, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the groups said adding facial recognition technology to Meta's Ray-Ban and Oakley glasses would pose a grave threat to Americans' privacy.
"People should be able to move through their daily lives," the letter states, "without fear that stalkers, scammers, abusers, federal agents, and activists across the political spectrum are silently and invisibly verifying their identities and potentially matching their names to a wealth of readily available data about their habits, hobbies, relationships, health, and behaviors."
When it comes to specific dangers posed by embedding this technology into the company's products, the letter points to the potential for scammers to use it to "find out, quickly and in complete stealth, not just the name of the person sitting next to them on the subway—but their address, marital status, social media profiles, workplace, income, hobbies, health information, and habits."
Because of this, the letter says that "Meta’s reported plans to introduce this technology into broadly available consumer products is a red line society must not cross."
Blocking facial recognization technology from Meta glasses "is a prerequisite for a free and safe society," reads the letter.
The letter concludes with a series of demands, including that Meta stop any plans to attach facial recognition technology to its products; publicly disclose any past instances of Meta glasses being used for stalking and harassment; and reveal any "past or ongoing" discussions with law enforcement agencies such as US Immigration and Customs Enforcement about deploying the technology.
Cody Venzke, senior staff attorney working on surveillance, privacy, and technology issues for the ACLU, described facial recognition technology as "inherently invasive and unethical," and said adding it to a widely available consumer product "would vastly increase the risk of harm to individuals, families, and our democracy itself."
Kade Crockford, director of technology and justice programs at the ACLU of Massachusetts, argued that "the American people have not consented to this massive invasion of privacy," which is why Meta must abandon plans to deploy it.
"Stalkers and scammers would have a field day with this technology," Crockford said. "Federal agents could use it to harass and intimidate their critics. It’s dangerous and dystopian, and Meta must disavow it."
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