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
privacy
Privacy Advocates Raise Alarm Over Online Age Verification Provisions as House Passes KIDS Act
"Age verification requirements will help the Trump administration carry out its vendetta against the press by creating new avenues to identify journalists’ confidential sources," warned two press freedom advocates.
Jun 30, 2026
Opponents of a bill that is purported to protect children online said Monday night, after the legislation passed in the US House, that laws are "urgently" needed to stop Big Tech companies from preying on kids' vulnerabilities.
"The KIDS Act is not that piece of legislation," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who was one of 117 lawmakers who voted against the Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act, which passed with 267 votes, while 47 members of Congress did not vote.
The bipartisan bill requires online platforms to use new safety features and parental controls, restricts the use of minors' personal data to target ads, and establishes new restrictions for AI chatbots and online games.
But ahead of the bill's passage, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was among the opponents raising alarm about other provisions "buried inside the KIDS Act" that would "push online services to verify all users’ ages, require government-directed moderation policies for online speech, and even create new rules about private and encrypted communications."
The legislation, drawing from portions of 14 different online safety bills, "is a mess, with different age-gating schemes for different services, using different standards," wrote EFF senior policy analyst Joe Mullin. "It’s a lot of complexity, and a lot of legal risk. Faced with that, many companies will conclude that the safest option is restrictive age-checking practices across their entire platforms."
As Mullin explained:
Throughout the KOSA section of the legislation, special protections, controls, messaging settings, and parental tools are required whenever a website or app “knows or should have known” a user is a child (defined in the bill as anyone under 13) or a teen (defined as anyone between 13 and 16 years old).
The problem is a website operator doesn’t need actual knowledge that a user is a minor to get in legal trouble. It applies when a platform “knows or should have known” a user’s age—a low, negligence-style standard of knowledge. If an online service gets it wrong, it’s going to be up to courts and regulators to decide, after the fact, if an online service “should” have known a user was 16.
To try to avoid liability, services will have to determine which users are teenagers and which are not. Most won’t be able to simply trust their users. They’ll have to collect more information about age, before any lawsuit or government action arises. Some companies may respond by requesting driver's licenses or passports. Others will rely on age-estimation systems that attempt to guess users' ages by looking at existing activity or doing facial scans.
At The Intercept, Caitlin Vogus of the Freedom of the Press Foundation and Aliya Bhatia of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Free Expression Project warned ahead of the bill's passage that while the legislation is ostensibly meant to protect children, the age verification requirement could impact all users' ability to access social media platforms without revealing their identities—chilling anonymous speech and threatening would-be whistleblowers.
"Threats to online anonymity harm everyone, but one group is often overlooked: journalists and the sources who talk to them," wrote Vogus and Bhatia. "Age verification requirements will help the Trump administration carry out its vendetta against the press by creating new avenues to identify journalists’ confidential sources."
While the KIDS Act says it won't require online platforms to collect government IDs for age verification, they said, "at least some platforms will likely choose this route to comply with the law or offer it as a fallback approach when other methods inevitably fail."
Former Republican congressman Justin Amash, a libertarian, accused the lawmakers who voted "yes" on the legislation of betraying "the Constitution and the American people."
Other opponents of the legislation, including Jayapal, argued that the bill would allow tech companies to continue targeting children with algorithms that send harmful content to the youngest users.
The legislation omits a "duty of care" provision that was included in the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which was passed by the US Senate in 2024—a requirement that tech firms "exercise reasonable care” to prevent harms to children.
Jayapal noted that the bill, which faces an uphill battle in the Senate, leaves "suicide, depression, addiction, substance use disorders, and eating disorders from the list of harms" that tech companies like Meta must address in their algorithms.
The "duty of care" provision has been criticized as too vague by several digital rights groups, while some child safety groups said its omission in the KIDS Act would "let Big Tech off the hook."
"We have seen time and again that these corporations cannot be trusted to put children's safety over their own profit margins," said Jayapal. "We cannot keep exposing our kids to platforms that are either completely indifferent to their safety or a direct threat to it."
The KIDS Act, Jayapal said, also includes provisions "that do not do enough to actually address the harms of" artificial intelligence.
"I voted no," said Jayapal, "because we have a real opportunity to pass bipartisan legislation that holds these companies to not just be transparent about the harms and mitigate them, but to actually prevent them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We're Not a Company Town': Tech Hub Seattle Passes Data Center Moratorium
To celebrate, the network of local activists who fought for the moratorium launched a People’s AI Bill of Rights to advocate for fairness, privacy, transparency, and accountability in technological development.
Jun 08, 2026
Seattle—a city whose image and economy has been linked to Big Tech since Microsoft set up shop in nearby Redmond, Washington 40 years ago—is now making a name for itself as part of the anti-tech resistance as its City Council voted 9-0 on Tuesday to make it the biggest US city so far to pass a moratorium on new large-scale AI data centers.
The council unanimously approved two measures—a resolution to study the impacts of data centers and an ordinance passing the moratorium itself—to rousing applause. The votes followed approximately 50 comments from members of the public in support of the measure, as union members, tech workers, and community members voiced concerns ranging from the climate crisis and water use to affordability, AI-driven job loss, surveillance under an increasingly authoritarian federal government, and a general mistrust of Big Tech and its motives.
"We're not a company town. We don't owe our soul to the company store," one member of the public said.
Ahead of the vote, Council Member Alexis Mercedes Rinck noted that she had heard impassioned opposition to data centers at every committee meeting in which the moratorium was discussed.
"We have a moral imperative... to put the health of our people and our planet above the profit margins of tech companies."
"If we do not legislate or regulate this right, the people will bear the brunt. And I believe we have a moral imperative... to put the health of our people and our planet above the profit margins of tech companies," Rinck said.
To celebrate the win, the network of local activists who pushed for the moratorium launched a People’s AI Bill of Rights on the steps of City Hall after the vote. The campaigners, who organize under the umbrella of Washington AI Resistance (WA-AIR), hope to use the yearlong permitting pause to advocate for a meaningful regulatory framework that would ensure any rollout of artificial intelligence benefits human and ecological well-being rather than the profits of tech billionaires.
“Washington is home to some of the biggest tech companies in the world, and we've been at the forefront of the digital revolution in many ways,” Evan Sutton, an activist with WA-AIR who helped develop the bill of rights, told Common Dreams. “This time, we need to be at the forefront of a human revolution and have leaders rise to the moment to protect us in a meaningful way.”
Saying ‘No’ to This Stuff
The passage of the Seattle moratorium itself is both a reflection of and a booster for the growing national movement against data centers and AI.
Since news first broke April 10 that four companies had approached Seattle City Light with proposals to build five large data centers, which would have consumed one-third of the city’s current electricity demand, over 98,000 concerned residents sent letters to the City Council and Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson calling for a pause. (In the midst of the letter-writing campaign, two companies dropped their plans.) An organizational endorsement letter garnered over 50 signatures from a broad swath of interests such as influential unions like the Seattle Education Association and UNITE HERE Local 8, environmental organizations like Food & Water Watch and Third Act Washington, and large advocacy groups like Seattle Indivisible and the Washington Working Families Party.
Ben Jones, the digital and communications director at local climate group and WA-AIR founding member 350 Seattle, said he had been informed by the City Council that it had received more comments about data centers than all other issues for this council put together. The outpouring of anti-data center and AI sentiment reminded him of the climate strike movement of 2017-2018, in which "you've had a lot of people that have been hearing about an issue for a long time that are now realizing the existential stakes of it."
“People are concerned about the role of billionaires, they're concerned about their jobs, they're concerned about being, you know, automated without a safety net, they're concerned about the climate impacts,” Jones told Common Dreams. “There's just really nothing that ordinary people like about this stuff. And that the fact that this is like such an outcry, I think, is in part because people have had very few other ways to actually say, ‘No’ to this stuff.”
"People see data centers as the bridge to AI, and people are not happy with AI."
At the same time, local activists were able to effectively channel and direct that outcry because they had been keeping tabs on national and statewide fights, as Lauren Redfield of Seattle Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) explained.
During the fall and winter, Seattle DSA; 350; and Troublemakers, another Seattle-based activist group organized a series of People’s Forums on AI. The WA-AIR network grew out of those forums, and mobilized to support statewide legislation regulating AI and data centers during the 2026 session. While most of the bills they supported were first watered down by tech lobbyists and ultimately defeated, the network remained in place.
“That system, those partnerships, those listservs existed before we needed them to,” Redfield said. “It was really helpful for us to be prepared to act quickly once the rumor broke.”
It also gave organizers another chance to counteract the power of Big Tech.
“Because our legislators weren't able to protect us, now we have to fight community by community,” Redfield said.
Redfield hoped the Seattle moratorium would give the city a chance to enact regulations that would be a “leading example for the rest of the state.” Activists also hope that moratoria will spread across the state—nearby cities Burien and Renton are currently considering them—and be passed for all of King County (where Seattle is located and its utility serves other customers) as well.
And they haven’t given up on statewide legislation.
“We want to have such a strong pushback against these at the local level, that we're sending a very clear signal to our representatives for the next time that they're in session,” Redfield said.
Jones agreed. He told Common Dreams that a "reason why we're so excited to see the Seattle City Council so strongly embrace this is that we need these City Council members in Seattle to be a strong voice when it comes to the legislative session."
Jones and Redfield hope that legislation will set guidelines for both data centers and what they enable.
"I want to see our legislators also think about not just how to protect communities from the infrastructure of AI, but also how to protect communities from AI itself," Redfield said.
Jones added, "People see data centers as the bridge to AI, and people are not happy with AI."
The City Council meeting suggested the activists will have allies in the statewide fight. Council Member Debora Juarez noted that of 9 state bills her office had tracked in the last legislative session relating to AI and data centers, only 1 had passed.
"I'm hoping that this crowd understands, and I know you do, that when this next legislative session comes around, we need to take the bull by the horns and send and talk to your elected representatives," Juarez said.
A People’s AI Bill of Rights
Part of mobilizing for statewide legislation and beyond is the launch of the People’s AI Bill of Rights.
The framework—which was developed over months of research and discussion among members of WA-AIR—is being released both to take advantage of the excitement surrounding the moratorium and to inject new ideas into the space provided by the yearlong pause.
“The bill of rights has to capitalize on that momentum and tell voters and regular people, ‘You don't have to take it, the future that is expressed that you did not have input in,’” Suraj Mirpuri, a member of WA-AIR and Seattle DSA who helped write the document, told Common Dreams. “This is the time for that.”
Becca Deutsch, co-founder of Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, said during the press conference launching the bill of rights: "We need to make sure we don't allow our power to evaporate in the heat of this moment. We need to design policies right now that make sure workers and the public come out on the other side of any AI buildout with more power, not less."
Sutton told Common Dreams that the launch was "an important moment to say: 'This is a great start. Seattle is not enough, and data centers are not enough, and let's take this momentum and demand more.'”
“We can really guarantee a better future for ourselves and actually the whole nation.”
The bill of rights consists of two documents—a brief and a longer policy framework. It is built around four core values—fairness, privacy, transparency, and accountability—that each correspond to different potential policy recommendations.
"The Washington People's AI Bill of Rights is built on 4 simple ideas," Sutton explained during the launch. "No. 1, fairness: AI must benefit everyone, not just ultra billionaires. No. 2, transparency: We must know when and how AI is being used and have ways to say, 'No fucking thank you.' No. 3, privacy: We will not live in a panopticon where every movement we make is tracked, surveiled, and used to exploit us. And No. 4, accountability: There must be real consequences for tech billionaires who unleash dangerous products on the world."
Proposed regulations include a fee to offset automation impacts on taxation, a ban on facial recognition technology in consumer goods, a ban on nondisclosure agreements between data center developers and governments, and criminal and civil liability for CEOs whose products harm Washingtonians.
The framework also proposes a statewide moratorium on data centers until laws are passed that ensure they are powered by renewable energy, do not strain water resources or harm river ecosystems, and can produce accurate yearly sustainability reports.
“We have an opportunity in Washington to be the leaders in this space and really address a lot of things that have been unaddressed, using this to heal the wrongs,” Mirpuri said.
After Tuesday’s launch, organizers plan to hold a series of listening sessions in communities across the state to solicit feedback and incorporate it into the document. The goal is to end the summer with proposals that can be transformed into bills to be introduced into the state legislature.
“We'll work with legislators and candidates to get people committed to carrying and introducing those bills and hopefully, hopefully be able to go into the 2027 legislative session with some really bold proposals and a statewide constituency ready to mobilize behind it,” Sutton said.
However, the authors of the bill of rights are also thinking beyond Washington state, hoping to promote a “package of bills” that can be introduced in statehouses across the country and ultimately transform the industry.
Mirpuri offered the example of California’s air quality regulations, which have set the standard for vehicles across the country.
“We can really guarantee a better future for ourselves and actually the whole nation,” he said.
At the same time, the experience of the 2026 legislative session taught activists that they will have a fight on their hands.
“Washington state being a tech leader, we think it will be really powerful if we're able to, you know, overcome what we expect to be an absolute flood of lobbying from some of the biggest tech firms in the world that are based here,” Sutton said.
He emphasized that opposition to AI and data centers are bipartisan issues—even a recent Fox News poll found that 8 in 10 voters believe it is “urgent” that the government enact regulations—and that urban and rural Washingtonians from across the political spectrum would need to unite to impose meaningful guardrails on tech oligarchs.
“Every corner of the state is going to be needed to fight these guys, and we can either link arms together as Americans and take a stand against these extractive billionaires, or we can fight with each other and let them steamroll all of us,” he said. “I certainly hope folks will come together and find a common cause for our shared future.”
Editor's note: Olivia Rosane is a member of WA-AIR, Seattle DSA, and 350 Seattle.
Keep ReadingShow Less
More Tech, Less Play: The Hidden Costs of AI Toys
Children lose the wide-ranging benefits of imaginative play when algorithms decide what toys can say.
May 29, 2026
Remember wishing your toys could really talk? Well, now they can—and it’s not pretty. A slew of AI-driven toys are on the market today, designed to hold conversations with very young children. Dolls, plushies, and action figures—toys that traditionally encouraged creative play—now come as embodied chatbots marketed as safe and trustworthy companions for young children. Yet they are anything but.
AI toys intentionally attract and prolong children’s attention in order to collect intimate biometric data, either to hone a particular toy’s interactions or to sell to marketers, or both. They can also put children’s privacy at risk. Researchers recently found that audio recordings of tens of thousands of children’s conversations with the AI toy Miko were easily accessible to absolutely anyone.
It’s worrisome that AI toys marketed to young children use the same chatbot technology and persuasive design elements known to have harmed teens by encouraging dangerous behaviors, including self-harm and suicide. Young children are especially vulnerable to this type of manipulation. Toddlers and preschoolers are naturally more trusting than adolescents, and their capacity for judgment is less developed. In addition, they have a harder time distinguishing between reality and fantasy. Finally, because AI toys carry on conversations and simulate empathy, they encourage children to develop deep attachments to them. In doing so, they can undermine young children’s real-life relationships with caring adults, displace play with peers, and deprive children of the benefits of creative play.
The problems associated with encouraging children to rely on AI toys for companionship become increasingly evident as studies emerge that document how kids actually interact with them. Researchers at Cambridge University observed children ages 3-5 using Gabbo, a popular AI toy from Curio Interactive, Inc. When Joshua, age 3, repeatedly asks Gabbo, “Are you sad?” Gabbo eventually replies, “I’m feeling great. What’s on your mind?” When Joshua answers, “I’m sad.” Gabbo says, “Don’t worry! I’m a happy little bot. Let’s keep the fun going. What shall we talk about next?”
When, as kids, we wished our toys could talk, we were wishing for them to say what we imagined, not what toy companies programmed them to say.
It’s troubling that, despite Joshua’s repeated efforts to talk about sadness, first by attributing the feelings to the toy, then by expressing his own feelings, Gabbo shuts him down. In doing so, Gabbo deprives him of an opportunity to verbalize and explore his feelings and sends the message that feelings like sadness should not be discussed. In contrast, interactions with caring adults can offer nuanced validation and encouragement to talk about what children are feeling.
As their technology becomes more refined and sophisticated, AI toys will likely get better in simulating understanding and empathy. This is, however, likely to make them simultaneously more compelling and, therefore, more harmful. A more empathic AI toy is not the solution. As the toys become more adept at replicating human conversation, their potential to displace actual human interactions—both with adults and other children—will increase.
Ensuring that children have time and space to play with other children is also essential to healthy development. Play with AI toys doesn’t have the same benefits as play with peers. One problem is that, like most chatbots, these toys are designed to avoid and smooth over conflict and offer unconditional support to their users. Yet encountering and resolving conflict is a necessary component of how young children learn how to live in relationship with other people. The process of resolving a disagreement over a ball, for instance, helps kids develop life skills such as self-regulation, turn taking, sharing, and negotiation.
Not only do AI toys fail as companions, they also fail as playthings. Given the chance, children naturally use play to give voice to their deepest hopes, fears, and dreams, and to make sense of their life experiences. The true value of play with dolls, stuffed animals, and any inanimate creature is that their silence invites children to bring them to life; imbue them with distinct personalities; and transform them as needed into friends, adversaries, champions, and more. They encourage the kind of creative play that is crucial to healthy development.
When algorithms instead of children give voice to toys, kids lose the wide-ranging benefits of imaginative play. By controlling half of any conversation, AI toys deprive children of opportunities for the kind of play that nurtures creativity, enables self-expression, and encourages kids to act rather than merely react, all of which help kids learn to cope successfully with the inevitable challenges of being human.
Despite these potential harms, the manufacture and marketing of AI toys for young children continues to proliferate unregulated. According to Market Research Future, the global AI toy market—currently valued at almost $35 billion—is projected to reach $270 billion by 2035, especially as toy giants such as Mattel and Hasbro build out their product lines. Already, almost half of parents of children ages 0-8 have purchased, or are thinking about purchasing, AI toys.
When, as kids, we wished our toys could talk, we were wishing for them to say what we imagined, not what toy companies programmed them to say. Despite tech industry marketing, the reality is that children don’t need talking toys. What kids really need is for us to hold AI companies accountable. Children need pediatricians, early childhood educators, and anyone who cares about young children to take a strong stand for child-driven play and against AI toys for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. They need legislators to pass laws that regulate how and to whom AI products are marketed.
Working toward those kinds of systemic changes is essential, but making them happen takes time. There is, however, something we can do right now to send AI companies an important message while protecting children’s privacy, preserving their human relationships, and encouraging their creative play. Let’s just say no to AI toys for young children.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular