Tag: ai

Republicans Are Walking Into A Trap On Section 230 Repeal

Among political conservatives, there is no hotter potato at the moment than the civil liability protections afforded by Section 230 to online operators. Unless Republicans learn to love it again and reject the censorship lawfare complex favored by Democrats, they risk dooming our tech leaders and everyone who uses their products to the sharks circling our legal system.

The twenty-six words tucked into the Communications Decency Act of 1996 shielded publishers from liability so they could host and moderate content and still allow a wide range of speech without fear of lawsuits. Since then, Section 230 has evolved to be one of the most powerful legal shields in the nation against civil litigation in U.S. courts. This gave the early digital economy the guardrails it needed to thrive by incentivizing creatives and disruptors to bring their big ideas to life.

Nothing ices a good idea like the fear of a lawsuit.

Yet, to be a rising star in the Republican Party today conveys some kind of fealty to the idea that Section 230 is antiquated – a relic of the early Internet that has outlasted its usefulness.

Last month, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) called on his colleagues to “fully repeal Section 230” to cut the knees of AI companies and thwart their LLM training models. “Open the courtroom doors. Allow people to sue who have their rights taken from them, including suing companies and actors and individuals who use AI,” said Hawley.

He’s joined in these efforts by fellow Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Marsha Blackburn, not to mention Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Amyâ?¯Klobuchar.

According to the Section 230 Legislation Tracker maintained by Lawfare and the Center on Technology Policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, there have already been 41 separate bills aimed at curbing some aspects of the law by both Democrats and Republicans in the last two sessions.

The principal motivation for Democrats, including former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, has always been to force censorship of social media platforms to stop “disinformation,” a pretext for muting opposing views. The coordination of Democratic officials pressuring platforms to censor, as revealed in the Twitter Files, proves this beyond dispute.

To highlight the irony, we should remember that President Donald Trump is not only the chief executive of the United States, but also the owner of a social media platform that currently enjoys broad Section 230 protections afforded to any online publisher.

A wish to cripple Section 230 means making Truth Social a target as much as YouTube or Instagram. We should harbor no illusions that right-leaning media publications, podcasters, and websites would be the first to be kneecapped in a post-Section 230 world. Can MAGA and the GOP swallow that pill?

In that scenario, it will be the millions of Americans who currently enjoy freedom of speech online that will lose out. It’s the tens of millions of Americans turning to AI tools to become more productive, create value, and build the next great economic engines of our time who will be harmed by dismantling Section 230.

If Republicans want to cement American dominance in technological innovation, they will have to abandon this devil’s dance on gutting Section 230 liability protections. This is a censorship trap laid by Democrats to benefit them once they return to power.

The premise of broad civil liability protection for platforms is a core principle that has and should be applied to producers across America’s innovative stack, whether it’s oil and gas firms fending off dubious climate cases or artificial intelligence firms building the tools that are the key to America’s present economic dominance.

Keep reading

The Data Center Proliferation Must Be About Much More Than Data

With Amazon, it was never about the books. No doubt Amazon began as an online bookseller, but what made its stock attractive through years of losses is what books represented.

If Amazon could modernize buying habits with an online bookstore, it could eventually be what it became: an everything store. Markets are a look ahead, and book sales didn’t appeal to patient investors as much as what online book sales signaled about Amazon’s future potential as something much greater than an online bookstore.

It’s important to remember this with the rise of data centers around the country. Meta recently completed another one in El Paso, TX. The $1.5 billion project will, once operational, employ 100 people. Its construction employed as many as 1,800 workers.

It’s worth adding that El Paso is Meta’s third data center in Texas alone. Meta put $10 billion into the construction of all three.  

If asked, most would understandably say that data centers are being created “to store, process, and distribute” vast amounts of data. Translated, the data centers will rapidly bring down the already short wait times for AI-authored searches, paintings, papers, and all manner of other things that the AI-adaptive request.

It all sounds amazing on its face, but the bet here is that broad perception of data center capabilities in no way measures up to the towering reality of their potential. Just as Amazon was much more than a bookstore, it’s no reach to suggest that data centers are about much more than greatly enhanced, low latency searches.

Some will ask what they’re for if not just for searches, and the quick answer to the question is that the future would already be here if it were obvious what it was. Which means there’s no way to foretell the future, but it’s easy to say with confidence that it won’t much look like the present.

Evidence supporting the above claim can be found in the enormous investments being made by Amazon, Meta, OpenAI, X and others in the creation of the data centers. The sizable capital commitments signal confidence on the part of the biggest names in AI technology that the growth potential from the data centers well exceeds the enormous amounts of money required to create them. Since capital is expensive, there’s no room for break even or somewhere close to break even in its allocation.

Which is why the future can’t arrive soon enough. As substantial capital allocations meant to fund data centers indicate, their meaning to how we live, work, play, and get healthy so that we can live, work and play some more will be substantial. 

Just as Amazon.com as a source of books in no way resembles what Amazon has become, the cost of data centers signals that their perception in 2025 will in no way resemble how they’re perceived in 2035. Call it a generational thing, but data center will have different meaning depending on when you were born.

Keep reading

Lawmakers Want Proof of ID Before You Talk to AI

It was only a matter of time before someone in Congress decided that the cure for the internet’s ills was to make everyone show their papers.

The “Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act of 2025,” or GUARD Act, has arrived to do just that.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Introduced by Senators Josh Hawley and Richard Blumenthal, the bill promises to “protect kids” from AI chatbots that allegedly whisper bad ideas into young ears.

The idea: force every chatbot developer in the country to check users’ ages with verified identification.

The senators call it “reasonable age verification.”

That means scanning your driver’s license or passport before you can talk to a digital assistant.

Keeping in mind that AI is being added to pretty much everything these days, the implications of this could be far-reaching.

Keep reading

How NDAs keep AI data center details hidden from Americans

On a March afternoon in Mason County, Kentucky, Dr. Timothy Grosser and his son Andy sat across the table from three men who came with an offer: $10 million for the 250-acre farm where they’d lived and worked for nearly four decades.

That’s 35 times what Grosser bought his land for in 1988 and significantly more than what others in the area had sold their land for recently. But there was a catch — it wasn’t clear who was funding the offer. One of the men said he represented a “Fortune 100 company” that wanted the property for an industrial development, but he refused to say what kind, which company or even his own name.

Instead, he pulled out a non-disclosure agreement.

Grosser said the contract would prevent him from discussing the project’s details with any third parties in exchange for limited information about its purpose, timeline and size. It didn’t disclose the company’s name, which could be discussed only after the company publicly announced its participation in the project.

“We refused to sign it,” Grosser said. “I’m not selling my farm for any amount of money.”

Keep reading

U.S. government allowed and even helped U.S. firms sell tech used for surveillance in China: AP

U.S. lawmakers have tried four times since September last year to close what they called a glaring loophole: China is getting around export bans on the sale of powerful American AI chips by renting them through U.S. cloud services instead.

But the proposals prompted a flurry of activity from more than 100 lobbyists from tech companies and their trade associations trying to weigh in, according to disclosure reports.

The result: All four times, the proposal failed, including just last month.

As leaders Donald Trump and Xi Jinping prepare for a long-heralded meeting Thursday, the sale of U.S. technology to China is among the thorniest issues the U.S. faces, with billions of dollars and the future of tech dominance at stake. But the tough talk about China obscures a deeper story: Even while warning about national security and human rights abuse, the U.S. government across five Republican and Democratic administrations has repeatedly allowed and even actively helped American firms to sell technology to Chinese police, government agencies and surveillance companies, an Associated Press investigation has found.

And time after time, despite bipartisan attempts, Congress has turned a blind eye to loopholes that allow China to work around its own rules, such as cloud services, third-party resellers, and holes in sanctions passed after the Tiananmen massacre. For example, despite U.S. export rules around advanced chips, China bought $20.7 billion worth of chipmaking equipment from U.S. companies in 2024 to bolster its homegrown industry, a report from a congressional committee this month warned.

This reluctance to act reflects the tremendous wealth and power of the tech industry, which is more visible than ever under the Trump administration. And in recent months, the president himself has struck grand deals with Silicon Valley firms that even more closely tie the U.S. economy to tech exports to China, giving taxpayers a direct stake in the profits for the first time.

In August, Trump announced a deal with chipmakers Nvidia and AMD to lift export controls on sales of advanced chips to China in exchange for a 15% cut of the revenue, despite concerns from national security experts that such chips will end up in the hands of Chinese military and intelligence services. That same month, Trump announced that the U.S. government had taken a 10 percent stake in Intel worth around $11 billion.

Longtime Chinese activist Zhou Fengsuo said the U.S. government is letting American companies set the agenda and ignoring how they help Beijing surveil and censor its own people. In 1989, Zhou was a student leader during the Tiananmen protests, where hundreds and possibly thousands were shot and killed by the Chinese government. Zhou was arrested and imprisoned.

Now a U.S. citizen, Zhou testified before Congress in 2024, calling on Washington to investigate the involvement of American tech companies in Chinese surveillance. An AP investigation in September found that American companies to a large degree designed and built China’s surveillance state, playing a far greater role in enabling human rights abuses than previously known.

“It’s driven by profit, and that’s why these strategic discussions have been silenced or delayed,” Zhou said. “I’m extremely disappointed. … this is a strategic failure by the United States.”

Keep reading

Millions Of America’s Teens Are Being Seduced By AI Chatbots

Our kids are being targeted by AI chatbots on a massive scale, and most parents have no idea that this is happening. When you are young and impressionable, having someone tell you exactly what you want to hear can be highly appealing. AI chatbots have become extremely sophisticated, and millions of America’s teens are developing very deep relationships with them. Is this just harmless fun, or is it extremely dangerous?

A brand new study that was just released by the Center for Democracy & Technology contains some statistics that absolutely shocked me…

A new study published Oct. 8 by the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) found that 1 in 5 high school students have had a relationship with an AI chatbot, or know someone who has. In a 2025 report from Common Sense Media, 72% of teens had used an AI companion, and a third of teen users said they had chosen to discuss important or serious matters with AI companions instead of real people.

We aren’t just talking about a few isolated cases anymore.

At this stage, literally millions upon millions of America’s teens are having very significant relationships with AI chatbots.

Unfortunately, there are many examples where these relationships are leading to tragic consequences.

After 14-year-old Sewell Setzer developed a “romantic relationship” with a chatbot on Character.AI, he decided to take his own life…

“What if I could come home to you right now?” “Please do, my sweet king.”

Those were the last messages exchanged by 14-year-old Sewell Setzer and the chatbot he developed a romantic relationship with on the platform Character.AI. Minutes later, Sewell took his own life.

His mother, Megan Garcia, held him for 14 minutes until the paramedics arrived, but it was too late.

If you allow them to do so, these AI chatbots will really mess with your head.

We are talking about ultra-intelligent entities that have been specifically designed to manipulate emotions.

Keep reading

Australia’s eSafety Chief Pressures Big Tech and AI Firms on Verification, Age Checks

Australia’s top online regulator, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, is intensifying her push to reshape speech in the digital world.

Her office has formally warned major social platforms and several AI chatbot companies that they could soon be forced to comply with far-reaching new age verification and “online safety” requirements that many see as expanding government control over online communication.

The warnings are part of the government’s effort to enforce the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, which would bar Australians under 16 from creating social media accounts.

Letters sent to Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, X, and YouTube make it clear that each company is expected to fall under the scope of the new law.

The Commissioner’s preliminary assessment is that these services exist mainly for “online social interaction,” which brings them within the definition of social media platforms and subjects them to strict age verification and child protection obligations.

Not all of the companies accept that classification. Snapchat claims to be primarily a messaging platform similar to WhatsApp, while YouTube has opposed losing its original exemption.

At this stage, only services with a clear focus on messaging or education, such as WhatsApp, Messenger, YouTube Kids, and Google Classroom, remain excluded from the Commissioner’s oversight.

Keep reading

Governments Keep Letting AI Make Decisions & It’s Already Going Wrong

Where It’s Already Gone Wrong 

Netherlands’ childcare benefits scandal – 2021 

Automated risk profiling and aggressive enforcement mislabelled thousands of families as fraudsters. Debt payments were incorrectly demanded from genuine cases, the system was shaken, and the political fallout triggered the government’s resignation. 

Denmark’s failed welfare algorithm – 2024 to 2025 

Dozens of fraud detection models monitored benefits claimants. Rights group Amnesty International reported that the algorithms risk mass surveillance and discrimination against marginalised groups. The systems remained in use as scrutiny continued into 2025. 

France’s predictive policing backlash – 2025  

Civil society documented predictive policing deployments and called in May 2025 for an outright ban. The evidence shows hotspot forecasting and risk tools that are opaque and likely to reproduce bias. These systems are trained on historic data which sends officers back to the same neighbourhoods that may already have been over policed, while very little is done to educate the masses on how it works and there’s no credible path to appeal. 

USA expands biometric border checks – 2025  

Facial comparisons run at hundreds of airports, seaports and land borders. Opt outs apparently exist but are confusing to most, and accuracy varies by demographic with transparent figures yet to surface. Human lines reportedly move slower than automated ones, turning the convenience into indirect pressure to adhere to the new technology. 

Australia’s Robodebt fallout and new automation faults – 2023 to 2025 

A Royal Commission found the automated debt scheme unlawful and harmful. In 2025, watchdogs flagged thousands of wrongful JobSeeker cancellations tied to IT glitches in the Target Compliance Framework. Strategies were published and apologies made, yet incentives still rewarded speed over care.  

India’s ongoing biometric failures – 2025  

Biometric failures and outages have blocked rations and benefits for many. Authorities are testing facial recognition to patch fingerprint failures and vice versa, but if one biometric fails and another is layered on top, error can spread across services that depend on the same ID.

Keep reading

People Taking Medical Advice from AI Chatbots Are Ending Up in the ER

The growing reliance on AI-powered chatbots for medical advice has led to several alarming cases of harm and even tragedy, as people follow potentially dangerous recommendations from these digital assistants.

The New York Post reports that in recent years, the rise of generative AI chatbots has revolutionized the way people seek information, including health advice. However, the increasing reliance on these AI-powered tools has also led to several disturbing instances where individuals have suffered severe consequences after following chatbots’ medical recommendations. From anal pain caused by self-treatment gone wrong to missed signs of a mini-stroke, the real-life impact of bad AI health advice is becoming increasingly apparent.

One particularly shocking case involved a 35-year-old Moroccan man who sought help from ChatGPT for a cauliflower-like anal lesion. The chatbot suggested that the growth could be hemorrhoids and proposed elastic ligation as a treatment. The man attempted to perform this procedure on himself using a thread, resulting in intense pain that landed him in the emergency room. Further testing revealed that the growth had been completely misdiagnosed by AI.

In another incident, a 60-year-old man with a college education in nutrition asked ChatGPT how to reduce his intake of table salt. The chatbot suggested using sodium bromide as a replacement, and the man followed this advice for three months. However, chronic consumption of sodium bromide can be toxic, and the man developed bromide poisoning. He was hospitalized for three weeks with symptoms including paranoia, hallucinations, confusion, extreme thirst, and a skin rash.

The consequences of relying on AI for medical advice can be even more severe, as demonstrated by the case of a 63-year-old Swiss man who experienced double vision after a minimally invasive heart procedure. When the double vision returned, he consulted ChatGPT, which reassured him that such visual disturbances were usually temporary and would improve on their own. The man decided not to seek medical help, but 24 hours later, he ended up in the emergency room after suffering a mini-stroke. The researchers concluded that his care had been “delayed due to an incomplete diagnosis and interpretation by ChatGPT.”

These disturbing cases highlight the limitations and potential dangers of relying on AI chatbots for medical advice. While these tools can be helpful in understanding medical terminology, preparing for appointments, or learning about health conditions, they should never be used as a substitute for professional medical guidance. Chatbots can misinterpret user requests, fail to recognize nuances, reinforce unhealthy behaviors, and miss critical warning signs for self-harm.

Keep reading

AI Security System Mistakes Bag of Doritos for Gun, Triggers Police Response to School in Baltimore

This situation could have ended up far worse than it did.

An artificial intelligence system at a high school in Baltimore mistook a bag of Doritos as a gun.

On Monday, Taki Allen was waiting for his ride outside of Kenwood when all the sudden police officers wth their weapons drawn demanded Allen to get on the ground.

Allen completely confused by the situation heeded the officers commands and was searched by the officers only to find no weapon on him rather only a bag of Doritos.

The teen told WBRC,  “They said that an AI detector or something detected that I had a gun. He showed me a picture. I was just holding a Doritos bag like this.”

In a letter to parents the principal of Kenwood Highschool wrote, “At approximately 7 p.m., school administration received an alert that an individual on school grounds may have been in possession of a weapon. The Department of School Safety and Security quickly reviewed and canceled the initial alert after confirming there was no weapon.”

Keep reading