Tag: think of the children

Eleventh Circuit Lets Georgia Social Media Age Checks Proceed

A federal appeals court has given a green light to a controversial part of a Georgia law that requires social media platforms to verify the age of every user, and in the case of those under 16, obtain parental consent.

The ruling came on Thursday, October 15, from a panel composed of Judges Newsom, Luck and Tjoflat, with Judge Kevin Newsom writing the opinion.

The case now goes back to the district court, but the decision did not address whether the law is ultimately constitutional – only that NetChoice went about its lawsuit the wrong way and did not provide enough evidence to prove the law is not constitutional.

Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said, “While we are disappointed in the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, the court notably did not hold that SB 351 is constitutional.”

On June 26, 2025, Judge Amy Totenberg of the Northern District of Georgia ruled that the law was too vague, that it was preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), and that it likely violated the First Amendment, and blocked it.

The law’s social media part requires platforms to “make commercially reasonable efforts to verify the age of account holders” and obtain a parent’s consent for anyone under 16. For those under 16, platforms can only use age and location for ad targeting.

According to the court’s own summary, the law “requires platforms within its ambit to verify the ages of all their users.”

If a platform does not verify, it must “apply the special conditions applied to minors under this chapter to all account holders.” The ways a platform can confirm a parent include “Collecting information related to the minor’s parent’s or guardian’s government issued identification or financial or payment card information.”

The attorney general can seek up to $2,500 for each violation.

There is also another section of the law that requires sites that are more than 33.33 percent “harmful to minors” to check every visitor’s age, including by submitting government-issued ID. This part of the law has been in force since July 1, 2025, and was not challenged by NetChoice.

The Eleventh Circuit panel found that NetChoice had standing to sue but did not meet the test set by the Supreme Court in Moody v. NetChoice to prove the law was unconstitutional in a facial challenge – that is, across the full range of its application. The group had to show that the law was unconstitutional across the board, and it did not.

“NetChoice hasn’t provided even a full list of its own members to which SB 351 applies,” Judge Newsom wrote.

“We’ve learned the facial-challenge lesson the hard way,” the ruling states. “We needn’t address the merits of its First Amendment claim,” it continues.

The panel also reversed the lower court’s ruling that said the law was too vague and that it was preempted by Section 230.

Attorney General Chris Carr said, “This is a major win for Georgia families and a huge blow to those who would stand in the way of commonsense solutions to protect our kids.”

Keep reading

Florida wins key ruling allowing it to enforce a law that targets social media use by kids

The state of Florida won a key court decision Wednesday that allows it to enforce a ban on social media accounts for kids under 14 and other restrictions.

The law was one of the most restrictive in the U.S. on social media use by children when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it in 2024.

The law implicates the First Amendment, an appeals court said, but “likely does so in a content-neutral manner.”

It would likely survive a full legal challenge “because it doesn’t burden substantially more speech than necessary to advance the important interest in protecting minors from social media addiction,” a panel from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 3-0 opinion.

The law bans social media accounts for Florida children under 14 and requires parental consent for use by kids who are 14 or 15.

Industry trade groups the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice sued Florida, arguing that the law violated the free-speech rights of social media providers and users. A judge in 2025 said the law likely was unconstitutional and granted an injunction.

That injunction was put on hold while the appeals court heard the case. The lawsuit, with the injunction now overturned, will return to federal court in Tallahassee.

The appeals court noted that the law covers social media platforms “that have been determined to induce heavy use by children, and applies only to platforms that use both algorithms and one of several addictive features.”

An email seeking comment from the Florida attorney general’s office was not immediately answered. NetChoice said it was disappointed with the decision.

“We are currently evaluating all of our options as we continue the fight to ensure Floridians’ rights to free expression online are protected, and parents remain in the driver’s seat when it comes to making decisions for their families,” said Paul Taske, a lawyer at NetChoice.

Keep reading

Every Bad Idea Australia Ever Had About the Internet, Now in One Bill

A “safety net upstream” – that’s how Australia’s Communications Minister Anika Wells described the intent behind the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, introduced to the country’s Parliament on Thursday.

Wells was making the announcement hours before she was to address the National Press Club. The bill, which is 90 pages long, carries a civil penalty of up to 60,000 penalty units, or $109.2 million, for failing the duty.

In Parliament, Wells said, “It moves the safety net upstream to the people who design the product to stop the harm before it ever reaches an Australian.”

At the Press Club, she put it this way: setting “basic safety standards for the online services we use every day” will see the platforms regulated “just like we have in every other industry.”

Wells said that the goal is to “shift the burden from the shoulders of victims to the companies that are creating the environments where harms occur.”

She added: “To make this abundantly clear, we have removed the ministerial rule-making power to define new harms in the final bill.”

Instead, she said, “New harms can be added by parliament through legislative amendment.”

The takedown changes in Schedule 1 kick in the day after Royal Assent, while the duty of care itself comes into force 12 months later.

In September, the exposure draft gave the minister the power to add, by instrument, any material “that the Minister is satisfied may cause serious harm.” That power is now gone.

The bill does not at any point ask platforms to balance their “duty of care” with the need to protect freedom of expression and privacy of users.

Section 26 sets the duty: a platform “must take appropriate action to ensure a safe online environment, including by taking effective measures to mitigate risks.”

Section 26A spells out what counts as “appropriate” and “effective.” The matters to be taken into account “include” how far the measures achieve “a safe online environment,” how much they reduce the risk of harmful material, “the impact on the security of the online service,” and “whether the action or measures are or would be proportionate to the level of risk.”

Section 26A(3) states: “The cost of the action or measures must not be taken into account.”

Nowhere in this is freedom of expression or privacy mentioned. The word “encryption” does not appear at all in the 90 pages, nor do the phrases “freedom of expression” or “free speech.”

In the UK Online Safety Act – which is no friend of free speech, either – there is at least a section (22) that imposes on platforms, when deciding on safety measures, “a duty to have particular regard to the importance of protecting users’ right to freedom of expression within the law,” and a matching duty on privacy.

The Australian bill has no such provision.

Keep reading

The Permission Grid: A Blueprint for a Permanent Slave Class

Shoe-horned into the permission grid.

It’s what they want and you know what? I think it’s what they’ll get. They’ll get it because there is a loss of agency amongst the populace. The pushback to this Orwellian nightmare is… in a word, pathetic.

The EU wants a passport for the peasants to access the internet.

The justification. Why, of course. The kids. Who wouldn’t want to protect children? Only a psychopath or a pedophile. You’re not a psychopath or a pedophile, are you?

A digital identity system, tied to age verification, with a specific carve-out written into the design: “The new age verification system cannot be bypassed via VPN.”

They’re not just building a verification layer. They’re closing the one exit that lets the peasants opt out of it. VPNs exist for exactly one reason that matters here — they let you decide who gets to know where you are and who you are.

Blocking VPN circumvention isn’t a technical footnote. That’s the point. Now, I’m not a tech nerd, so I’ve no idea if this is mere posturing by these psychopaths, and if it is actually possible for them to achieve this… technically. The truth is, most of the peasants will simply comply. The cage is compliance of the mind, and most are already slaves.

The above isn’t happening in isolation. Look at where Europe has been walking, one regulation at a time:

Cash transactions banned above €10,000. Bitcoin purchases require an ID above €1,000. Privacy coins banned outright. MiCA compliance costs pushing an estimated 90% of crypto firms out of the market.

Each of these, taken alone, gets defended in the same way these parasitic pedophile satanists always defend their actions: as consumer protection, anti-money-laundering policy, or tax compliance.

Taken together, they form something else entirely: a system where every transaction, every wallet, every website you visit resolves back to a verified identity, and where the tools that let you route around that — cash, privacy coins, VPNs — are being systematically removed.

This is the architecture of permission-based participation. Not “here’s what’s illegal.” Instead: “Here’s what you’re allowed to do, and here’s how we confirm it’s you doing it.”

Keep reading

EU’s Social Media Ban Could Bring ID Checks for Adults

As expected, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has announced that the EU Kids Act will propose that no child under 13 should be allowed on social media, while 13 and 14-year-olds should have limited accounts.

The announcement, just in time for the EU’s planned digital ID rollout, was made in von der Leyen’s State of the European Union address in Strasbourg on Wednesday.

According to von der Leyen, the Act would ensure that “no social media under the age of 13. No personal account under the age of 15.”

Children between the ages of 13 and 14 will be allowed a limited account, with a limited set of features, and with a time limit of one hour a day, and parents will have to set up and supervise these “mini accounts.”

Von der Leyen also said that the Act would reverse the burden of proof, so that instead of regulators having to prove that a service is unsafe, it will be up to the platforms to prove that their product is safe for minors.

The Commission President also took aim at Big Tech, saying, “I am aware that many perceive the power of big tech as overwhelming and impossible to roll back. I disagree.” She added, “Europe has the power to act. It is us who decide the rules, not Big Tech.”

The scope of the Act will cover social media, video sharing platforms, app stores, online games, as well as AI companions and chatbots, with a focus on “high-risk” services, although the definition of that category is not yet clear.

Other rules that have been reported as part of the Act are age checks for every new account, with existing users also subject to “proportionate” checks, taking into account the time they have been subscribed to a service. Verification will be done via an app, either the one developed by the Commission or a national equivalent. These apps will only return information about whether a user is over or under a certain age.

The draft also reportedly seeks to ban certain design features, such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, and push notifications, as well as artificial notifications and rewards. The text is said to state that “technology companies bear primary responsibility for making their products safe.”

Fines for non-compliance can reach up to 6% of a company’s global annual turnover, while a supervisory fee will be introduced to make sure the Commission can enforce the new rules.

The Commission’s app was presented by von der Leyen in April in Brussels, and at the time, she said it was “fully open source. Everyone can check the code.”

But security consultant Paul Moore took the Commission up on that and found that the app stores sensitive data on phones and leaves it unprotected. According to Moore, he was able to hack the app in under two minutes.

The Commission first responded to this by saying the app was ready and could always be improved. A week later, a spokesperson described the version presented as “a demo version.”

Keep reading

Bipartisan House Bill Would Ban Social Media Accounts For Under 16s

Two US House of Representatives members, one from each of the dominant parties, have introduced a bill to ban under-16s from having accounts on “addictive” social media.

And if an account is discovered to belong to an under-16, the proposal, dubbed the 16 & Up Social Media Act, seeks to cut them off from their online speech, by having the account terminated.

The bill was introduced by Erin Houchin, a Republican from Indiana, and Jake Auchincloss, a Democrat from Massachusetts, on September 11, 2026, and has the support of psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who said that the goal is “to stop addictive design entirely.”

The bill covers services that are available to the general public, have searchable and followable usernames, and where user generated content is the primary purpose. These platforms must also allow users to share content, have features that promote engagement, and use personal information for advertising, marketing, or recommendations.

Specific features that are targeted include infinite scroll, autoplay, push alerts, usage-based badges, and personalized recommendations.

As for the way the bill seeks to achieve its goal, it would require companies to “know” a user is under 16, and delete that account. But on page 11, the text states that “knows” means “to know or should have known.”

That opens the door to pressuring companies to investigate the age of their users, or shut them out if there’s doubt. Adults who are flagged would then have to challenge the decision. The bill does not explicitly require government ID uploads for every user, nor does it prescribe a specific age-checking technology.

The bill would have to be passed and then have its provisions come into force in order to start affecting users and companies, but if that happens, existing accounts would have to be identified within 60 days of enactment, users notified within 180 days of enactment, and accounts removed within 30 days of that notification.

Keep reading

Australia Wants to Remake the Internet in the Name of “Safety”

The Australian government has published its proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation, a plan that it says will give people more control over their social media feeds, but which opponents fear is a way to introduce more online censorship.

The exposure draft of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 was published on September 8 for consultation, and it is not yet law. The deadline for submissions is noon on September 22, and Communications Minister Anika Wells said the plan is to formally introduce the bill to Parliament in October.

We obtained a copy of the draft for you here.

In the words of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, “This is not about giving government control, it is about giving people control.”

And while the proposal is often referred to as My Feed, My Way, it is not about banning algorithms, but giving new and existing users a choice between feeds based on recommendations, and one that shows posts from accounts they follow.

But beneath this choice, there is a broader change to the Online Safety Act 2021 that would be introduced by the Digital Duty of Care bill, and that is to impose a duty on those behind online services to ensure a safe online environment as far as reasonably practicable.

This duty would apply to a wide range of services, including social media, messaging, games, hosting, search, app stores, internet providers, AI services enabling generated material to be shared through covered services, as well as certain equipment providers.

The minister in charge would be able to exempt services that are low-risk or minimally used. The proposal is designed to protect adults from what is described as seriously harmful material and conduct, while under-18s would have additional protection against harmful content and design features.

The list of harmful content and conduct that the draft seeks to protect adults from includes child sexual abuse, threats of violence, encouragement of self-harm, and support for listed terrorist organizations.

For children, the list includes pornography, encouragement of disordered eating, hostile attitudes towards women or gender equality, glorification of crime, dangerous stunts, abuse and bullying.

However, the minister would have the power to add more categories of harmful material or conduct by issuing a legislative instrument.

Wells must first seek and consider advice from eSafety, and the instrument can be disallowed by Parliament.

The draft bill also targets features that the government considers to have negative behavioral impacts, such as recommendation systems, endless feeds, and engagement-feedback tools, as well as time-limited content. Social media services would be required to stop these features for children under 16.

The proposal also includes a system of risk assessment that online services would have to conduct at least once a year, and keep for six years. These assessments would have to be provided to the eSafety commissioner on request.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, who has a history of censorship demands, would be in charge of enforcing the scheme, which would bring maximum company penalties of A$109.2 million.

The draft bill does contain some safeguards, such as the definition of reasonably practicable, which takes into account the risk, available measures, cost, and the potential for a measure to have a disproportionate effect on privacy.

The duty of care does not extend to lawful communications occurring in private solely between consenting adults, the draft bill states.

Opposition leader Angus Taylor on September 6 said he feared the proposal was “an attempt by the government to censor social media,” while One Nation leader Pauline Hanson said that Australia should be moving away from government censorship, not “building the Orwellian machinery for it.”

The Greens, on the other hand, have supported the idea of making sure users have a choice when it comes to feeds, but they want to make sure that users have to opt in to have their feeds curated by algorithms.

White House spokesman Kush Desai reacted by saying that President Trump “has unequivocally warned trading partners against imposing digital services taxes, fines, and other forms of extortion on America’s leading technology sector.”

Desai added that “the administration remains committed to raising these issues with our trading partners.”

Communications Minister Anika Wells sought to downplay the significance of the White House statement, telling News24 that the US was responding to broader questions that also included Australia’s tax arrangements, and not only the Digital Duty of Care proposal.

“We’re a sovereign nation, we have the right to defend Australian parents and kids and we’ll do that,” Wells said.

The government’s proposal has been portrayed as giving users a choice between personalized recommendation feeds and those that show posts from accounts they follow.

Keep reading

California Is Building an Internet of Age Checks and Identity Gates

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed two controversial age verification bills into law: AB 1709 and SB 1119.

Newsom was quoted as saying that Thursday was “a good day for our children,” but both laws will also impact adults by forcing online services to distinguish between users based on age.

AB 1709 deals with features on social media that are considered addictive, such as personalized feeds and autoplay, and prohibits these for California users under 16.

Before being allowed to use these features, users must be verified under the California Digital Age Assurance Act, or another statutory age-determination method. The Act in turn relies on age-bracket signals from operating systems and app stores, which are based on age or birthdate information provided by users. The law includes data-minimization and sharing restrictions, and does not require passports or face scans from all users.

AB 1709 will in effect mean that children will be able to use social media accounts, but without access to personalized feeds, which is how many people discover new content and information, and is a key component of how these platforms work.

But the law doesn’t only affect children; adults who want to use the covered features must also verify their age. In reality, this means that companies behind the platforms will have to act as arbiters of who can and cannot use what features.

Keep reading

Microsoft Brings “Age Verification” System To Windows

Just in time for the global digital ID agenda playing out, Microsoft has published instructions for developers on how to use an API that is not yet active.

The API, or programming interface, is designed to let apps on the Windows 11 operating system find out a user’s age bracket, and whether that age has been verified by an “identity provider.”

The age bracket is very broad: under 10, 10-12, 13-15, 16-17, and 18 and over. The verification status, on the other hand, can be one of five options: Verified, Unverified, OptedOut, TemporarilyUnavailable, or NotApplicable.

Microsoft does not go into what these identity providers will be, or what evidence they will use to verify a person’s age. The company only says that the second value returned by the API will show “whether the user’s age has been independently verified by the identity provider.”

Microsoft frames this as a way to improve privacy, by giving app developers a way to determine a user’s age without actually knowing their date of birth, or any other personally identifiable information. According to Microsoft, this is a “privacy-preserving mechanism” that will allow apps to comply with regulations concerning child safety. But, as we’ve seen from bills that call for this type of technology to be installed in operating system, this is all about normalizing age checks (and therefore ID checks) at all stages of digital life.

In this case, an age signal does not directly expose the user’s age or date of birth. Instead, it provides a way to adapt content, features, or access controls in an app based on the user’s age range and age verification status. For example, an app can use the age signal for user-generated content, social or communication tools, in-app purchases, virtual currencies, or maturity-rated media.

Microsoft goes into some detail about how developers can use the API, but notes that it is not yet available and will not return any useful data until it is turned on later in the year. For now, the company is providing the documentation ahead of the release to give developers a head start.

In January 2024, Microsoft was more cautious about the possibility of creating a system to determine a user’s age online. At the time, the company said it was exploring various methods and seeking expert input, but was not sure that the technical solution was there yet.

“There is currently no clear technical solution to age assurance that achieves the accuracy needed to effectively identify or verify a user’s age without risking trade-offs such as potential security, privacy, and human rights risks,” a Microsoft blog post said at the time.

California has since created its own framework for age verification.

Keep reading

Meta Settlement Ignites Global “Child Safety” Digital ID Push

The ink on the multi-billion dollar settlement agreement that Meta struck with 47 US states, the District of Columbia and a number of US territories has barely had time to dry – and already, officials and campaigners in the US, the EU, the UK, and at the UN are using it to press for similar rules to be imposed elsewhere.

In the UK, Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said that Meta should apply the new rules in that country as well, while the government there has its own plans to ban social media for under-16s and impose nighttime curfews.

“We don’t want a situation where young people in America have got a higher rate of protection than young people in the UK,” he said.

The British plan is to ban social media for those under 16 by spring 2027, and impose nighttime curfews on older teenagers, the Independent is reporting. To enforce this, platforms will have to know whether a user is a child or an adult, stepping up the pressure on companies to introduce age checks.

In the EU, the Commission is also piling on the pressure on Meta to “export” the US deal.

“We expect adequate management of screen time, appropriate parental controls on these platforms,” said digital spokesperson Thomas Regnier. “It is now up to the company to propose these commitments within the European Union in order to also protect our children here.”

The official revealed that the Commission has already been in talks with Meta since the US agreement was announced, and that the goal is to give children in the EU “at least” the same protections as those in the US.

Meanwhile, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk is using the settlement to call for global protections for children from what he says is the harm caused by excessive social media use.

In the US, District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb, one of those behind the lawsuit that led to the settlement, said that Meta “will not be the last” company to be forced to agree to such terms.

His California counterpart, Rob Bonta, said that Meta is “not the only player in the industry” to have “visited enormous mental health harms on kids through their products and their designs,” and added, “others rightfully must be held accountable.”

The settlement contains financial incentives for states to bring similar cases against other companies. Snap, TikTok, and YouTube are mentioned by name in this context.

Not everyone is happy with the deal, however. Arturo Béjar, a former Meta employee who was a witness in the trial, said the protections are insufficient and that the product remains harmful.

“The limitations that are in the agreement are the equivalent of saying: ‘Well, you can smoke as many cigarettes as you can in two hours a day,'” he said. “It doesn’t make the cigarettes any safer.”

Meta responded by saying that Béjar is ignoring some of the other provisions of the settlement, such as non-algorithmic feed defaults and stronger parental controls.

“We have a huge raft of built-in protections,” a spokesperson said, and argued that teenagers also derive “substantial” benefits from using social media.

Keep reading