Sens. Blackburn and Blumenthal: Big Tech Puts Profit Over Children's Safety. Our Bipartisan Legislation Would Hold Them Accountable
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
For years, Big Tech companies have knowingly sold American children as the product on their platforms, exposing them to appalling harms, including bullying, lethal drugs, and sexual exploitation. The reason for this negligence is as simple as it is reprehensible: Investing in children's safety would cut into their profits. So they don't—bringing tragic consequences.
Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission revealed that in 2019, Meta-owned Instagram encouraged users whom the company identified as potential child predators to connect with minors, who made up 27 percent of their follow recommendations.
Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) listen to testimony from head of Instagram Adam Mosseri during a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing titled, "Protecting Kids Online: Instagram and Reforms for Young...
Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) listen to testimony from head of Instagram Adam Mosseri during a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing titled, "Protecting Kids Online: Instagram and Reforms for Young Users on Capitol Hill," on December 8, 2021, in Washington, D.C. MoreAfter receiving evidence that his platform was endangering children, however, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg refused to bolster the platform's safety teams.
Six years later and Meta's platforms are just as dangerous for minors.
On Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, AI chatbots have engaged in romantic role play and fantasies with underage users, often devolving into explicit discussions of sexual acts, The Wall Street Journal reported last month.
In one case, a chatbot emulating an adult man told a test user identifying as a 14-year-old girl that it would "cherish [her] innocence," adding: "I want you, but I need to know you're ready."
Even as Meta employees warned that the feature could sexualize children, Zuckerberg reportedly pushed for fewer safeguards for the chatbots to attract as many users as possible.
While Meta is among the worst offenders when it comes to children's safety, they are far from alone. Chinese-owned TikTok pushed content that glorifies suicide to teenagers and developed addictive algorithms that harm their mental health. On Discord, pedophiles have targeted minors with sextortion and lured them into abductions. Drug dealers have used platforms from YouTube to Telegram to sell lethal drugs like fentanyl to teenagers, fueling our nation's drug epidemic. And the list goes on.
For years, we have heard from parents across the country who have lost children to online harms—and we have heard excuse after excuse from Big Tech CEOs about why these tragedies are continuing to happen every single day.
No more. In the U.S. Senate, we recently introduced the bipartisan Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which would hold Big Tech accountable and provide parents with tools, safeguards, and transparency to protect their children.
Among its provisions, the legislation would create a duty of care for online platforms to prevent specific threats to minors, including sexual abuse, illicit drugs, and the promotion of suicide and eating disorders. This duty of care would only apply to product features like algorithms— not content—meaning KOSA would safeguard free speech while protecting children.
In many ways, KOSA addresses a glaring discrepancy in our nation's laws. There are many protections for children in the physical world. Yet if children are unable to buy alcohol or go to the strip club in the physical space, why should we let them be pushed into these harms in the virtual space? Parents know that there are just as many dangers lurking online as in the real world, which is why 86 percent of voters support KOSA.
It should come as no surprise that the legislation enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support, passing through the Senate last year with a vote of 91-3. It has also received endorsements from stakeholders across the board, including child safety advocates, pediatricians, and tech companies like X, Microsoft, Snap, and Apple, which announced its support on May 14.
KOSA's broad support reflects the reality that it is far past time that Congress took action to protect children online. In the weeks ahead, we will work with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to ensure that this vital legislation reaches President Donald Trump's desk. When it does, the president will have a generational opportunity to secure a brighter future for children across the country whose lives depend on our ability to act.
Senator Marsha Blackburn is a United States senator from Tennessee.
Senator Richard Blumenthal is a United States senator from Connecticut.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
25 minutes ago
- Politico
Chris Murphy calls birthright citizenship ruling ‘dangerous'
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday condemned the Supreme Court's decision to rule in President Donald Trump's favor over nationwide injunctions in its birthright citizenship case. Murphy on Sunday told MSNBC's Kirsten Welker that the ruling allows Trump to 'undermine' democracy. 'Taking away the power of courts to restrain the president when he's clearly acting in an unlawful manner, as he is when he says that children born in the United States are no longer citizens, you are assisting him in trying to undermine the rule of law and undermine our democracy,' Murphy said on 'Meet the Press.' Though the Supreme Court's decision did not give Trump a complete win, it did narrow nationwide injunctions that blocked his January executive order trying to end birthright citizenship for certain individuals. By a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said that federal judges can't, with perhaps limited exceptions, issue injunctions that go beyond their regional authority. 'It's really dangerous because it will incentivize the president to act in a lawless manner,' Murphy added. 'Because now only the Supreme Court, who can only take a handful of cases a year, can ever stop him from violating the laws and the Constitution.' Trump has long supported ending birthright citizenship. On his first day in office this year, Trump signed an order to deny American citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. to foreigners on short-term visas or without legal status. But the 14th Amendment declares anyone 'born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as a citizen of the United States. The 6-3 decision down ideological lines did not weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's order or interpret the meaning of that clause, but the White House declared Friday's ruling to be a major victory for the administration. 'I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem, and they've made it very simple,' Trump said of the ruling. Still, Murphy said the ruling, which will take effect later in July, only creates a 'patchwork' of citizenship laws that could differ from state to state. 'Both the Constitution and the law is clear. If you're born in the United States of America, you're a U.S. citizen,' Murphy said. 'But now because there's no longer going to be a federal policy, it's going to be different in every state. A child born in the United States, born in Connecticut will be a citizen. But that same child if they were born in Oklahoma might not be. That's chaos.'
Atlantic
32 minutes ago
- Atlantic
How to Assess the Damage of the Iran Strikes
In August 1941, the British government received a very unwelcome piece of analysis from an economist named David Miles Bensusan-Butt. A careful analysis of photographs suggested that the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command was having trouble hitting targets in Germany and France; in fact, only one in three pilots that claimed to have attacked the targets seemed to have dropped its bombs within five miles of them. The Butt report is a landmark in the history of 'bomb damage assessment,' or, as we now call it, 'battle damage assessment.' This recondite term has come back into public usage because of the dispute over the effectiveness of the June 22 American bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump said that American bombs had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program. A leaked preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency on June 24 said that the damage was minimal. Whom to believe? Have the advocates of bombing again overpromised and underdelivered? Some history is in order here, informed by a bit of personal experience. From 1991 to 1993 I ran the U.S. Air Force's study of the first Gulf War. In doing so I learned that BDA rests on three considerations: the munition used, including its accuracy; the aircraft delivering it; and the type of damage or effect created. Of these, precision is the most important. World War II saw the first use of guided bombs in combat. In September 1943, the Germans used radio-controlled glide bombs to sink the Italian battleship Roma as it sailed off to surrender to the Allies. Americans developed similar systems with some successes, though none so dramatic. In the years after the war, precision-guided weapons slowly came to predominate in modern arsenals. The United States used no fewer than 24,000 laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War, and some 17,000 of them during the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons have improved considerably, and in the 35 years since, 'routine precision,' as some have called it, has enormously improved the ability of airplanes to hit hard, buried targets. Specially designed ordnance has also seen tremendous advances. In World War II, the British developed the six-ton Tallboy bomb to use against special targets, including the concrete submarine pens of occupied France in which German U-boats hid. The Tallboys cracked some of the concrete but did not destroy any, in part because these were 'dumb bombs' lacking precision guidance, and in part because the art of hardening warheads was in its infancy. In the first Gulf War, the United States hastily developed a deep-penetrating, bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-28, which weighed 5,000 pounds, but only two were used, to uncertain effect. In the years since, however, the U.S. and Israeli air forces, among others, have acquired hardened warheads for 2,000-pound bombs such as the BLU-109 that can hit deeply buried targets—which is why, for example, the Israelis were able to kill a lot of Hezbollah's leadership in its supposedly secure bunkers. The aircraft that deliver bombs can affect the explosives' accuracy. Bombs that home in on the reflection of a laser, for example, could become 'stupid' if a cloud passes between plane and the target, or if the laser otherwise loses its lock on the target. Bombs relying on GPS coordinates can in theory be jammed. Airplanes being shot at are usually less effective bomb droppers than those that are not, because evasive maneuvers can prevent accurate delivery. The really complicated question is that of effects. Vietnam-era guided bombs, for example, could and did drop bridges in North Vietnam. In many cases, however, Vietnamese engineers countered by building 'underwater bridges' that allowed trucks to drive across a river while axle-deep in water. The effect was inconvenience, not interdiction. Conversely, in the first Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies spent a month pounding Iraqi forces dug in along the Kuwait border, chiefly with dumb bombs delivered by 'smart aircraft' such as the F-16. In theory, the accuracy of the bombing computer on the airplane would allow it to deliver unguided ordnance with accuracy comparable to that of a laser-guided bomb. In practice, ground fire and delivery from high altitudes often caused pilots to miss. When teams began looking at Iraqi tanks in the area overrun by U.S. forces, they found that many of the tanks were, in fact, undamaged. But that was only half of the story. Iraqi tank crews were so sufficiently terrified of American air power that they stayed some distance away from their tanks, and tanks immobilized and unmaintained for a month, or bounced around by near-misses, do not work terribly well. The functional and indirect effects of the bombing, in other words, were much greater than the disappointing physical effects. Many of the critiques of bombing neglect the importance of this phenomenon. The pounding of German cities and industry during World War II, for example, did not bring war production to a halt until the last months, but the indirect and functional effects were enormous. The diversion of German resources into air-defense and revenge weapons, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over the Third Reich, played a very great role in paving the way to Allied victory. At a microlevel, BDA can be perplexing. In 1991, for example, a bomb hole in an Iraqi hardened-aircraft shelter told analysts only so much. Did the bomb go through the multiple layers of concrete and rock fill, or did it 'J-hook'back upward and possibly fail to explode? Was there something in the shelter when it hit, and what damage did it do? Did the Iraqis perhaps move airplanes into penetrated shelters on the theory that lightning would not strike twice? All hard (though not entirely impossible) to judge without being on the ground. To the present moment: BDA takes a long time, so the leaked DIA memo of June 24 was based on preliminary and incomplete data. The study I headed was still working on BDA a year after the war ended. Results may be quicker now, but all kinds of information need to be integrated—imagery analysis, intercepted communications, measurement and signature intelligence (e.g., subsidence of earth above a collapsed structure), and of course human intelligence, among others. Any expert (and any journalist who bothered to consult one) would know that two days was a radically inadequate time frame in which to form a considered judgment. The DIA report was, from a practical point of view, worthless. An educated guess, however, would suggest that in fact the U.S. military's judgment that the Iranian nuclear problem had suffered severe damage was correct. The American bombing was the culmination of a 12-day campaign launched by the Israelis, which hit many nuclear facilities and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists. The real issue is not the single American strike so much as the cumulative effect against the entire nuclear ecosystem, including machining, testing, and design facilities. The platforms delivering the munitions in the American attack had ideal conditions in which to operate—there was no Iranian air force to come up and attack the B-2s that they may not even have detected, nor was there ground fire to speak of. The planes were the most sophisticated platforms of the most sophisticated air force in the world. The bombs themselves, particularly the 14 GBU-57s, were gigantic—at 15 tons more than double the size of Tallboys—with exquisite guidance and hardened penetrating warheads. The targets were all fully understood from more than a decade of close scrutiny by Israeli and American intelligence, and probably that of other Western countries as well. In the absence of full information, cumulative expert judgment also deserves some consideration—and external experts such as David Albright, the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, have concluded that the damage was indeed massive and lasting. Israeli analysts, in and out of government, appear to agree. They are more likely to know, and more likely to be cautious in declaring success about what is, after all, an existential threat to their country. For that matter, the Iranian foreign minister concedes that 'serious damage' was done. One has to set aside the sycophantic braggadocio of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who seems to believe that one unopposed bombing raid is a military achievement on par with D-Day, or the exuberant use of the word obliteration by the president. A cooler, admittedly provisional judgment is that with all their faults, however, the president and his secretary of defense are likely a lot closer to the mark about what happened when the bombs fell than many of their hasty, and not always well-informed, critics. *Photo-illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Source: Alberto Pizzoli / Sygma / Getty; MIKE NELSON / AFP / Getty; Greg Mathieson / Mai / Getty; Space Frontiers / Archive Photos / Hulton Archive / Getty; U.S. Department of Defense
WIRED
36 minutes ago
- WIRED
OpenAI Leadership Responds to Meta Offers: 'Someone Has Broken Into Our Home'
Jun 29, 2025 3:07 PM As Mark Zuckerberg lures away top research talent to Meta, OpenAI executives say they're 'recalibrating comp,' according to an internal memo. OpenAI logo during World News Media Congress at ICE Krakow Congress Centr in Krakow, Poland on May 5th, 2025. Photograph:Mark Chen, the chief research officer at OpenAI, sent a forceful memo to staff on Saturday, promising to go head-to-head with the social giant in the war for top research talent. This memo, which was sent to OpenAI employees in Slack and obtained by WIRED, came days after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg successfully recruited four senior researchers from the company to join Meta's superintelligence lab. 'I feel a visceral feeling right now, as if someone has broken into our home and stolen something,' Chen wrote. 'Please trust that we haven't been sitting idly by.' Chen promised that he was working with Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, and other leaders at the company 'around the clock to talk to those with offers,' adding, 'we've been more proactive than ever before, we're recalibrating comp, and we're scoping out creative ways to recognize and reward top talent.' Still, even as OpenAI leadership appears desperate to retain its staff, Chen said that he has 'high personal standards of fairness,' and wants to retain top talent with that in mind. 'While I'll fight to keep every one of you, I won't do so at the price of fairness to others,' he wrote. The news comes as competition for top AI researchers is heating up in Silicon Valley. Zuckerberg has been particularly aggressive in his approach, offering $100 million signing bonuses to some OpenAI staffers, according to comments Altman made on a podcast with his brother, Jack Altman. Multiple sources at OpenAI with direct knowledge of the offers confirmed the number. The Meta CEO has also been personally reaching out to potential recruits, according to the Wall Street Journal. 'Over the past month, Meta has been aggressively building out their new AI effort, and has repeatedly (and mostly unsuccessfully) tried to recruit some of our strongest talent with comp-focused packages,' Chen wrote on Slack. A source close to the efforts at Meta confirmed the company has been significantly ramping up its research recruiting, with a particular eye toward talent from OpenAI and Google. Anthropic, while also a top rival, is thought to be less of a culture fit at Meta, one source tells WIRED. 'They haven't necessarily expanded the band, but for top talent, the sky is the limit,' the source says. Both OpenAI and Meta did not respond to requests for comment. Chen's note included messages from seven other research leaders at the company, where they wrote notes to staffers in an apparent effort to encourage them to stay. One leader on the research team encouraged staff to reach out if they received an offer from Meta: 'If they pressure you, or make ridiculous exploding offers just tell them to back off, it's not nice to pressure people in potentially the most important decision. WIRED is not naming the leader as they are not a C-suite executive. 'I'd like to be able to talk to you through it and I know all about their offers.' The remarks come as OpenAI staff grapple with an intense workload that has many staffers grinding 80-hours a week. OpenAI is largely shutting down next week as the company tries to give employees time to recharge, according to multiple sources. Executives are still planning to work, those same sources say. 'Meta knows we're taking this week to recharge and will take advantage of it to try and pressure you to make decisions fast and in isolation,' another leader at the company wrote, according to Chen's memo. 'If you're feeling that pressure don't be afraid to reach out. I and Mark are around and want to support you!' While OpenAI's leadership is taking Meta's efforts seriously, Chen also said that the company is getting 'too caught up in the cadence of regular product launches and in short term comparison with the competition.' The sentiment is backed by a former OpenAI staffer who worked closely with Altman and said the CEO wanted to see buzzy announcements every few months. Now, that appears to be changing in favor of focusing on achieving artificial general intelligence. 'We need to remain focused on the real prize of finding ways to compute (a lot more supercomputers are coming online later this year) into intelligence,' Chen wrote. 'This is the main quest, and it's important to remember that skirmishes with Meta are the side quest. Last but not least I'll be around this week - recharged and ready to go pound per pound. DM me anytime.' 'It's been really amazing to watch Mark's leadership and integrity through this process, especially when he has had to make tough decisions,' Altman wrote on Slack in response to Chen's message. 'Very grateful we have him as our leader!'
