Supreme Court upholds Mississippi social media age requirement law
Aug. 14 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to block a law requiring social media users to verify their ages before using popular sites such as Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat.
The high court's ruling stems from a Mississippi lower court ruling that would require people to be a certain age to use popular social media sites.
Some social media site operators have argued that the Mississippi law, and efforts by other states to require age verification, violates the First Amendment clause that guarantees free speech.
Weeks ago, the Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for users visiting sites that contain sexually explicit content. In that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Texas law did not violate the First Amendment because, he expressed, it is important to protect "children from sexually explicit material."
Through a spokesperson, State Attorney General Lynn Fitch said the state is "grateful for the Court's decision to leave Mississippi's law in effect while the case proceeds in a way that permits thoughtful consideration of these important issues."
NetChoice, a company representing Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, X and YouTube, among others, called on the Supreme Court to intervene after the Mississippi state court said the law requiring age verification could stand while its constitutionality was being considered.
The Mississippi law requires users under 18 to verify their age, and mandates minors receive parental consent prior to accessing social media sites.
The law's authors said it is designed to buffer the growing influence of social media on younger users.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
a few seconds ago
- UPI
Clear Secure adds Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand travelers
1 of 5 | Travelers from Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand can now enroll in Clear Secure, the American tech firm that allows people to pay for expedited clearance at U.S. airports, the company confirmed Friday. File Photo by Roger L. Wollenberg/UPI | License Photo Aug. 15 (UPI) -- Travelers from Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand can now enroll in Clear Secure, the American tech firm that allows people to pay for expedited clearance at U.S. airports, the company confirmed Friday. Passengers from the four countries can now enroll in the company's CLEAR+ program, allowing them to quickly get through security lines for a yearly fee. The New York City-based tech firm currently uses its biometric travel document verification systems at 59 airports across the United States, allowing clients to save time going through security checkpoints. The company currently charges $209 for a yearly subscription. "From the beginning, CLEAR's vision has been to make travel safer, easier, and more predictable-using the power of identity," Clear Secure CEO Caryn Seidman Becker said in a statement on the company's website. "By enabling highly vetted travelers from the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to enroll in CLEAR+, we're expanding that vision to more people around the world. Whether you're flying for business or reuniting with family, you should be able to move through the airport with confidence and peace of mind." The company said additional "Visa Waiver countries" will become eligible to subscribe later this year. The program is not related to the PreCheck option offered by the Transportation Safety Administration, which is only open to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Initially opened in 2025, NEXUS is another separate program allowing travelers to pay for expedited cross-border travel between the United States and Canada. Earlier this week, U.S. Customs and Border Protection launched a streamlined security system for international travelers, at Los Angeles International Airport to reduce wait times from incoming international flights. Clear Secure stock climbed to start the trading day but was in the red by late morning, down $0.65 or 1.91%, trading at $33.15 at 10:49 EDT Friday.
UPI
28 minutes ago
- UPI
Grok 4's new AI companion offers up 'pornographic productivity'
Grok originally referred to Elon Musk when asked for its opinions, and burst into unprompted racist historical revisionism, like the false concept of 'white genocide' in South Africa. File Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo The most controversial AI platform is arguably the one founded by Elon Musk. The chatbot Grok has spewed racist and antisemitic comments and called itself "MechaHitler," referring to a character from a video game. "Mecha" is generally a term for giant robots, usually inhabited for warfare, and is prominent in Japanese science-fiction comics. Grok originally referred to Musk when asked for its opinions, and burst into unprompted racist historical revisionism, like the false concept of "white genocide" in South Africa. Its confounding and contradictory politicism continues to develop. These are all alarming aspects of Grok. Another concerning element to Grok 4 is a new feature of social interactions with "virtual friends" on its premium version. The realm of human loneliness, with its increasing reliance on large language models to replace social interaction, has made room for Grok 4 with AI companions, an upgrade available to paid subscribers. Specifically, Grok subscribers can now access the functionality of generative AI intertwined with patriarchal notions of pleasure -- what I call "pornographic productivity." Ani, Grok 4's most-discussed AI companion, represents a convergence of Japanese anime and Internet culture. Ani bears a striking resemblance to Misa Amane from the iconic Japanese anime Death Note. Misa Amane is a pop star who consistently demonstrates self-harming and illogical behavior in pursuit of the male protagonist, a brilliant young man engaged in a battle of wits with his rival. Musk referenced the anime as a favorite in a tweet in 2021. While anime is a vast art form with numerous tropes, genres and fandoms, research has shown that online anime fandoms are rife with misogyny and women-exclusionary discourse. Even the most mainstream shows have been criticized for sexualizing prepubescent characters and offering unnecessary "fan service" in hypersexualized character design and nonconsensual plot points. Death Note's creator, Tsugumi Ohba, has consistently been critiqued by fans for anti-feminist character design. Journalists have pointed out Ani's swift eagerness to engage in romantic and sexually charged conversations. Ani is depicted with a voluptuous figure, blonde pigtails and a lacy black dress, which she frequently describes in user interactions. The problem with pornographic productivity I use the term "pornographic productivity," inspired by critiques of Grok as "pornified," to describe a troubling trend where tools initially designed for work evolve into parasocial relationships catering to emotional and psychological needs, including gendered interactions. Grok's AI companions feature exemplifies this phenomenon, blurring critical boundaries. The appeal is clear. Users can theoretically exist in "double time," relaxing while their AI avatars manage tasks, and this is already a reality within AI models. But this seductive promise masks serious risks: dependency, invasive data extraction and the deterioration of real human relational skills. When such companions, already created for minimizing caution and building trust, come with sexual objectification and embedded cultural references to docile femininity, the risks enter another realm of concern. Grok 4 users have remarked that the addition of sexualized characters with emotionally validating language is quite unusual for mainstream large language models. This is because these tools, like ChatGPT and Claude, are often used by all ages. While we are in the early stages of seeing the true impact of advanced chatbots on minors, particularly teenagers with mental health struggles, the case studies we do have are grimly dire. 'Wife drought' Drawing from feminist scholars Yolande Strengers and Jenny Kennedy's concept of the "smart wife," Grok's AI companions appear to respond to what they term a "wife drought" in contemporary society. These technologies step in to perform historically feminized labour as women increasingly assert their right to refuse exploitative dynamics. In fact, online users have already deemed Ani a "waifu" character, which is a play on the Japanese pronunciation of wife. AI companions are appealing partly because they cannot refuse or set boundaries. They perform undesirable labor under the illusion of choice and consent. Where real relationships require negotiation and mutual respect, AI companions offer a fantasy of unconditional availability and compliance. Data extraction through intimacy In the meantime, as tech journalist Karen Hao noted, the data and privacy implications of LLMs are already staggering. When rebranded in the form of personified characters, they are more likely to capture intimate details about users' emotional states, preferences and vulnerabilities. This information can be exploited for targeted advertising, behavioral prediction or manipulation. This marks a fundamental shift in data collection. Rather than relying on surveillance or explicit prompts, AI companions encourage users to divulge intimate details through seemingly organic conversation. South Korea's Iruda chatbot illustrates how these systems can become vessels for harassment and abuse when poorly regulated. Seemingly benign applications can quickly move into problematic territory when companies fail to implement proper safeguards. Previous cases also show that AI companions designed with feminized characteristics often become targets for corruption and abuse, mirroring broader societal inequalities in digital environments. Grok's companions aren't simply another controversial tech product. It's plausible to expect that other LLM platforms and big tech companies will soon experiment with their own characters in the near future. The collapse of the boundaries between productivity, companionship and exploitation demands urgent attention. The age of AI and government partnerships Despite Grok's troubling history, Musk's AI company xAI recently secured major government contracts in the United States. This new era of America's AI Action Plan, unveiled in July 2025, had this to say about biased AI: "[The White House will update] federal procurement guidelines to ensure that the government only contracts with frontier large language model developers who ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down ideological bias." Given the overwhelming instances of Grok's race-based hatred and its potential for replicating sexism in our society, its new government contract serves a symbolic purpose in an era of doublethink around bias. As Grok continues to push the envelope of "pornographic productivity," nudging users into increasingly intimate relationships with machines, we face urgent decisions that veer into our personal lives. We are beyond questioning whether AI is bad or good. Our focus should be on preserving what remains human about us. Jul Parke is a doctoral candidate in media, technology & culture at the University of Toronto. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Why in the world is Trump punishing Moldova with tariffs?
President Trump's tariff blasts continue. The White House released its latest list on July 31 and it is clear that no nation is safe — not allies, enemies, neighbors or distant lands. No menacing power escapes the vigilance of the president's team, ever alert to those 'ripping off' the United States of America. Case in point: Moldova. Dominating both sides of the Dniester River — well, one side actually — this Eastern European colossus of 2.3 million people (about the size of Houston) could inflict mortal damage on the American economy. In 2024 alone, the U.S. bought nearly $136 million (with an 'm') worth of goods from the Moldovans, whereas they bought only $51 million from us. With the U.S. economy valued at more than $30 trillion (with a 'T') we could probably only bear such abuse for … well, forever. In a July 9 letter to Moldovan President Maia Sandu, Trump made clear that America will not be bullied by Moldova any longer. He imposed a tariff of 25 percent on every bottle of wine or fruit juice the Moldovans force us to buy. Calling the deficit with Moldova a 'major threat to our Economy and, indeed, our National Security!' the president warned of even higher tariffs if Moldova retaliates or tries to send goods into the U.S. through transshipment. The letter accuses Moldova of taking advantage of us for 'many years.' Tariff rates are one of Trump's favorite weapons, employed under the dubious premise that the U.S. faces a trade deficit 'emergency.' The legality of such action aside — the Supreme Court has yet to rule — the president uses this weapon for a variety of non-economic goals. He has threatened Canada for indicating it might recognize a Palestinian state, and Brazil to try to save former President Jair Bolsonaro from prosecution. Moldova has committed no such offenses — at least none charged — but Trump wants trade with Moldova and a host of other countries to be based on 'reciprocity.' Whatever the precipitating dynamics, punishing Moldova for its involvement in international trade serves no reasonable Western security or broader policy interests. It undermines them. Sandwiched between Ukraine and Romania, Moldova has a long history of not being a country. The people of this region, who were unwillingly traded between Romania and Russia for nearly a century, gained independence from a collapsing Soviet Union in 1991. With a population that is 75 percent Moldovan-Romanian, some within the Russian and Ukrainian minorities feared the country's absorption into neighboring Romania. During a brief internal war in 1992, Moscow positioned a 'peacekeeping force' on the eastern side of Dniester River to guard the self-proclaimed state of Transnistria — which is still there, not recognized even by Russia. This force is small, locally recruited and considered less than formidable. But it is part of a sustained campaign by Moscow to prevent Moldova from embracing the West. This same motive drove Vladimir Putin to unleash a brutal invasion and occupation of much larger Ukraine. If victorious there, he is unlikely to be more accommodating toward Moldova. Moldova is the poorest country in Europe, and its elected leaders and population have been seeking stability. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Moldova applied to join the EU. It was quickly granted candidate status, and negotiations for membership began. In 2024, the country reelected pro-EU President Sandu and in a referendum enshrined the country's 'European course' in its constitution — despite massive Russian interference and disinformation. The EU has not been cowed by Moscow and developed a generous aid and development package. Most Moldovan goods enter the world's largest trading bloc duty-free, a policy that was further extended to agricultural products last month. Under President Biden, the U.S. had been similarly supportive, providing more than $400 million in military and humanitarian aid in part to help reduce the country's dependence on Russian gas. Trump sees no need for aid to Moldova, or indeed for most foreign assistance. Other moves supporting Trump's 'America First' orientation also penalize Moldova. Eliminating the U.S. Agency for International Development meant the loss of virtually all projects in Moldova — including for democracy promotion and economic and energy development. At the same time, cutting resources for election monitoring and an independent press leaves the field open for Russian interference. Such indifference, along with Trump's shifting attitude toward Ukraine and transactional foreign policy, leaves Moldova exposed. A study by the Stimson Center concluded, 'With a White House that seems increasingly eager to align its perspectives with Moscow at the expense of traditional allies, its willingness to support Moldova's democratic transformation in the face of Russian opposition is now uncertain.' Neighboring Romania, a member of both the EU and NATO, has a huge stake in the fate of Moldova. An intimidated or occupied satellite country — a second Belarus — on the Alliance's more than 400-mile border would dramatically change the strategic equation. This should get Washington's attention — at least of those willing to honor the American commitment to NATO. Preserving an independent and economically healthy Moldova thus serves European and American interests. Increasing the cost of doing business with the U.S. and damaging democratic efforts there does not. Supporting Moldova costs the U.S. very little. Excusing a tiny trade deficit to a strategically important democracy does not make Americans suckers. Helping Moldova does not require a military commitment. The country has been cooperating with NATO but is constitutionally neutral. Rather than punishing the country, the U.S. could and should offer support. This could be based on a view of the geopolitical map — or, even better, from an appreciation of a resilient people's desire for democratic choice. Ronald H. Linden is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pittsburgh, where he directed the Center for European Studies and the Center for Russian and East European Studies.
