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
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration faces growing bipartisan pressure over Job Corps
Nearly 200 House members signed onto a bipartisan letter this week to express support for Job Corps after the Department of Labor recently announced it would soon be pausing operations at centers nationwide. In the letter to Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the lawmakers express support 'for the continuation of the Job Corps program,' while noting it remains funded through government funding legislation that passed earlier this year. 'Nearly 20,000 young people utilize Job Corps to learn skills for in-demand vocational and technical job training,' the letter said. 'Job Corps is one of the few national programs that specifically targets the 16-24-year-old population that is neither working, nor in school, and provides them with a direct pathway into employment openings in industries such as manufacturing and shipbuilding.' Job Corps, established as part of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, is a free residential education and job training program for low-income people between 16 and 24 years of age. In an announcement explaining the Labor Department's decision to suspend operations at Job Corps centers, Chavez-DeRemer said the program was found to no longer achieve 'the intended outcomes that students deserve,' citing what she described as 'a startling number of serious incident reports and our in-depth fiscal analysis.' 'We remain committed to ensuring all participants are supported through this transition and connected with the resources they need to succeed as we evaluate the program's possibilities.' The department said it will begin a 'phased pause' initiating 'an orderly transition for students, staff, and local communities.' The pause will occur by June 30, the office said. The move was met with swift backlash from lawmakers, including Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine), who defended the program in a statement expressing strong opposition to the department's move to pause operations. 'Serving nearly 500 students in Maine, the Loring Job Corps Center and the Penobscot Job Corps Center have become important pillars of support for some of our most disadvantaged young adults,' Collins said at the time. In the new letter sent to the secretary Thursday, the group of lawmakers said by 'filling job openings, Job Corps ensures that young people become productive members of the American workforce.' 'No other program takes homeless youth and turns them into the welders, electricians, shipbuilders, carpenters, nurses, mechanics, and vocational workers of the future,' the letter said. The letter came a day after a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration from suspending operations at Job Corps centers as critics argue the move is illegal. 'The Department of Labor is working closely with the Department of Justice to evaluate and comply with the temporary restraining order,' the agency said in a statement to The Hill on Friday. 'We remain confident that our actions are consistent with the law.' Updated: 12:51 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - How long can America's colleges and universities survive Trump's ‘chaos tax'?
The House proposed tax on college endowments has drawn considerable attention. Critics have rightly noted that it would effectively tax student scholarships as well as undermine donor intent, and lacks a clear public policy rationale. While this tax targets only the wealthiest institutions, every college and university in the country is paying a different kind of price — what I call a 'chaos tax.' This refers to the unfunded time, energy and expense required to respond to the administration's attacks on higher education, along with its onslaught of confusing policy proposals and demands. That the federal government would so recklessly jeopardize the future of American colleges and universities is mind-boggling. When my organization surveyed and interviewed hundreds of college presidents two years ago, they reported that the issues that mattered the most to them were tied to improving the education offered to students. Among their top priorities: fostering a climate for free expression, strengthening the college-to-career pipeline, and integrating new technologies. This year, college presidents tell us that the bulk of their time is taken up with responding to executive orders, protecting the rights of students, and responding to negative perceptions of higher ed. In both the near past and the present, many were also focused on the financial stability of their institutions. But the current policy climate has made this an even more pressing worry. College presidents now express concern that their institutions face an existential threat. Each time the federal government issues a threat or demand, institutions must pause to parse and interpret it. Each time funding is withheld or a grant is cancelled, institutions have to realign their already stressed budgets and make difficult decisions. Many executive orders have been paused by judges due to their lack of clarity or their lack of alignment with federal law or the Constitution. But whether they stand or fall, the toll on campus leaders — and the students they serve — is intense. If our largest universities are struggling to respond, imagine what this season of attack is doing to the many smaller and leaner institutions. To give just one example, the recent threat to disenroll Harvard's international students — a threat currently on hold thanks to a judicial ruling — has sent shock waves throughout all of higher education. Nationally, more than a million college and university students are from countries outside the U.S. For decades, American colleges and universities have welcomed them, seeing opportunities for enhanced peer-to-peer global learning, a way to keep tuition down for domestic students, and a chance to share the good news about American democracy and freedom to learn. In the wake of unprecedented arrests, sudden cancelling of visas and now the threat of disenrollment, international student applications have dropped dramatically across the board. Current international students are panicked about their future and unsure if they will be able to return after the summer. For many years, American higher education has been the envy of the world and one of our most successful exports. The international students who flock here pay top dollar to receive a world-class education, globally lauded credentials, and a deeper appreciation for the American way of life. In this case, the balance of trade is widely in our favor. The loss of international students means a less effective and robust education for all American students. Without revenue from international students, American students will have to pay more. And international enrollment is but a single target of chaotic orders and policy. With more of their college leadership investing time in navigating the many unforced errors of the current administration, American students will see less time spent on meeting their educational needs and fewer opportunities to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics and other important fields. That the federal government would recklessly endanger the future of so many American colleges and universities is vexing. What are our goals as a nation? Are we looking to create well-paying jobs and enhance American prosperity? Preserve the blessings of a free society? Improve health and life expectancy for more Americans? No country has been able to achieve these aims without significant investment. It is not just the elites that are bearing the burden of this chaos. The local religious college, the small comprehensive university that educates nurses and teachers, community colleges, the land grant public institution, the state branch campus — all of them are vulnerable to the same threatened withdrawal of federal support. Collectively, American higher education is being weakened and hollowed out. Our capacity for scientific innovation is being hobbled. Our pathways out of poverty are being pruned. Our future is being mortgaged. We need to insist on a sensible policy agenda for higher education — one that is preparing the country for the impact of AI and positioning our graduates to serve their communities and lead in their professions. Students, alumni and families who hope for a bright future for their children must join higher ed leaders and insist on an end to the chaos tax. Marjorie Hass, Ph.D., is president of the Council of Independent Colleges, an organization serving more than 600 independent colleges and universities, based in Washington, D.C. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pam Bondi Hit With Formal Demand to Answer Musk's Claim About Trump and Epstein
House Democrats have urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to respond to a bombshell claim from Elon Musk that Donald Trump is named in the so-called 'Epstein files.' Reps. Stephen Lynch and Robert Garcia, who serve on key congressional oversight panels, sent a letter to Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel obtained by Axios, demanding that they 'immediately clarify whether this allegation is true.' The lawmakers want Bondi and Patel to produce a detailed timeline of the Department of Justice's handling of the Epstein files and to explain why there have been no new disclosures since February, according to the letter. Trump 'is in the Epstein files,' billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO Musk wrote in a post on X Thursday, alleging that 'that is the real reason they have not been made public.' Musk signed the post off by writing: 'Have a nice day, DJT!' Musk added in a follow-up post: 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.' He was referring to files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced late financier and convicted sex offender who died by suicide while in federal custody in New York City in August 2019 as he awaited trial on new sex trafficking charges. Officials in the first Trump administration determined that Epstein's death was a suicide, but conspiracy theories that he was killed to shield high-profile individuals including Trump, Britain's Prince Andrew, and former President Bill Clinton have proliferated nonetheless. The Trump administration in February declassified and released files related to Epstein, but they were highly redacted and did not offer major revelations. The FBI hasn't indicated when more files will be released. Lynch and Garcia want answers about who was involved in the review and redaction process. The Daily Beast has contacted the Department of Justice for comment. 'We write with profound alarm at allegations that files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have not been declassified and released to the American public because they personally implicate President Trump,' the lawmakers wrote in a three-page letter. 'Musk, one of the President's closest and most influential advisors, alleges that the President may be described in additional files related to this investigation. This allegation implies that the President may be involved in determining which files should be released and whether files will be withheld from the public if he personally chooses to withhold them,' the House Democrats said. Giving a June 20 deadline, the House Democrats asked Bondi and Patel to provide a timeline timeline for the declassification and public release of all remaining files; to describe why the DOJ hasn't released additional files since February; to describe Trump's role in reviewing documents pertaining to the investigation and prosecutions of convicted sex offenders Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as his role in determining DOJ's ability to declassify and make public these documents. They also demanded Bondi and Patel provide a list of all personnel whose approval is required to facilitate the declassification and public release of the documents, and to explain why the previously released files 'contained significant redactions.' In a statement to Axios, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields dismissed the letter as 'another baseless stunt that bears no weight in fact or reality.' 'These are the same left-wing lunatics who neglected their oversight duties regarding the Biden administration's lawless actions and concocted hoax after hoax on President Trump during his first term. No one takes them or their petty letters seriously,' said Fields. Musk pushed the explosive claim amid an epic public feud with the president, which centers on the Trump-backed 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act.' Musk has criticized the spending package, describing it as fiscally reckless and a 'disgusting abomination.' He's said the bill would undermine his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) by adding trillions to the U.S. budget deficit. But Trump claimed Thursday that Musk was really upset about the effect the bill will have on his electric vehicle company, Tesla. In their rift Thursday, Musk also suggested Trump be impeached and replaced by Vice President JD Vance, and asked his 220 million followers in a poll on X whether he should create ' a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' Trump has said he's 'very disappointed' in Musk and suggested he has 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' Reports that pair could be set to make amends as soon as Friday with a Trump team-scheduled call with Musk to broker peace were quickly rebuffed by the president, who said Musk had 'lost his mind' and had no plans to talk to him. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement: 'This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' because it does not include the policies he wanted.'
