Opinion - To ensure child safety online, move age verification protections to the app store
As parents, we do our best to teach our kids how to stay safe online. We put limits on screen time. We use the settings available on their devices to help protect their privacy and reduce their exposure to potential dangers.
But those steps still leave room for risk, partly because reliable age verification systems are not currently the norm. It's a problem I have been grappling with for years, both as a parent and as the founder and CEO of Snapchat, a tech platform that proudly serves tens of millions of young Americans every day.
Snapchat is a visual communications platform for people 13 and older — and we work hard to detect and remove accounts that violate our age policy.
In our efforts to prevent underage use, we have grappled with the same challenges to age verification that virtually every platform must confront. Privacy concerns are legitimate; verification systems require the collection of large amounts of personal information, create cybersecurity risks and invite the potential for misuse of sensitive data. Technical problems exist, too, from fake IDs to flawed algorithms.
Despite these issues, the demand for better online age verification is growing. After all, in the physical world, society has established age-based restrictions for certain activities, including driving, voting and watching certain films. These guardrails exist for good reason, and reflect our understanding of developmental stages and the capacity for responsible decision-making. There's no reason why the digital world should operate by entirely different rules.
In fact, some argue that the digital environment warrants even more careful age-appropriate boundaries. When technology makes the entire world accessible from a teenager's pocket, the implications for safety, cognitive development and emotional well-being are significant. Young people deserve support as they navigate online spaces.
Parents naturally want to protect their children online, just as they do offline. Federal laws like the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act already require platforms to limit data collection for users under 13. Platforms have implemented age-gating for certain features and settings. But these rules only work if we can reliably tell how old users are — and the current system of self-reporting is far from perfect.
No system will be flawless. The key is maximizing benefits while reducing downsides. That's why I believe initial age verification should happen at the operating system or app store level. In addition to the safeguards already put in place by many app developers, it's the best way to address the concerns many have about age verification while also meeting the broad and growing demand to find best-practice-level approaches to enable it.
We're starting to see progress in this direction. Recently, Apple announced new features that will allow parents to set up their child's account and share the child's age range with app developers. This is a welcome step toward the kind of OS-level verification we need. However, this approach still leaves gaps.
For this solution to truly work, we need comprehensive adoption across all major device-makers and app stores. Legislation that supports this concept has already passed in the State of Utah and been introduced in 16 other states. Bills by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. John James (R-Mich.) are also expected to be introduced in the U.S. Senate and House today.
Operating systems and app stores already play a crucial role in the digital ecosystem. They set the standards requiring certain security protocols and removing inappropriate and potentially harmful apps to help protect people. They sit at the gateway of the digital world. This position gives them capabilities that individual app developers simply don't have.
The benefits of this approach are compelling, particularly for families:
It's simpler. Parents already share their teen's age when purchasing and setting up a device. Rather than forcing families to navigate repetitive verification processes across dozens of apps, the OS can serve as a secure 'one-stop shop' where verification happens once. This makes it much more likely that families will actually use these protections.
It's consistent. Teens use dozens of apps every week, including apps offered by the app stores. A device-level approach gives parents peace of mind knowing that age verification protections will be applied consistently across any app their teen downloads.
It's more private and secure. Centralizing age verification limits how often personal information must be shared, significantly reducing privacy risks, identity theft opportunities and data-breach exposure.
It's trustworthy. OS and app store developers already have sophisticated systems, such as digital wallets, for managing user data. They can share age information with app developers without revealing personal details. Parents can be confident that sensitive information is handled responsibly by companies they already trust with established privacy-protective frameworks.
This approach isn't about being overly restrictive or surveilling teens. It's about making sure their online experiences are age-appropriate while protecting their privacy and freedom to explore.
Digital platforms offer young people incredible opportunities for creativity, learning and connection. On Snapchat, we've seen firsthand how technology can empower and uplift young voices, with the right protections and safeguards.
Age verification at the app store or OS level represents a balanced approach that preserves the benefits of the internet while helping to mitigate its risks. We need all major platforms to recognize their important role in the digital world to create a more robust and sensible age verification solution, with legislative action to ensure these solutions become universal. Only then can we better protect young users and support their parents, while ensuring digital spaces remain open, vibrant and accessible.
Evan Spiegel is the chief executive officer of Snapchat.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Supreme Court allows DOGE staffers to access Social Security data
June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing members of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency to access personal Social Security Administration data. On Friday, the Court's six conservatives granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. Opposing the injunction were the three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. There are 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive Social Security benefits, representing 28.75% of the U.S. population. In a separate two-page order issued Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration for now to shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. This vote also was 6-3 with no written dissenting opinions. In the two-page unsigned order on access, the court said: "We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work." The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of them were nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, appointed by President Barack Obama, had ruled that DOGE staffers had no need to access the specific data. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, declined to block Hollander's decision. The lawsuit was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans. They alleged broader access to personal information would violate a federal law, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," the groups said in a statement. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." Social Security Works posted on X: "No one in history -- no commissioner, no president, no one -- has ever had the access that these DOGE minions have." White House spokesperson Liz Huston after the ruling told NBC News that "the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law." Brown Jackson wrote a nine-page dissenting opinion that the "Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court's intervention. In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes." She concluded her dissent by writing: "The Court opts instead to relieve the Government of the standard obligations, jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking and creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process." Kathleen Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden administration, told CNN that Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly sensitive data so far. She said the personal data runs "from cradle to grave." "While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law, its operatives will have 'God-level' access to Social Security numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and reproductive health records and much more," Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. When Trump became president again on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order establishing DOGE with the goal of "modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity." Nearly a dozen DOGE members have been installed at the agency, according to court filings. In all, there are about 90 DOGE workers. DOGE, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk until he left the White House one week ago, wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. "These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government's records to much-needed scrutiny," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court motion. The data includes Social Security numbers, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, parents' names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions for disability benefits and use of Medicare. SSA also has data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiffs wrote: "The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure -- and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it." Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was sworn in to the post on May 7, said in a statement: that"The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." On May 23, Roberts temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. Musk called Social Security "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time" during an interview with Joe Rogan on Feb. 28. The Social Security system, which started in 1935, transfers current workers' payroll tax payments to people who are already retired. The payroll tax is a mandatory tax paid by employees and employers. The total current tax rate is 12.4%. There is a separate 2.9% tax for Medicare.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
This corny ‘conservative credit card' ad signals a very scary future for AI
A fresh glimpse at our AI-filled future arrived this week, in the form of an unmemorable ad by a company most people have never heard of. The ad is kind of flat and will probably scan as goofy to everyone outside its target demo, but don't write it off just yet: It could signal the beginning of some very big (and scary) changes. Why you're catching the 'ick' so easily, according to science Waymo is winning in San Francisco Supersonic air travel gets green light in U.S. after 50-year ban lifted The upstart fintech company Coign claims to be a 'conservative credit card company,' a distinction that boils down to the founders' pledge to never donate to liberal causes and candidates. And while that self-definition raises some questions, it pales in comparison to the actual ad. The 30-second clip is a patriotic parade of red-blooded, red-voting Americans boasting about recent Coign-fueled purchases such as deer-hunting gear, a stack of cartoonish gold bars, and the 'biggest American flag' available. But here's the most striking thing about the ad: All of those situations, and all of the actors, were created by AI. There's something a little off about Coign's ad, to be clear. The pacing of the phony satisfied customers' movements feels too jittery at times, and there's an eagle at the end that is not exactly natural looking. While the ad is spiritually the same AI slop as Shrimp Jesus, it doesn't carry the same overtly synthetic visuals. In that regard, it's a lot more casually AI-generated than many of its predecessor ads. When Coca-Cola released an AI-generated holiday spot last fall, it sparked an uproar. Creatives were livid about such a monumentally successful company neglecting to splash out on an all-human production, and even casual observers noticed the glaring flaws in the video: The truck's tires glided over the ground without spinning, Santa's hand was bizarrely out of proportion with the Coke bottle it gripped, and the entire ad sat squarely in the 'uncanny valley.' The same goes for the ad Toys R Us released last year using OpenAI's text-to-video tool Sora: The kindest thing one could say is that its human characters looked marginally more lifelike than the unsettling, motion-captured Tom Hanks from The Polar Express two decades earlier. So far, AI-generated ads have been rare enough and mostly the domain of heavy-hitter companies, making them lightning rods for attention and backlash just about every time a new one is released. The simple fact that they were AI-made has been enough to generate headlines, even before factoring in the slop. But maybe not for much longer. If the Coign ad is any indication, there may be an entire class of AI ads coming that will be subject to far less attention—and far less scrutiny. We're at a precarious moment with AI, collectively feeling out its least objectionable uses through trial and error. So far, uncanny ads from massive companies have triggered backlash, but when lesser-known brands dabble—especially without obvious visual glitches—they often escape notice. Advertising legend David Droga once noted the existence of a 'mediocre middle' in marketing and entertainment, and that may be exactly where AI quietly thrives: in ads from companies too small to spark outrage. Advertising, after all, is already the most disposable and least emotionally protected form of media—expensive to make, widely avoided, and largely unloved. That makes it the perfect Trojan horse for AI—slipping past scrutiny not because it's good, but because few people care enough to notice. On a moral and economic level, the advertising industry should not be diving headlong into a technology that makes large swaths of professional workers expendable. And on an aesthetic level, just because AI technically can create an ad doesn't mean it can create a good one. Once a seemingly harmless use case eases people's minds about a given technological breakthrough, it's only a matter of time before the more flagrantly objectionable use cases take hold. The facial recognition tech that first allowed Facebook users to tag their friends in photos was eventually used to strengthen the surveillance state and threaten privacy everywhere. Today's drones that make aerial photography easier become tomorrow's drones that mistakenly blow up weddings in other countries and threaten to displace delivery workers. Obviously, AI is going to play some role in humanity's future. The size of that role, however, is not yet set in stone. As machine learning creeps into all creative fields, workers need regulations to ensure the technology doesn't spread too far too fast. The good news is that a majority of Americans seem to want AI regulation. Although the House of Representatives recently passed a major tax and spending bill with a provision forbidding state governments to regulate AI over the next 10 years, that clause is getting bipartisan blowback. According to a recent poll, 81% of voters agree that 'advances in AI are exciting but also bring risks, and in such fast-moving times, we shouldn't force states to sit on the sidelines for a full decade.' Even the CEO of generative AI company Anthropic is a full-throated advocate for stricter AI regulation. The people have spoken. Whether they are listened to is another matter altogether. A single, silly credit card ad may seem an unlikely step toward a dystopian future of unfettered AI and full unemployment, but if we laugh it off now, the bill may still come due later. This post originally appeared at to get the Fast Company newsletter: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Tom's Guide
2 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
iPhone users say Mail app is suddenly freezing with iOS 18.5 — here's a fix you can try
Since Apple rolled out iOS 18.5, a growing number of iPhone users have reported issues with accessing their inbox as the Mail app is getting stuck on a blank white screen. Several comments on Reddit and the Apple Support Community describe being unable to view emails in their inboxes as the app is either glitchy or unresponsive. The underlying cause remains unclear, but the issues don't appear to be tied to any specific iPhone model, suggesting it could be a software-related problem tied to iOS 18.5 or the Mail app itself. Interestingly, reports of this Mail app issue have only been cropping up in the past few days, while iOS 18.5 went live last month. iOS 18.5 added a few notable features like screen time notifications and a new Pride-themed wallpaper, but its updates for the Apple Mail app could be causing the issues. With iOS 18.5, Apple brought back the "All Mail" inbox view and added the option to hide contact photos from the Mail app to make your inbox less distracting. Apple has not officially acknowledged the issue, and the company's System Status page does not indicate any problems with the Mail app. But while there's no official fix yet, some users said restarting their iPhones solved the issue, but only temporarily. Others have had luck with force-closing the app or disabling the keyboard's auto-correction to get it working again. Another affected user with an iPhone XR running iOS 18.5 was told by Apple Support to try resetting the phone's network settings, which seemed to do the trick, PC Mag reports. To do this on your iPhone, head to Settings > General > Transfer or Reset [Device] > Reset > Reset Network Settings. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. Until Apple acknowledges the issue and provides a fix, affected users should contact Apple support for assistance in the meantime.
