Newsom’s plan joins a dizzying tangle of laws and proposals from states seeking to verify user ages online. Those restrictions have provoked questions about how they would work — details that could carry huge implications for people’s privacy and freedom from government snooping.

Congress is mulling a clutch of kids’ online safety proposals, but is moving far more slowly than the states. Bills meant to restrict children’s access to social media or artificial intelligence chatbots face an uncertain future and have received virtually no support from Trump.

Toscano griped that the White House was “crickets” on a recent proposal to regulate AI by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), which included requirements for social media platforms to protect children. He also complained Trump “has not championed” the GUARD Act, a bipartisan bill requiring AI chatbots to verify users’ ages.

Asked for comment, a White House spokesperson pointed to Trump’s December executive order to block state AI laws, which includes a call for Congress to pass an AI framework that would “ensure that children are protected.”

Newsom first expressed support for so-called age-gating legislation Thursday in a policy position shared with POLITICO. His spokesperson Tara Gallegos said the proposal is inspired by Australia’s recent social media ban for kids under 16 years of age, though she said the governor’s position on an outright ban remains in flux.

It was a rare case of the governor getting out ahead of Sacramento lawmakers, who recently floated legislation to restrict kids’ access to social media. And it appears to cut against recent moves by Newsom to work with tech companies, including on AI laws and more moderate approaches to age verification.

The idea of limiting kids’ access to platforms such as TikTok, Facebook and Instagram has spread rapidly around the world since Australia approved its ban in 2024. Before announcing his stance, Newsom met with leaders in both Australia and Spain, which is considering its own social media ban for kids.

“Australia was the first sort of kickstart enforcing a ban, but there have been discussions in many countries about going this route,” said Alex Ambrose, a policy analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, an industry-aligned think tank. “I think people saw the push in Australia and really capitalized on that moment. And so that’s why we’re seeing this real cascade of other countries doing their own bans.”

International momentum is one factor in a recent surge of state laws and proposals to restrict kids’ access to online content.

Much of that activity has centered around red states. Florida passed a bill in 2024 barring children younger than 14 from having a social media account, while restrictions Utah placed on kids’ social media use have been temporarily blocked in court. Lawmakers’ attempts in Texas and Alabama to ban social media for minors didn’t make it across the finish line.

Texas, Utah, Louisiana and Alabama recently passed laws requiring mobile app stores and developers to verify users’ ages and get parental consent for each purchase. Some of those laws are being challenged by the tech lobby, and the issue is expected to wind up before the Supreme Court. Last year, Texas successfully defended a law requiring age verification to access porn sites.

Laws out of blue states related to online age-gating have generally been less sweeping. Last year, legislators in Sacramento passed a bill forcing platforms to display health warning labels to users under 18, and another requiring device-makers to check user ages.

>we must give the social media companies our most private data to help protect the children
This is very UKpilled

>>1491339
or just moderate the content. like none of it is necessary if you just don't allow porn

You should have to prove you're not an indian to go on the internet

A better solution would be to ban smartphone/tablet ownership for children, and bring back "dumb" phones. No kid needs a phone that does anything other than make calls and send text messages.
Of course nobody would support this idea because then parents would have to find other ways to amuse their children than shoving an iPad into their hands and gen z and younger doesn't know how to use PCs anymore.

>>1491372
That wouldn't give them the control they want.

>>1491333
>be the only Dem in the only state that doesn't have retarded Verification ID laws
>Throw that away
Newsom's goal is to lose the 2028 election, I can feel it.
If anyone wanted Republican but gay and loves migrants then little Marco is right there. Democrats need a frontrunner that stand a against the shit that people hate, not cave and open their buttholes to palantir and AI companies.

>>1491339
He's trying to do what Republicans are already doing now but shittier. It's retarded.

A democrat solution to this would be to institute a national electronic ID that social media companies only get the secure hash code for, they never identify you personally, but instead get the hash.

Instead we get the worst of all worlds with Republicans and now Democrats demanding everyone upload their face and put it in a Palantir database because little timmy might see a boobie (this does not stop little timmy and in fact makes everyone who uploads their face subject to data breaches, fraud, and thievery)

>>1491374
Honestly this. Notice how the """"""'""""""'""""""'""""""'""""""'""""""'""""""'solution""""""'""""""'""""""'""""""'""""""'""""""'""""""' all of these neocons can do is give MORE data to social media companies when this is data they shouldn't have at all because they shouldn't be serving children in the first place? Literally justifying their business model of selling data.

where's the damn cat

>>1491333
excellent start pressing charges on the cunts on reddit too while ur at it. none of them should be allowed anywhere near social media

Government photo IDs is the only way to go to protect our children.

>>1491404
I agree with this, to make sure my son is safe. My son complained that he had to upload his passport photo to discord to use it as he is only 15 years of age.
I have put monitoring software on his computer, and a keylogger to watch what he does. I have also put parental control apps on his PC and given him a dumb phone to block access to trash and dangerous websites like 4chan, as he has been showing signs of far right white nationalism, and trumpism. In addition, I have uploaded his fingerprints and DNA to The Guardian kids ID program in case he runs away from home. And I take a sample of his urine from his pee bottle which he keeps beside his PC and have it tested for THC and various other drugs. He has shown signs of femininity since he was 8 years old, and I explained to him that if he wants to transition when he's 16 he may do it,
She will thank me when she is an adult

Too much internet too young can totally fry the reward center in your brain. I grew up in the 80's era of boredom, we had 3 television channels and bare bones dial up. Nowadays you can watch giant slapping milf juggs on demand in crispy 4K in a public bathroom stall.

Back in 2001 The very first thing I downloaded in college was MORPHEUS and LIMEWIRE to download some BIG HOOTERS

I'm all for limiting kids internet exposure until their brains are better formed. I don't want this state ID nonsense though. Just ban them in grade schools please.

>>1491411
By "them" I mean smartphones

I wholeheartedly believe the internet should be segregated by age. This site would be infinitely better if it could actually enforce underage bans

>>1491413
While it would be nice to keep the kids out of adult spaces, actual age segregation tends to result in spaces for normal people and spaces for pedos and kids with no regular adults to slap anyone involved.