The EY Ireland CEO Outlook survey found that Irish CEOs remain confident about growth over the next 12 months despite global volatility and geopolitical risk.

EY Ireland has released its CEO Outlook survey, which explores how those in leadership are responding to global issues, challenges and opportunities. To gather data, EY partnered with FT Longitude and collected information from 1,200 globally dispersed CEOs throughout March and April of this year. 

What was discovered is that Irish CEOs are confident about the potential for growth over the course of the next 12 months, despite growing pressures from global volatility and geopolitical risk. Of those who were surveyed, 92pc of CEOs in Ireland said they were optimistic about revenue growth and their competitive position. 

However, despite the optimism, Irish CEOs harbour significant concerns about the landscape. Instability and conflict stand out as the most pressing issues for 70pc of Irish CEOs and other concerns include macroeconomic volatility (42pc), trade and supply chain disruption (22pc) and talent and capability gaps (16pc). 

There is a similar pattern among the global respondents, albeit at lower levels compared to the Irish figures. 56pc of global CEOs ranked geopolitical risk among their top two concerns, followed by macroeconomic volatility (31pc), technology disruption including AI-related risks (23pc) and trade and supply chain disruption (22pc).

Commenting on the results of the report, Helena O’Dwyer, a partner and the head of strategy at EY-Parthenon Ireland, said: “Irish CEOs are navigating a complex, unpredictable and rapidly evolving landscape. The confidence in their own growth prospects is real and there is a track record over the past decade of successfully navigating global uncertainty with confidence. 

“Even still, the pace and scale of the geopolitical upheaval is extraordinary, and geopolitical risk is no longer a background concern, it is a day‑to‑day operating reality – shaping decisions on costs, supply chains, capital and growth. From conversations with clients we know, however, that for mid-sized businesses in particular, the challenge is somewhat different. 

“They may lack the scale of management capacity to find the time to actively manage these issues, or struggle with the level of working capital or technology to be able to address issues or take advantage of opportunities. These leaders are more focused on keeping income steady, reducing costs, looking after staff and staying connected to customers.”

Past the testing phase

The report also noted that for many organisations and CEOs, artificial intelligence investment has moved on from the experimental stage to accountability – particularly for those sitting in Irish boardrooms.

84pc of Irish CEOs who contributed their insights explained that they have increased AI investment since 2025, with the focus increasingly shifting from experimentation to the expectation of measurable results. 

Data also suggests that leaders based in Ireland are expecting AI to deliver measurable results, with 68pc using standard metrics to measure and report on AI impact across major projects. 

60pc expect the large-scale AI reskilling and upskilling of existing employees to be among the two most significant workforce impacts over the next three years, while only one in 10 fear that it will reduce hiring in certain roles.  

‘Cultural resistance to change’, however, emerged as a major concern for four out of every 10 contributing Irish CEOs, who found it to be a barrier to deriving real value from AI. Globally, CEOs were less concerned, with just 16pc reporting a similar worry.  

The report explained that this is reflective of the broader maturation in how businesses are approaching AI. The question is no longer whether or not to invest, but rather, how to demonstrate that investment is generating returns and whether you are building the internal structures needed to sustain and scale it.

Carol Murphy, a partner and the head of markets at EY Ireland, said: “CEOs increasingly are not asking whether to invest in AI, they’re asking what it’s delivering and what comes next. The focus has shifted firmly to results and that’s starting to change how work is organised across businesses. 

“We’re seeing companies move beyond pilots and build AI into core operations, but that shift also brings a workforce challenge. Many organisations know they need to reskill and redesign roles to make the most of AI, but progress isn’t always straightforward. There can be resistance to change at all levels and for smaller and mid-sized businesses in particular, training and transformation have to happen in step with day-to-day delivery.” 

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Sony may have just dropped its biggest hint yet that a true PlayStation handheld is on the way. In a recently published Q&A with investors, Sony Interactive Entertainment CEO Hideaki Nishino said the company’s next-generation PlayStation strategy will deliver a seamless gaming experience that extends “beyond the living room.” While he never explicitly mentioned a handheld, the comments have once again fueled speculation that Sony is preparing to return to the portable gaming space with the PS6 generation.

Sony finally said what everyone was thinking

The statement wasn’t made out of nowhere. Nishino acknowledged that gaming habits have changed over the years, with more players choosing personal monitors and flexible gaming setups instead of gathering around a TV in the living room. Sony says it’s already trying to adapt to those changing habits by expanding its ecosystem with accessories like monitors and speakers, while also pointing to the positive reception of the PlayStation Portal as proof that gamers want more ways to access the PlayStation experience. The executive also emphasized that future PlayStation hardware will leverage technologies that can work “in various forms and locations,” suggesting Sony is thinking beyond the traditional home console.

That said, Sony also poured a little cold water on the excitement. Nishino reiterated that the company doesn’t intend to sell future hardware at significant losses. That’s a notable statement at a time when component costs continue to rise, and gaming hardware is becoming increasingly expensive.

“As a principle, we do not intend to sell hardware at significant losses.” – PlayStation

Naturally, that has led many to question whether now is really the right time for Sony to launch a premium handheld, or whether the economics simply don’t add up. Honestly, I think that’s a fair concern. But I’m not convinced it’s enough to stop Sony.

The numbers might actually work in Sony’s favor

The biggest mistake people make when imagining a PlayStation handheld is expecting it to be a PS5 squeezed into a smaller shell. But honestly, it doesn’t need to be that.

A portable with an 8-inch display isn’t trying to push native 4K graphics onto a 65-inch television. A clean 1080p target changes the equation completely. Modern AMD APUs have already shown just how much performance can be packed into handheld hardware, and by the time Sony is ready with its next device, that technology will only become more efficient. Throw in dynamic resolution scaling, modern upscaling techniques, and a platform where developers know exactly what hardware they’re building for, and suddenly running current-generation PlayStation games on a handheld doesn’t sound nearly as far-fetched.

Then comes pricing. Could Sony really launch something like this for around $550 to $600? Maybe.

Yes, $600 is still a lot of money. There’s no pretending otherwise. But gaming hardware has become expensive across the board. Microsoft’s latest Xbox refresh now starts at around $800, while the Steam Deck, despite being several years old, has seen its price hiked to a little under $800 now. Suddenly, a $600 PlayStation handheld starts looking a lot less outrageous.

More importantly, Sony isn’t just selling a handheld. It’s selling an ecosystem. Every player who buys a PlayStation handheld is also likely buying first-party games, third-party titles, PlayStation Plus subscriptions, accessories, and digital content. That’s a luxury companies like Valve simply don’t enjoy to the same extent. Sony doesn’t need to make huge profits on the hardware itself if the ecosystem keeps players spending for years afterward.

There’s an even bigger reason why this makes sense

Now what about the launch timeline? See, on paper, launching a PlayStation handheld alongside Grand Theft Auto VI sounds like the ultimate power move, right? Pair the biggest game of the generation with brand-new hardware, and you’ve got a marketing campaign that practically writes itself.

But if Sony were really gearing up for a 2026 launch, the rumor mill would probably be working overtime by now. Hardware has a habit of leaking months before it’s announced, and so far, things have been surprisingly quiet. Besides, Sony is already using GTA 6 as one of the biggest reasons to buy a PS5 Pro. Launching another premium device at the same time could end up stealing its own thunder.

I feel that’s why a 2027 launch actually makes more sense.

Rockstar has a history of bringing GTA games to PC much later, and GTA 6 is widely expected to follow the same pattern. That gives Sony a golden opportunity to pitch its handheld as the easiest, and potentially only, way to play GTA 6 and PlayStation exclusives on the go. Suddenly, waiting a little longer doesn’t sound like a delay; it sounds like smart timing.

By then, Sony would have more mature hardware, better manufacturing yields, and a stronger lineup of games to support a new platform. It would also arrive at a time when handheld gaming has become more competitive than ever. Nintendo has the Switch. Valve proved the Steam Deck wasn’t just a one-hit wonder. ASUS, Lenovo, MSI, and Acer are all pushing Windows gaming handhelds further every year. Even Microsoft has finally embraced the category. Sony is now the only major gaming company without a true native handheld.

There’s another piece of the puzzle that makes this even more interesting. Sony has reportedly shifted away from bringing its flagship single-player games to PC, choosing instead to keep those experiences exclusive to PlayStation hardware. If that strategy continues, a native handheld becomes far more valuable than just another gadget. Instead of waiting years for a PC release, the only way to experience PlayStation’s biggest exclusives on the move would be through Sony’s own hardware. Honestly, that’s a pretty compelling reason to buy one.

Am I reading too much into this?

Will any of this actually happen? We don’t know yet. Sony hasn’t confirmed a handheld, revealed any hardware, or shared a launch window. Right now, it’s all speculation based on a few carefully chosen words. But sometimes, those carefully chosen words tell a bigger story. And if Sony really is preparing to take PlayStation beyond the living room, I think a premium handheld is exactly the kind of gamble worth taking.

So here’s my question to you: if Sony launched a “premium” handheld with a gorgeous 1080p display that let you play your entire PlayStation library anywhere, even if it cost around $600, would you buy one?

Amazon is looking for cheaper alternatives to Anthropic’s Claude models after a renegotiated contract will shift to token-based pricing that could substantially increase the company’s AI costs, according to The Information. The new pricing structure does not take effect until next year, but Amazon is already exploring options including OpenAI. The report highlights a deepening rift between two companies that were once inseparable partners in the AI race.

Amazon’s dependence on Claude runs deep. Its coding agent Kiro, workplace assistant Quick, and consumer-facing Alexa for Shopping all rely on Anthropic’s models, according to The Information. A shift to token-based billing would make that dependence far more expensive, particularly after Amazon recently scrapped an internal leaderboard that encouraged employees to burn through as many AI tokens as possible.

The search for cheaper models has sent Amazon toward OpenAI, a company it has already been growing closer to. Earlier this year Amazon committed $50 billion to OpenAI, giving the AI lab access to its cloud infrastructure in exchange for access to its models. That deal followed Amazon’s initial $4 billion investment in Anthropic, which has since grown to a potential $33 billion.

Anthropic, meanwhile, has been expanding its own relationships beyond Amazon. The company committed to spending $200 billion on Google Cloud and chips over five years, according to The Information, a deal that effectively makes Google a major infrastructure partner alongside AWS. Amazon’s latest $25 billion investment in Anthropic included a reciprocal commitment of more than $100 billion in AWS spending, but the Google arrangement signals Anthropic no longer depends on a single cloud provider.

The tension boiled over last month when the US government ordered Anthropic to shut down its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models after a security report that originated from Amazon. Andy Jassy reportedly told government officials that Amazon researchers had used Fable 5 to obtain information useful for cyberattacks. The timing raised questions, coming as Amazon was preparing to launch its own cybersecurity-focused AI agent designed to spot vulnerabilities.

The contract dispute, the move toward OpenAI, and the Fable 5 incident together suggest the Amazon-Anthropic relationship has entered a new and more adversarial phase. Amazon remains one of Anthropic’s largest investors and cloud customers, but both companies now have reasons to reduce their dependence on each other. For the broader AI industry, the fracturing of its most prominent investor-model-provider partnership would redraw the competitive map.

Security

At least two vulnerabilities are already under attack

Not everyone is willing to follow responsible disclosure of vulns. An anonymous researcher has dumped what they say is working exploit code for zero-day vulnerabilities across 15 software products and open source projects without notifying any vendors or maintainers prior to publishing – and attackers are already exploiting at least two of these.

The first is CVE-2026-55200, a critical, pre-authentication remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in libssh2, a popular client-side C library that implements the SSH2 protocol. Remote attackers can send crafted SSH packets with excessively large packet_length values to corrupt heap memory and achieve remote code execution.

A fix has been merged into the libssh2 mainline development source control branch, and maintainers are still preparing a libssh2 release containing the patch.

The second is CVE-2026-20896, a critical authentication bypass vulnerability affecting self-hosted Gitea Docker deployments that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to impersonate any user and fully take over the Git server. It’s fixed in Gitea 1.26.3.

The researcher, who goes by bikini, dropped the exploit code and vulnerability write-ups in a now-removed GitHub repository called exploitarium. They remind us of Nightmare Eclipse – the zero-day bug hunter who has been publishing Microsoft exploits over the past couple of months.

Unlike Nightmare Eclipse, however, bikini doesn’t appear to hold a grudge against any one vendor, publishing purported vulnerabilities across multiple products and projects including libssh2, Splunk, RustDesk, 7-Zip, VLC, AnyDesk, OpenVPN, c-ares, Gitea, and Floci.

Bikini claimed – and, to be clear, The Register has not verified these claims or that the code works – that none of the exploits in the repo have been reported. 

“Feel free to report them yourself and take credit for the CVE if handed out lulz,” the anonymous researcher wrote, as shown in this screenshot posted on X by Ledger CTO Charles Guillemet. “Please do not abuse these. I do this so to allure people into the field.”

Other researchers, including Federal Signal analyst Ethan Andrews, suggested that bikini used advanced AI models – specifically GPT-5.5 Codex – to automate fuzzing and vulnerability discovery, in yet another indication that the AI-induced vulnpocalypse is nigh.

In response to bikini’s data dump, Andrews built 44 KQL detection rules covering the full exploitarium repo with language translation available for non-KQL stacks. 

“The most technically significant findings – libssh2 pre-auth heap write and Gitea default Docker auth bypass – have been independently verified as high-risk with active exploitation observed,” Andrews wrote, noting that some of the exploitarium disclosures “have been dismissed by the community as low-impact AI-fuzzing noise.”

While the repository has since been removed by GitHub, nothing ever truly dies on the internet, and it’s safe to assume that attackers are now also using AI to scan for vulnerable instances. In many cases, bikini’s PoCs mean they don’t even have to spend time developing an exploit. ®

If you’ve ever been on vacation and chose to record video instead of taking photos only to avoid missing the fun moments, thinking you’d pause and take screenshots later, you might have ended up questioning your decision later. 

You see, the process involves multiple steps, starting from hunting for the right frame, pausing, and taking a screenshot. If it doesn’t look good, you go back to the video, pause somewhere else, and try taking another screenshot. You see where I’m going with this?

It’s a specific little misery that iOS 27 has now quietly fixed, and I genuinely can’t believe it took this long.

How does the new “Save video frame as photo” feature work?

The new “Save Video Frame as Photo” option in the Photos app does exactly what it sounds like. You can save a single frame from a video directly to the gallery as a photo, without the hassle of capturing screenshots. You can use it in two ways.

The first one lets you use the feature quickly and save a video frame as a photo in as little time as possible. Open the video in the Photos app, scrub to the moment you want, pause, tap the three-dot menu at the top right of the screen, then tap the “Save Video Frame as Photo” button. 

You should see a “Saved Video Frame” dialogue box pop up at the bottom of the screen. The saved frame shows up in your library, right next to the video you’ve extracted it from.

However, if you need frame-by-frame flexibility, open a video, then tap the hamburger menu at the bottom to enter the edit menu. Use the timeline at the bottom of the screen to scrub through the video one frame at a time. 

Once you find the exact moment, tap the three-dot menu again and tap “Save Video Frame as Photo.” You should see a “Photo saved to your library” message on the screen. Tap the “OK” button below it, and you’re good to go.

The feature is genuinely better than capturing screenshots

The difference in quality here is worth understanding. Saving a video frame as a picture is the same as taking a picture when you’re recording a 4K video at 60 fps; the saved frame comes out as an 8 MP photo (in Apple’s HEIF format). 

Screenshots, on the other hand, save as PNG files that are lower in resolution but larger in file size. In a nutshell, the frame-extracted picture has both a smaller file size and a higher resolution than screenshots. 

Furthermore, it doesn’t capture unwanted visual elements, such as the video progress bar at the bottom or a notification pop-up that shows up at the exact moment (I hate those).  

It’s one of those iOS 27 features Apple didn’t announce onstage, and yet once you know it exists, you’ll wonder how you ever managed without it.

EOFY is a good time to check gaming laptop deals, even if the laptop isn’t going to be used for work. Gaming laptops can be quite expensive, so a legitimate discount can make a bigger difference than it does on a basic everyday laptop.

That said, a gaming laptop can also be a powerful workstation if your work does need extra grunt. A fast CPU, dedicated GPU and plenty of RAM can help with video editing, 3D work, coding, running AI tools, creative apps or just keeping a lot of browser tabs and programs open at once.

It’s also worth checking our main EOFY laptop deals hub even after June 30, because in previous years we’ve seen some great laptop deals hang around or pop up in early July as retailers clear leftover stock.

For gaming laptops, we have deals from lower-cost RTX 5060 machines with generous RAM, through to much more expensive RTX 5090 desktop replacements.

The Acer Nitro V 16S is a good option for a buyer who wants current-gen gaming performance without paying big money. You still get an RTX 5060, 32GB RAM, a 1TB SSD and a 180Hz display for AU$1,777, which is a lot of hardware for the price.

The RTX 5060 is a lower-end current-gen GPU, but that’s still a good fit for 1080p or 1200p gaming, especially if you’re happy to use DLSS or turn down a few settings in the most demanding games. With RAM prices rising, 32GB of RAM is harder to take for granted at this price, so it’s good to see Acer include it rather than cutting back to 16GB.

The Lenovo Legion Pro 7i is at the other end of the scale. Our Lenovo Legion Pro 7i review described it as “perfect for a desktop replacement, just okay as a portable”, and that’s exactly how I’d frame this deal.

You’re not buying it because it’s cheap or easy to carry everywhere. You’re buying it because you want a very powerful 16-inch gaming laptop with an RTX 5090, 32GB RAM, a 1TB SSD and a 240Hz OLED screen.

Our review gave the Legion Pro 7i 4 stars and called out its excellent gaming performance, gorgeous OLED screen and useful port selection. That makes it a good fit if you want one machine for demanding games, an external monitor setup and heavier work like editing, rendering or development.

The big caveat is battery life, which our review said “is not great”, but that’s the trade-off with this kind of desktop-replacement gaming laptop.

If neither of these gaming laptop deals is quite right, our main EOFY laptop deals hub has more options across cheaper Windows laptops, MacBooks, 2-in-1s and higher-end gaming machines.

from the moral-panic-creeping-further-and-further dept

Several U.S. states are pushing to ban young people from social media entirely. This marks the latest wave of censorship bills masquerading as “children’s online safety” measures, with states like Massachusetts, Idaho, Minnesota, North Carolina, South Carolina, Illinois, and EFF’s home state of California leading the charge.

Just a few years ago, lawmakers supporting age-gating laws insisted their efforts were narrowly targeted at limiting young people’s access to adult content. At the time, we warned that they would not stop there: once the government established the authority and built the infrastructure to collect and “verify” massive troves of user data, it would inevitably sweep broader and broader categories of lawful speech into this mass surveillance and censorship system. 

Unfortunately, our predictions came true. As legislators across the country advance proposals that would block all young people from accessing the “modern public square,” the Overton window has shifted dramatically towards mass censorship—and the speed of this shift should concern all of us. 

This primer breaks down this dangerous wave of social media bans: how they work (and why they don’t), who they harm, and how we can fight back. 

How to Spot a Social Media Ban

The details of these bills vary from state to state. Some (like California’s AB 1709) are a flat-out social media ban for all young people under a certain age, while other states (like South Carolina and Minnesota) allow access to young users who hand over even more data to show verifiable parental consent. Many bills regulate certain social media features, too, including by setting default privacy settings, time limits, or notification preferences for all accounts that fail the age-gate.

As for the age-gating mechanism itself, most proposals fall into two broad categories: age verification bills and behavioral age estimation bills. 

Age Verification Bills require online services to collect highly sensitive data, including government ID and biometric information, from all users before either restricting or allowing them access. 

For example, take California’s social media ban (AB 1709). Starting in January 2027, operating systems will be required to collect enough information from users to sort them into age groups, or “brackets.” Under AB 1709, social media apps would then use that age bracket information to completely block anyone under 16, while supposedly letting everyone else through. By contrast, Florida’s law (HB 3) takes a more aggressive route by forcing platforms to verify users’ identities directly, usually by contracting with private third-party companies to perform verification services.

Behavioral Age Estimation Bills, on the other hand, are a more recent innovation of states like Minnesota (HF 1438) and South Carolina (H 4591). These bills require platforms to estimate the ages of users based largely on data that they already collect, including self-attested age, behavioral information, and account history and activity. In practice, these bills enable tech companies to use algorithms and/or AI to analyze our online behavior and estimate age based on that. 

Proponents of behavioral age estimation bills claim that their proposals avoid the massive security risks that come with mandatory age verification bills. However, much of the data that social media platforms collect from us “in the ordinary course of operation” is collected in order to serve us targeted behavioral ads. If we force platforms to use this imperfect data to make more important judgments about who can access their services, we risk entrenching those insidious data collection practices. Surely we don’t want to give social media companies more reasons to justify and sustain their reliance on this exploitative business model.

If you want to dig into the nuance here, our terminology guide sheds more light on the technical differences between age verification and age estimation bills. 

Overall, it’s a lose-lose scenario: either platforms collect new forms of our most sensitive and immutable data, or they unleash their AI and algorithms on our existing behavioral data to make creepy guesses about who we are and what we deserve to see. No matter which age-gating method your state chooses to execute its social media ban, there will be lots of error at the margins—and lots of users who will be blocked or chilled from access to lawful online speech.

Why Social Media Bans Are So Dangerous

Social media bans are unconstitutional, discriminatory, and deeply misguided. They reinforce existing structures of oppression, and they are broadly unsupported by young people, whose voices are conspicuously absent from this conversation. They undermine parental decision-making and replace tailored family-level solutions with a one-size-fits-all band-aid. And, in the places we have seen social media bans go into effect, early reports show that they don’t even work. 

For example, in Australia, where a social media ban has been in effect since late 2025, a majority of young people can still access social media, those who can’t have lost their access to the news, and crisis helplines are reporting skyrocketing numbers of calls from youth left stranded without online community or resources.

We could go on and on about all of the inherent harms here, but we’ll try to keep this short as we walk through some of the major issues.

1. Security Risks and Privacy Harms

In order to ban some users, social media platforms first must confirm the ages of all users, regardless of age. Bans thus incentivize companies to force users of all ages to hand over government IDs, face scans, and other sensitive information. When parental consent is required, companies must collect even more verification data and often create explicit links between child and parent accounts—further destroying users’ anonymity. 

Both of these databases create massive data “honeypots” that invite identity theft and permanent surveillance. We’ve already seen repeated data breaches involving age- and identity-verification services. Yet these laws would force both adults and the youth they claim to protect to feed their most sensitive data into this growing surveillance ecosystem. 

If we don’t trust tech companies with our private information now, we shouldn’t pass laws that force us to give them even more of it. 

2. Disproportionate Harm to Vulnerable Communities

Age-verification technology is deeply flawed and prone to discrimination. These systems frequently misidentify or lock out people of color, people with disabilities, and trans or gender-nonconforming individuals whose IDs may not match their appearance. 

Where these bills require parental consent, they impose disproportionate access barriers on low-income, non-traditional, and immigrant families. These sorts of families are more likely to share a single family device or have strong reasons to not want the government to track family associations and ID documents. 

Beyond the technical failures, these bans cut off a vital lifeline. For LGBTQ+ youth, foster kids, and those stuck in unsupportive home environments, social media is often the only place to find community, explore their identity, or access life-saving resources. Forcibly removing young people isolates those who need connection the most, while creating massive new barriers for adults. 

You can read a breakdown of the diverse groups vulnerable to these laws here. 

3. Based on Shoddy Science

The current legislative push to ban young people from social media relies heavily on the idea that the “great rewiring” of the adolescent brain is a proven fact. This simply isn’t true.

Social science indicates that moderate internet use is a net positive for teens’ development, and negative outcomes are usually due to either lack of access or excessive use. For LGBTQ+ and marginalized youth in particular, social media offers an essential space to access support they might lack offline. By forcing youth into digital isolation, these bans cut off vital access to political news, community, and health resources. They also completely ignore the calls of young people themselves who favor digital literacy and education over restrictive government control.

Instead of cutting off these lifelines, we should support measures that arm all youth (and the adults in their lives) with the knowledge they need to navigate online spaces safely.

4. Reckless Free Speech Violations for Users of All Ages

No matter your age, the First Amendment protects your right to speak and access information. 

Blanket social media bans immensely and unconstitutionally chill all users’ exercise of this right. They cut off young people’s access to lawful speech, or ruin their privacy in the home by mandating parental consent and sometimes even parental access to their account activities and settings. They force all users (adults and young people alike) to hand private information over to tech companies before speaking or accessing information on social media platforms, imposing annoying obstacles on lawful online expression and wrongfully blocking some adults outright. 

Critically, these bans destroy our right to online anonymity—a cornerstone of our right to free expression that protects whistleblowers, journalists, activists, immigrants, and everyone who has ever used a private browser or account to ask the internet an embarrassing question.

How to Fight Back

Social media bans weaponize parents’ concerns about children’s safety to justify unprecedented levels of surveillance and censorship. In the process, these laws deny young people their rights, threaten online anonymity for everyone, expose our sensitive personal data to breach and abuse, and replace parental decision-making with state authority. This is a battle over the future of the open, private, and free internet, and we must act now to protect it.

Here’s how you can help us fight back: Talk to your community (including young people!) about what’s at stake. If you’re a parent, lean on open conversations and platforms’ existing tools to tailor your child’s experiences instead of handing that power over to the government. And no matter where you live, contact your government representatives and tell them clearly that social media bans are not the answer to kids’ online safety.

Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

Filed Under: age estimation, age verification, california, free speech, idaho, illinois, massachusetts, minnesota, moral panic, north carolina, social media, social media ban, south carolina