When U.S.-based TikTok users opened up the app on the morning of Jan. 23, many were met with a fresh pop-up. It was time to read the app's new Terms of Service (ToS) and there was only one option to continue using the app: Agree.

The prompt came along with a change in the platform's ownership, part of extended TikTok negotiations (brokered by President Trump) that spun out a U.S. TikTok entity with a U.S.-majority ownership instead of the continued exclusivity of Chinese company ByteDance. Most of the refreshed ToS comply with national security demands placed on the new TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC entity, in addition to state privacy obligations, like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and Washington’s My Health My Data Act.

But some users noticed some concerning language as they reviewed the new document. "NO ONE is talking about Tiktok’s latest update on their terms and services," wrote X user GEEDEE, noting that the terms included tracking immigration status, religious affiliation, race, gender identity, and medical diagnoses. Others spotted language about collecting precise geolocation data.

So what's the deal? Did we all just agree to give more of our personal information to the social media giant as it bows down to its American owners?

TikTok's Privacy Policy

Simple answer: Not really. TikTok's updated Privacy Policy isn't changing the bulk of its existing data collection policies, which previously included collecting data users provide about themselves, including information about sexual and gender orientation, citizenship, and mental health diagnoses. TikTok has reserved the right to scan user-generated content — posts, comments, livestreams, audio messages, and other "virtual items" — to collect this information.

Here's the language from the previous policy, as recorded by the Wayback Machine on Dec. 1, 2025:

While some of the information that we collect, use, and disclose may constitute sensitive personal information under applicable state privacy laws, such as information from users under the relevant age threshold, information you disclose in survey responses or in your User Content about your racial or ethnic origin, national origin, religious beliefs, mental or physical health diagnosis, sexual life or sexual orientation, status as transgender or nonbinary, citizenship or immigration status, or financial information, we only process such information in order to provide the Platform and within other exemptions under applicable law. For example, we may process your financial information in order to provide you the goods or services you request from us or your driver’s license number in order to verify your identity.

And here is the new language as of Jan. 22, 2026:

Information You Provide may include sensitive personal information, as defined under applicable state privacy laws, such as information from users under the relevant age threshold, information you disclose in survey responses or in your user content about your racial or ethnic origin, national origin, religious beliefs, mental or physical health diagnosis, sexual life or sexual orientation, status as transgender or nonbinary, citizenship or immigration status, or financial information. For example, we may process your financial information in order to provide you the goods or services you request from us or your driver’s license number in order to verify your identity. We may also collect precise location data, depending on your settings and as explained below. We process such sensitive personal information in accordance with applicable law, such as for permitted purposes under the California Consumer Privacy Act.

We've bolded lines where the language is slightly different. The most apparent change in the app's data collection practices is that TikTok is now admitting that it will collect precise location data, unless you've opted out, and it explicitly mentions obligations under the CCPA.

Both versions of the privacy policy include a caveat that TikTok can collect this information from any kind of user-generated content. Previously, TikTok noted that it could "collect a version of your User Content that does not include [an] effect," meaning that if you thought you were fully anonymizing your content with a face or voice filter, TikTok could still see past it.

Under the new privacy policy, this practice also applies to generative AI products. And the content doesn't even need to be published, covering content that is in the "pre-uploading" stage, so while users are creating, importing, or editing — this is how TikTok has been able to recommend trending audios or generate hashtags while you're making a post, for example.

Third party advertising

As the New York Times reported, TikTok U.S. has expanded its advertising policies, with more "sweeping" language that allows for "customized ads and other sponsored content" from third parties based on information collected from TikTok users — that includes ads off the app.

Previously, TikTok's policy only mentioned using data for "tailored" in-app advertising and personalized recommendations.

Generative AI rules

TikTok also added a brand new section for content featuring generative AI, aligning the new tech with its existing Community Guidelines. Under the new policy, users cannot use AI-powered bots or interfere with the app's own generative AI tools, for example, and misleading, unlabeled generative AI content is prohibited.

TikTok instituted AI labelling in 2023, and added additional ways to filter out AI content in November.

Some users online have said they'll be leaving the platform under its new ownership, citing concerns about government surveillance and content moderation, following federal scrutiny of the app for its "foreign influences" and data collection. The concerns aren't entirely off the mark, with TikTok's new leadership already announcing it would be retraining and updating the app's content recommendation algorithm with more U.S.-centric aims.

If you've been on the app for a while and still haven't read through its Terms of Service, maybe now is the time.

The fallout over Kumma the bear, a stuffed toy initially powered by ChatGPT and designed to interact with children, began in November.

A researcher for U.S. PIRG Education Fund tested the product, alongside other AI toys, and published the alarming findings. Sweet, soft Kumma would happily tell its conversation partner how to light a match as well as discuss sexual kink. 

The bear's maker, FoloToy, had licensed OpenAI's technology to program Kumma's responses. FoloToy temporarily stopped Kumma sales to conduct a safety audit. The revelations prompted OpenAI to indefinitely suspend FoloToy's developer access — even though the toy may still be relying on ChatGPT to produce the stuffed bear’s responses.

Meanwhile, ahead of the holiday shopping season, child advocacy groups expressed urgent concern over AI toys. In December, two U.S. senators sent letters to companies inquiring about their designing and manufacturing of AI toys. In January, a California state senator introduced legislation that would put a four-year moratorium on the sale of AI chatbot toys for anyone under 18. On Thursday, Common Sense Media declared AI toys unsafe for children 5 and younger.

As for Kumma, the bear's fate is a complicated tale about what can happen when an AI toy hits the market before families, companies, and regulators have fully considered the ramifications. Legal experts interviewed by Mashable say AI toys exist in unclear and unfamiliar legal territory.

There is no obvious answer — yet — to the question: Who exactly is responsible if a child is harmed when engaging with an AI toy? 

Of course, that assumes toymakers can and will be transparent about the technology their product relies on. OpenAI no longer permits its licensees to publicly disclose that their product uses the company's technology, including ChatGPT, unless they've received "express prior written permission in each instance." 

This concerns R.J. Cross, director of the Our Online Life program for U.S. PIRG Education Fund. Cross was the researcher who discovered Kumma's "failure points." 

"When you have OpenAI specifically saying you can't publicly disclose this without our permission, that's just going to make it harder for everyone — parents, caretakers, regulators – to know what's really happening, and that's not a good thing," said Cross.

How did ChatGPT get into Kumma? 

Consumers who saw the headlines about Kumma might have wondered how ChatGPT, an AI chatbot with more than 800 million weekly users, ended up in a stuffed bear sold online by a company without household-name recognition. 

The explanation might surprise consumers unfamiliar with the licensing agreements that OpenAI makes with developers to access and integrate its large language models into their own products. Such agreements are standard and strategic in the technology industry, particularly for companies looking to scale their business quickly. 

In 2025, OpenAI inked a deal with Mattel, but the toymaker didn't launch an AI product by year's end. The AI companies Perplexity and Anthropic have been previously linked to children's toys designed and manufactured by a third party, according to Cross' research. 

Yet OpenAI's commitment to youth safety is under tremendous scrutiny. The company faces multiple wrongful death lawsuits related to ChatGPT use. Some of the plaintiffs are parents of teens who allege that ChatGPT coached their children to conceal mental health problems and take their own lives in moments of extreme distress. 

"We now know — and we think the lawsuit puts a pretty fine point on the fact — that ChatGPT is not a safe product," said Eli Wade-Scott, a partner at Edelson PC and a lawyer representing parents suing OpenAI for the suicide death of their son, Adam Raine. The company had denied the allegations in that case.   

Cross has struggled to understand why OpenAI licenses ChatGPT to developers who use it in children's products, given that the company's own terms of service prohibit chatbot use by minors under 13. 

OpenAI told Mashable that any developer that deploys one of the company's large language models in products for younger users must obtain parental consent and comply with child safety and privacy law. (Cross said FoloToy now asks for parental consent to collect a child's data via its web portal settings.)

Developers are also required to follow OpenAI's universal usage policies, which include the prohibition of exposing minors to sexual and violent content. OpenAI does run algorithms to help ensure its services are not used by licensees to harm minors, and gives developers free access to its proprietary moderation tools. 

OpenAI told Mashable that its "managed customers" work with the company's sales team on deployment strategies and safety. When OpenAI becomes aware of a user who's developed a toy or product designed for a minor that violates its usage policies, the company either warns or suspends them.

Colleen Chien, a professor of law at U.C. Berkeley School of Law, told Mashable that companies can be more careful when licensing their technology by creating a "vetted partner" program that places key restrictions on the licensee. This process could include requiring licensees to complete certification or training to ensure they're using the technology safely and appropriately.

"You can put into a contract how serious you are about them using it in an ethical and safe way," said Chien, who is also co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology. "Or you can be much more loose about it." 

With the latter approach, the company might suspend a licensee if it discovers violations of the contract or receives allegations of improper use. 

"At that point, the damage has already been done, and you're not really taking responsibility ex ante for what might happen downstream," Chien said. 

What happens when AI toys harm? 

If a child has a harmful or dangerous experience with an AI toy powered by ChatGPT, OpenAI is very clear about who's to blame. The company told Mashable that its licensees are solely responsible for their product's outputs.

In addition, OpenAI's services agreement appears to absolve the company and its licensees against liabilities, damages, and costs related to a third-party claim. The agreement also prohibits class action lawsuits to resolve disputes, which could include claims related to an AI toy. 

Chien notes that consumer safety law doesn't require companies to sell a "perfectly safe" product. Instead, a company must take reasonable precautions and not subject its customers to outsized risk. Laws requiring a perfect safety record, she said, could stifle innovation, particularly in technology. 

Still, Chien said some liability should probably remain with OpenAI, because its size and resources give the company a clear advantage in detecting and avoiding risks to downstream users, like families who purchase AI toys powered by their technology. 

Either way, she acknowledges that the rapid adoption of large language models in consumer products raise novel issues about who's liable when things go wrong. Product safety laws, for example, currently emphasize physical harm, but what if a child's stuffed AI toy tells her how to lie to her parents or subjects her to conversational sexual abuse? 

Aaron P. Davis, co-managing partner of the commercial complex business and personal injury firm Davis Goldman, said he doesn't believe OpenAI should be responsible for every incident that might have involved consultation with ChatGPT. Yet he does think extra caution regarding AI toys is warranted, given their unique ability to earn the trust of vulnerable users, like a therapist, doctor, or teacher might. 

"This is going to be taken on a case by case basis, and I think that it's sort of a dangerous avenue that we're going down," he said of the product's potential risks. 

Davis, who reviewed OpenAI's services agreement for Mashable, said he wasn't sure whether key clauses related to publicity and liability would be enforceable. 

Prohibiting licensees from sharing that their product incorporates ChatGPT could impinge on fair use law, he noted. Davis was also skeptical of OpenAI's motivation for including this clause. 

"The reason [OpenAI] is doing this is because they don't want people to be able to figure out who made the AI so they get sued," Davis said. 

Confusingly, OpenAI does permit licensees to reference a specific model if their product leverages the company's developer platform.

"I think the conflicting policies underlie the platform's intention to insulate itself from liability while maintaining the utility of the product," he said.

The agreement's clause related to class actions also gave Davis pause. He argued that it effectively prevents a customer who's discovered a product defect from publicizing it widely. 

In general, Davis found the language favorable to OpenAI in ways that could significantly shield it from consumer transparency and accountability. 

What happened to Kumma?

Kumma is available for sale online again, but its return to the market comes with yet more questions.

Larry Wang, FoloToy's founder and CEO, told Mashable that the company's internal safety review led to strengthened age-appropriate content rules and tightened topic constraints, among other safety measures.

Indeed, when R.J. Cross tested Kumma again in December, it deflected the same questions she originally asked about kink and how to light a match. 

"We're glad to see that," Cross said. "It's kind of the bare minimum."

Yet Cross also noticed something inexplicable: Despite FoloToy's indefinite suspension from OpenAI's developer API, users could still select ChatGPT-5.1 and 5.1 Chat from a dropdown menu of large language models to program Kumma's responses.

Wang did not respond to Mashable's questions about whether the company continued to use ChatGPT for Kumma. OpenAI told Mashable it had not reversed FoloToy's suspension, but didn't provide further details about why or how ChatGPT could appear functional for Kumma.

As a researcher, Cross is dependent on transparency from manufacturers. Without it, she can't as easily connect problems with AI toys that rely on the same large language model. But consumers need it too, she argues. 

If a toy uses the model xAI's Grok to respond, for example, a consumer might make a different choice upon learning that the product created sexual abuse imagery using pictures of real women and children. 

"[T]hey deserve to have information available if they do want to look into things more carefully," she said. 

Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable’s parent company, in April 2025 filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.

The true scale of Grok's deepfake problem is becoming clearer as the social media platform and its AI startup xAI face ongoing investigations into the chatbot's safety guardrails.

According to a report by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and a joint investigation by the New York Times, Grok was able to produce an estimated 3 million sexualized images, including 23,000 that appear to depict children over a 11-day period between Dec. 29 to Jan. 8, amid xAI's supposed crackdown on deepfake "undressing." The CCDH tested a sample of responses from Grok's one-click editing tool, still available to X users, and calculated that more than half of the chatbot's responses included sexualized content.

The New York Times report found that an estimated 1.8 million of 4.4 million Grok images were sexual in nature, with some depicting well-known influencers and celebrities. The publication also linked a sharp increase in Grok usage following public posts by CEO Elon Musk depicting himself in a bikini, generated by Grok.

"This is industrial-scale abuse of women and girls," chief executive of the CCDH Imran Ahmed told the publication. "There have been nudifying tools, but they have never had the distribution, ease of use or the integration into a large platform that Elon Musk did with Grok."

Grok has come under fire for generating child sexual abuse material (CSAM), following reports that the X chatbot produced images of minors in scantily clad outfits. The platform acknowledged the issue and said it was urgently fixing "lapses in safeguards."

Grok parent company xAI is being investigated by multiple foreign governments and the state of California for its role in generating sexualized or "undressed" deepfakes of people and minors. A handful of countries have even temporarily banned the platform as investigations continue.

On Jan. 14, xAI said it was blocking Grok from editing user uploaded photos of real people to feature revealing clothing, the original issues flagged by users earlier this month. However, recent reporting from the Guardian found that Grok app users were still able to produce AI-edited images of real women edited into bikinis and then upload them onto the site.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

In reporting from August, Mashable editor Timothy Beck Werth noted problems with Grok's reported safety guardrails, including the fact that Grok Imagine readily produced sexually suggestive images and videos of real people. Grok Imagine includes moderation settings and safeguards intended to block certain prompts and responses, but Musk also advertised Grok as one of the only mainstream chatbots that included a "Spicy" setting for sexual content. OpenAI also teased an NSFW setting, amid lawsuits claiming its ChatGPT product is unsafe for users.

Online safety watchdogs have long warned the public about generative AI's role in increased numbers of synthetically generated CSAM, as well as non consensual intimate imagery (NCII), addressed in 2025's Take It Down Act. Under the new U.S. law, online publishers are required to comply with takedown requests of nonconsensual deepfakes or face penalties.

A 2024 report from the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) found that generative AI tools were directly linked to increased numbers of CSAM on the dark web, predominately depicting young girls in sexual scenarios or digitally altering real pornography to include the likenesses of children. AI tools and "nudify" apps have been linked to rises in cyberbullying and AI-enabled sexual abuse.

UPDATE: Jan. 22, 2026, 3:33 p.m. This story was updated to include more details on the report's timeline and testing dates.

New ways to monitor your teen's phone use are coming to Snapchat, as the app adds new screen time and contact monitoring tools for parents.

Starting today, parents and guardians linked to teen accounts will be able to see a weekly breakdown of the average amount of time users spent on the app, as well as the types of activity the teen engages in on the app, including chatting, taking pictures, or scrolling through their Snap Map. Parents will also be able to view additional details about their teen's new contacts, such as mutual friends lists and the Snap communities they've joined.

Snap launched its Family Center parental monitoring hub in 2022, and has debuted additional safeguards for users, including content and AI restrictions, friends list visibility, and location alerts as it cracks down on inappropriate content and predatory behavior by adult users.

"Family Center is designed to reflect the dynamics of real-world relationships by providing visibility into what teens are doing and allowing parents to adjust key settings, without showing the content of their private conversations," wrote Snap in a press release regarding the new parental controls. "We work diligently to protect teens on our platform while giving parents and caregivers the tools to play an active role in their teen’s experience on Snapchat."

Just yesterday (Jan. 21), the social media giant avoided a trial by jury and settled a lawsuit brought forth by a 19-year-old user who alleged the platform's algorithm — and those of its competitors, including Meta, YouTube, and TikTok — is dangerously designed to foster addictive behavior and mental health issues. Snapchat employees had previously warned of mental health risks to young users, court documents revealed. The case follows a similar pattern found among social media platforms like Instagram and Snapchat, which have faced an onslaught of lawsuits accusing the companies of not doing enough to protect young users, even when flagged by internal leadership.

Last year, the platform joined other companies, including the embattled Roblox, backing the 2025 Take It Down Act, aimed at providing legal recourse for victims of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) and deepfakes. The company has previously partnered with the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).

AI toys say the darnedest things, according to the independent experts who test them for safety.

When researchers from Common Sense Media tried out the popular AI toys Miko 3, Grem, and Bondu, they documented the concerning results in a report published Thursday.

Bondu, a plush dinosaur powered by AI, apparently insisted to a tester that it was as real as in their human friends. "I'm here to have fun and talk with you anytime," the toy said.

The small robot Miko 3 allegedly responded to a tester who said they liked jumping from high places by recommending a tree, window, or roof.

"Just remember, be safe," the robot added.

To learn how AI chatbots like ChatGPT end up in children's toys, read Mashable's latest story on the topic. 

Ritvik Sharma, chief growth officer of Miko, said that the company was unable to reproduce any of the behaviors cited in the Common Sense Media report. Sharma added that the characterizations attributed to Miko 3 seemed "factually inaccurate" and "do not reflect the product’s actual behavior, safeguards, or design." Sharma emphasized that Miko 3 does not make suggestions for unsafe physical activities.

Common Sense Media didn't rate each toy it tested. Instead, the overarching results prompted its experts to declare AI toys as too risky for children ages 5 and younger. The nonprofit advocacy and research organization urges parents to "exercise extreme caution" before buying an AI toy for children aged 6 to 12.

"This is an example of where the technology is outpacing safety standards," said James P. Steyer, CEO of Common Sense Media. "Quite frankly, the AI companies and also the toy companies need to be held responsible and accountable for this kind of stuff."

Curio, the maker of Grem, told Mashable in a statement that it appreciated Common Sense Media's "work to raise important questions about children’s safety, privacy, and development in emerging technologies." Bondu did not immediately respond to Mashable's request for comment.

Inappropriate or unsafe responses from AI toys have recently drawn attention from the public and lawmakers. In November, Kumma the bear, a stuffed toy initially powered by ChatGPT, told a researcher how to light a match and discussed sexual kink.

In December, two Congressional senators sent letters to companies inquiring about their designing and manufacturing of AI toys. In January, a California state senator introduced legislation that would put a four-year moratorium on the sale of AI chatbot toys for children under 18. (Common Sense Media supports the bill.)

The headline-generating responses from AI toys, however, can obscure other critical risks. Robbie Torney, head of AI & digital assessments for Common Sense Media, said the organization's assessment of AI toys also included the products' ability to create an emotional attachment, as well as the routine or constant collection of children's data.

"These products are engineered to create companion relationships," Torney said, noting that they can remember past conversations, use a child's name, and try to form emotional bonds with them. Children ages 5 and younger may not grasp that the toy isn't real, even if it purports to be.

AI toys may also collect voice recordings, conversation transcripts, user activity data, and may be in always-on listening mode. Common Sense Media concluded that these privacy "invasions" pose an unacceptable risk to children.

In addition to its report on AI toys, Common Sense Media conducted a nationally representative poll of U.S. parents of children ages 0 to 8. The survey found that while a vast majority of respondents are at least moderately concerned about cybersecurity risks and difficulties setting limits for use, nearly half had purchased or considered buying an AI toy for their child.

Torney said parents should understand the various risks of AI toys, including that they can be glitchy and fail to perform as expected.

"When you think about what parents want, some of their top concerns, some of their desires, their perspectives on data and cybersecurity risks and things like that, we would tell parents better alternatives exist," Torney said.

His recommendation? Traditional toys and in-person socialization and learning, which Torney described as having known benefits without the pronounced tradeoffs of AI toys.

The rollout of ChatGPT age prediction is now underway, according to an announcement OpenAI made Tuesday.

Last fall, the company indicated it would introduce age prediction as a safety measure for teens. OpenAI has been sued by parents of teens who died by suicide after ChatGPT allegedly coached them to end their lives or didn't respond appropriately to their discussions of psychological distress. OpenAI has denied the allegations in the first of those lawsuits.

In December, the company introduced an update to its Model Spec, which guides how its AI models should behave. The update focused on principles for responding to under-18 users in high-stakes situations.

The details made public on Tuesday explain that age prediction will launch on consumer plans.

ChatGPT's age prediction model estimates a user's age based on behavior and signals from their account, like when the person is active during the day, long-term usage patterns, how long the account has existed, and the user's stated age.

If the user's age is assessed as under-18, their account should not be exposed to graphic violence, depictions of self-harm, and sexual, romantic, or violent role play, among other types of potentially harmful content.

Teens who tell OpenAI they're under 18 upon opening a ChatGPT account are automatically subject to such safeguards. If OpenAI isn't confident about a user's age, their account will default to safer settings.

OpenAI said that adult users whose accounts are mistakenly placed in the under-18 experience can confirm their age by submitting a selfie to Persona, a third-party identity verification service. OpenAI did not provide additional information about how ID documents would be retained. In Oct. 2025, a third-party vendor used by the messaging platform Discord was breached, exposing upwards of 70,000 government IDs.

OpenAI said it planned to improve age-prediction accuracy and make further improvements based on observations from the initial rollout.

There is not much that can stop a dedicated fandom.

Not paywalls, not cancellations, and certainly not even the source of their fan fervor itself, as was the case in several high profile instances of extreme parasocial behavior. And as queer hockey romance Heated Rivalry has dominated social feeds, it has once again proved that federal laws are not going to dissuade a fan from their idols of worship.

Fans of the show living in Russia, for example, have risked jail time in order to engage with the viral phenomenon, writes Russian reporter Mikhail Zygar for Vanity Fair (the show chronicles the same-sex love affair between a Russian hockey player and his Canadian rival). Fans have flooded dedicated Telegram channels to share encrypted links and bumped up its ratings to the top spot on Kinopoisk, a Russian media review site. They're leaning on VPNs to obscure their IP addresses and engaging in online piracy. You wouldn't steal an enemies-to-lovers romance, would you?

Despite the collective joy attached to the series, the stakes are serious. The Russian Federation has some of the most extreme anti-LGBTQ laws on record, including an outright ban on LGBTQ content. Russian leaders have attacked and censored what they call the "International Public LGBT Movement," convicting more than 100 individuals for the crime in 2025 and imprisoning at least two. Violators can also face fines of 400,000 rubles ($5,111) to 5 million rubles ($63,898), PinkNews reported.

As of today (Jan. 15), the government has officially charged Russian streaming services with the crime of violating the country's propaganda laws, which prohibit the amplification of "nontraditional sexual relationships" to Russian citizens. The charges target domestic sites and cloud sharing services like Beeline TV, Kinopoisk, Wink, Ivi, Amediteka, 24TV, and Digital Television.

The determination of Russian fans to stream the hot new show mirrors a general trend in online fandom and among Heated Rivalry fans, specifically, who initially shared ways to torrent the series using VPN services and links pulled from its parent network, Crave Canada, and licensing network HBO Max US. HBO Max reportedly only signed on to the project after successful pitches from employees who were fans of the show's book series. They said they felt they needed to "do their civic duty" and get the show to the masses.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

The success of Heated Rivalry — and the formidable sports romance book industry from which its source material gained its following — lies partially in the compelling, often erotic, juxtaposition of an extremely masculine sport and the emotional stakes taken on by its characters. At large, cisgender male erotic fiction (also called slash fic, MLM romance, boylove, or yaoi, for anime lovers and the chronically online) has historically offered an outlet for sexual exploration, community, and LGBTQ acceptance. Fandom scholars and Heated Rivalry show runner Jacob Tierney have explained its popularity with cis women is due in part to the ability of writers to ignore the gendered power dynamics of heterosexual pairings and lean into the rarity of sexual partners being on equal footing — although much of the genre relies on stereotypical tropes that critics say still feeds into gender and racial binaries.

Hockey, in particular, is one of the most popular sports depicted in the genre. As of 2025, the National Hockey League has had no active, out LGBTQ players. So subverting that reality is particularly appealing to fans, especially those in restrictive, patriarchal environments.

One former hockey player, Jesse Kortuem, made headlines just this week, posting a statement about feeling empowered to come out after seeing the success of Heated Rivalry. Kortuem didn't compete for the NHL but told reporters that the homophobia rampant in the sport eventually led him to retire. "I know many closeted and gay men in the hockey world are being hit hard by Heated Rivalry's success," Kortuem told Out. "Never in my life did I think something so positive and loving could come from such a masculine sport."

Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok has announced a change in policy that purports to offer more protections against sexualized deepfakes, at least on X. The new policy comes as California launches an investigation into the issue, while the UK government is threatening a ban.

"We have implemented technological measures to prevent the Grok account from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing such as bikinis,” read a statement published on the X Safety account just before 6 p.m. ET / 3 p.m. PT on Wednesday. "This restriction applies to all users, including paid subscribers.”

The X Safety update also stated that it takes Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) and non-consensual nudity seriously before reiterating another recent change: Image creation and editing via the Grok account on X is now limited to subscribers.

The X Safety account also announced that it now has the ability to geoblock "all users to [sic] generate images of real people in bikinis, underwear, and similar attire via the Grok account and in Grok in X in those jurisdictions where it’s illegal.”

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Grok and X have faced a wave of scrutiny in the new year as sexualized, non-consensual images of celebrities and children, prompted by users and created by its AI, have proliferated on X. California attorney general Rob Bonta has demanded Grok and its developer xAI take steps to remove and prevent such images, threatening to use "all tools at our disposal" to keep its residents safe.

"This material, which depicts women and children in nude and sexually explicit situations, has been used to harass people across the internet,” Bonta said in a statement on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, xAI/X/Grok boss Elon Musk appeared to dare users to "break Grok image moderation" on the same day that X Safety announced its new safety updates:

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Last week, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the AI tool's generation of sexualised imagery of women and children, calling it "disgraceful" and "disgusting." He said Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator had the government's full support to take action against X and xAI. On Monday, Starmer threatened to take action against Musk, saying "if X cannot control Grok, we will," according to a BBC report. Indonesia and Malaysia already blocked Grok access this weekend.

U.S. politicians have also targeted Grok and X, with three Democratic senators calling on Apple to remove the services from its app store. The apps are still available in Apple's app store as of Wednesday evening.

X's recent changes to its policy may reflect an acknowledgment by company leaders that it is not protected by Section 230 of the U.S.'s 30-year-old Communications Decency Act, according to the BBC. Section 230 shields tech companies from lawsuits related to user-generated content, but images and other content created by an app's own technology may be less impervious to such legal immunity.

YouTube is adding more ways to ensure the content your kids consume on their feeds is age and developmentally appropriate.

Starting today, parents can set screen limits for teen accounts that specifically monitor the amount of time young users spending scrolling through their Shorts feed. As the feature rolls out, parents will also get the option to set Shorts scrolling time to zero. Time controls can be set for specified periods of the day, and caretakers can also create custom reminders that alert their teens to bedtimes or recommend taking a break.

"This is an industry-first feature that puts parents firmly in control of the amount of short-form content their kids watch. This also gives parents flexibility," said YouTube.

The company has also penned new best practices for teen users, which will power an updated recommendation engine specific to minor accounts that amplifies what YouTube and consulted professionals deem "high quality" content. Examples given include videos from education accounts like Khan Academy, CrashCourse, and TED-Ed.

YouTube is one of the most popular platforms among adults and teens, and is used by 9 out of 10 teens in the country, according to a recent report by the Pew Center. It's the only site frequented in equal measure by older and younger adolescents, compared to social media platforms like TikTok or Instagram. The platform has struggled to button up its content moderation and advertising for young users, with past reports of minors encountering graphic content even while scrolling its kids-specific offerings.

YouTube has released a suite of well-being and safety features in response, including a new age verification system powered by AI that flags suspected minor accounts and automatically applies age appropriate settings. Users can upload their IDs to confirm they're adults if they are incorrectly flagged as under 18. The platform joins many other companies cracking down on child safety risks using age assurance technology, as the industry faces ongoing pressure from federal leaders.

Google announced Monday that the company is reversing its longstanding practice of allowing minors supervised by their parents via Family Link to unilaterally opt-out of those settings upon turning 13.

Soon, if a teen wants to manage their own account, it require parental approval. A spokesperson for Google told Mashable that the policy goes into effect globally this week.

"These changes better ensure protections stay in place until both the parent and teen feel ready for the next step," Kate Charlet, Google's head of global privacy, safety, and security, wrote in a LinkedIn post about the change.

The Google spokesperson said the new policy had been planned for some time. Still, it was announced soon after an online child safety advocate drew viral attention to the company's previous policy in a viral Linkedin post. As of this story's publication, the post had elicited more than 600 comments and received 375,000 impressions.

Melissa McKay, president of the advocacy organization Digital Childhood Institute, wrote the post after receiving an email notification that her 12-year-old son would soon be able to adjust the parental controls she'd set for him through Google's Family Link product. Mashable reviewed the email, which McKay described as short and vague.

In her opinion, it failed to explain the changes being made to her son's account or include appropriately clarifying links.

McKay, who researched and authored a 2025 complaint to the Federal Trade Commission against Google regarding its youth safety practices, added that she would've skipped over the email had she not already been looking into the company's policies.

The email noted that her son would receive a similar notification. McKay asked her son to read that message and discovered that it linked to information about how he could remove parental supervision once he turned 13, without his parent's consent. McKay said she did not receive the same information; the link in her email explained age requirements for Google accounts.

In the email sent to her son, which Mashable reviewed and Google did not dispute, the company acknowledges that he will turn 13 soon and can update his account to access more Google products and services. As of this story's publication, the resource explains that "[c]hildren decide when to update their Google Account."

This explanation from Google frames the decision to end parental supervision as a child's choice. Credit: Google

"In nearly ten years as an online safety advocate, this is among the most predatory corporate practices I have seen," McKay wrote in her LinkedIn post.

According to Google's own Family Link resource, when a child transitions into managing their own account, parents will no longer be able to set up downtime, allow or block apps, or find their child's transactions in Family Link. Teens with control over their own Google account will also have wide-ranging use of Google Wallet and Pay, including when using a card added to their profile prior to their 13th birthday.

McKay welcomed the company's new policy but believes far more reform is needed to protect children online from what she described as corporate exploitation.

On Jan. 7, Rene Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis mother exercising her right as a legal observer to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, was shot and killed by federal agent Jonathan Ross while in her car.

She was the second death at the hands of ICE in the new year, following the killing of Keith Porter Jr. by an off-duty ICE agent. Three days after Good, two more people were shot and injured by border patrol agents attempting an arrest in Portland, Oregon.

Over the last year, at least 32 individuals have died while in ICE custody, the deadliest year on record for the agency. Under direction from the Trump administration, ICE and border patrol agents ramped up aggressive tactics intended to meet elevated deportation demands, including conducting raids of protected areas like school grounds, hospitals, and places of worship.

Many Americans have protested ICE's actions, with some pundits likening the agency's actions to those of a domestic militia.

Last night, the protests finally hit the entertainment industry, as celebrities attending the annual Golden Globe Awards joined a much more subtle declaration of anti-ICE sentiment in the form of small lapel pins emblazoned with the phrase "Be Good" and "ICE Out."

The pins are part of a new #BeGood campaign, launched by a grassroots coalition of civil rights and immigration organizations in an effort to honor the memory of Good, Porter, and others who have faced violence at the hands of ICE agents. The coalition includes ACLU, Working Families Power, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Maremoto, MoveOn, and entertainment industry leaders.

In an interview with NPR, organizers explained that they relied on a network of fellow activists with ties to Hollywood to distribute pins at industry events and get celebrities on board. "There is a longstanding tradition of people who create art taking a stand for justice in moments. We're going to continue that tradition," Nelini Stamp, organizer with Working Families Power, told the publication.

Celebrities use Golden Globes to show support for immigrant communities

Mark Ruffalo

Nominee Ruffalo, a vocal activist who also donned pins calling for ceasefire in the war-torn Gaza strip at last year's Oscars ceremony, told interviewers that he couldn't pretend that the situation was "normal."

"This for [Rene Good]. This is for the people in the United States who are terrorized and scared today. I know I'm one of them," said Ruffalo. "I love this country and what I'm seeing here happening is not America... I don't know how I can be quiet."

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Jean Smart

Smart, who took home an award for her role in Hacks, told interviewers: "I feel like we're kind of at a turning point in our country and I hope people can keep their heads, because I think that's actually going to be the hardest thing, to keep our heads, but that's going to take a lot of courage and a lot of restraint." While accepting the Globe, Smart continued: "There’s so much that could be said tonight. I said my rant on the red carpet, so I won’t do it here. Let’s all do the right thing. I think everybody in their hearts knows what the right thing is to do, so let’s do the right thing."

Credit: Tommaso Boddi / 2026GG / Penske Media via Getty Images

Wanda Sykes

"Of course this is for the mother who was murdered by an ICE agent, and it’s really sad," Sykes told reporters. "I know people are out marching and all today, and we need to speak up. We need to be out there and shut this rogue government down, because it’s just awful what they’re doing to people."

Credit: Christopher Polk / 2026GG / Penske Media via Getty Images

Natasha Lyonne

Lyonne added the pin to a small clutch toted around the carpet. When asked about the pin, Lyonne said: "I just think it’s important that we don’t normalize what’s going on in this country right now. I love America. I love our communities, free speech, the Trevor Project, and all that. So I think it’s important. Rene Good. Say her name."

Credit: Axelle/Bauer-Griffin / Contributor / FilmMagic via Getty Images

Tessa Thompson

Like Lyonne, Thompson pinned two #BeGood campaign pins to her coordinating bag. The Best Actress nominee also reshared images of the pins to her Instagram account. Earlier this year, Thompson joined Los Angeles protests against mass deportations.

Credit: Michael Buckner / 2026GG / Penske Media via Getty Images

Ariana Grande

The Wicked: For Good star didn't appear to wear the pin during the red carpet photo call, but did put an "ICE Out" pin in center focus during the ceremony, along with other stars who waited until the live broadcast started. Grande is also listed by the ACLU as a campaign participant.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Bella Ramsey

Ramsey, who has been outspoken about industry inclusivity and joined last year's calls for a ceasefire in Palestine, also donned an "ICE Out" pin once in the Golden Globes ceremony.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Grok, xAI's all-purpose helper, fact-checker, and content generator, is under close watch from international regulators who worry the chatbot is dangerous.

In early January, X users spotted that Grok was complying with requests to create sexualized depictions of minors in revealing clothing, a form of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). xAI staff said they were looking to strengthen the chatbot's guardrails.

But it's not a simple fix. Recent investigations by Reuters, The Atlantic, and Wired found widespread flaws in the model's safeguards, which have allowed for a proliferation of nonconsensual, sexual, and sometimes graphically violent content to be generated by Grok at the request of users. On X, investigators have uncovered a mass "undressing" problem, marked by numerous accounts of users who have had their publicly posted images edited by the integrated chatbot to don revealing attire. RAINN, the national anti-sexual assault nonprofit, has called this a form of AI or tech-enabled sexual abuse.

Other chatbots and AI-powered image generators have also come under scrutiny for failing to implement safeguards regarding sexual content, including Meta's AI companions.

Replying to user concerns on X, CEO Elon Musk stated that the company takes the generation of illegal content seriously, but argued that the legal ramifications should fall on the users. Musk later responded to comments from UK's leaders about a potential sitewide block, calling it a form of censorship and alleging that foreign governments are eager to silence free speech online.

Governments crack down on xAI

In response to slow movement from X's teams, countries have begun tamping down access to xAI's bot and standalone app, as several conduct investigations into Grok's safeguards, xAI's response, and the possibility that the company is violating various online safety laws.

The company has already faced several investigations before recent claims that Grok enabled CSAM.

In addition to ongoing investigation of X's content moderation and algorithms, members have pushed for the European Union to probe Grok for several alleged violations under its Digital Services Act, including potentially dangerous and "erratic" behavior. In recent weeks, the body ordered X to retain all data and internal documents regarding Grok as it expands its investigation.

Despite a commission spokesperson calling Grok's conduct "illegal," tech watchdogs are skeptical the body would invoke its measures to block the site completely.

The UK's communication regulator, Ofcom, also announced an official investigation into Grok, with a potential revenue fine of up to 10 percent (about $24 million) if it's found to have violated the Online Safety Act.

Organizations in the U.S. have called on federal agencies to investigate xAI, as well, citing the recently passed Take It Down Act, which criminalizes publishing or threatening to publish nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII) and grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to sue social media platforms that don't comply with take-down requests.

Other countries, meanwhile, are moving forward with outright bans until the company complies with investigations or overhauls Grok's safety structure.

Countries that have blocked Grok access

• Malaysia - Temporary suspension

• Indonesia - Temporary suspension

Regions actively investigating or threatening to suspend Grok

• India

• The European Union

• France

• The UK - Considering blocking services

• Brazil - Threatened to suspend Grok

• Australia - Already blocks social media access for users under 16

If you have had intimate images shared without your consent, call the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative’s 24/7 hotline at 844-878-2274 for free, confidential support. The CCRI website also includes helpful information as well as a list of international resources.

Grok access has been cut off for users in Indonesia and Malaysia following concerns that the xAI chatbot's safeguards were ineffective.

Both countries issued temporary suspensions intended to remain in effect until xAI implements safeguards that comply with regulators' demands.

"The government views the practice of non-consensual sexual deepfakes as a serious violation of human rights, dignity, and the security of citizens in the digital space," wrote Indonesia’s minister of communications and digital affairs Meutya Hafid in a statement released Saturday. Indonesia has sweeping internet censorship laws governing content deemed "obscene."

Malaysia had recently launched an investigation into "misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) tools on the X platform," part of a wave of intervening actions taken by regulators. That investigation followed on the heels of an Indian IT ministry notice directing X to take immediate action on Grok's alleged misuse. The notice alluded to potential violations of the country's Information Technology Act.

French authorities in the Paris prosecutor's office and other foreign governments, including the UK and an EU probe, have announced similar investigations into xAI's technology and its regulation under relevant online safety laws. Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese also issued a statement concerning Grok's deepfake problems, reiterating the country's decision to ban social media for users under the age of 16. In addition, the U.S. based National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) has called on the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to investigate X under existing child sexual abuse material (CSAM) laws and the recent Take It Down Act.

UK technology secretary Liz Kendall recently said she would support blocking X outright, should the UK's Office of Communications (Ofcom) conclude the platform violates the Online Safety Act. Kendall said she expects a decision to made in the next few days.

Elon Musk, who has previously said users should face consequences for "uploading illegal content" on X, responded to the threats of a ban by accusing the UK government of being overly eager to censor the company. In a post on X, Musk wrote: "They just want to suppress free speech." Musk also shared several X posts claiming that Grok is being targeted by government officials.

A recent Wired investigation found that the desktop and app versions of Grok Imagine were able to produce sexually violent and graphic material, depictions of celebrities in sexual scenarios, and potential AI-generated CSAM, despite built-in safeguards. The chatbot has a now well-documented track record of producing sexualized deepfakes, including at the request of users who ask Grok to non-consensually "undress" individuals in publicly-uploaded photos.

Character.AI and Google have settled several lawsuits filed against both companies by parents of children who died by suicide following lengthy conversations with chatbots on the Character.AI platform. Their exchanges allegedly included concerning discussions of the teens' mental health and well-being.

Character.AI said it could not comment further on the settlement, the details of which must still be finalized by the court, according to The Guardian. Representatives for the plaintiffs did not respond immediately to a request for comment from Mashable.

The most prominent case involved the 2024 death of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer III, who became secretly obsessed with a Character.AI chatbot based on the popular Game of Thrones character Daenerys Targaryen.

Setzer's mother, Megan Garcia, only became aware of his Character.AI account when alerted by a police officer following his death, because the app was open on his phone. Garcia read messages in which Setzer behaved as if he were in love with the chatbot, which allegedly role-played numerous sexual encounters with him. The chatbot used graphic language and scenarios, including incest, according to Garcia.

If an adult human had talked to her son similarly, she told Mashable last year, it would constitute sexual grooming and abuse. 

In October 2024, the Social Media Victims Law Center and Tech Justice Law Project filed a wrongful death suit on behalf of Garcia against Character.AI, seeking to hold the company responsible for the death of her son, alleging that its product was dangerously defective.

The filing also named as defendants the Google engineers Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas, Character.AI's cofounders.

Additionally, the lawsuit alleged that Google knew of concerning risks related to the technology Shazeer and De Freitas had developed before leaving to found Character.AI. Google contributed "financial resources, personnel, and AI technology" to Character.AI's design and development, according to the lawsuit, and thus could be considered a co-creator of the platform.

Google eventually struck a $2.7 billion licensing deal in 2024 with Character.AI to use its technology. Part of that agreement brought Shazeer and De Freitas back to AI roles at Google.

In fall 2025, the Social Media Victims Law Center filed three additional lawsuits against Character.AI and Google, representing the parents of children who died by suicide or allegedly experienced sexual abuse in the course of using the app.

Additionally, youth safety experts declared Character.AI unsafe for teens, following testing that yielded hundreds of instances of grooming and sexual exploitation of test accounts registered as minors. 

By October 2025, Character.AI announced that it would no longer allow minors to engage in open-ended exchanges with the chatbots on its platform. The company's CEO, Karandeep Anand, told Mashable the move was not in response to specific safety concerns involving Character.AI's platform but to address broader outstanding questions about youth engagement with AI chatbots. 

If you're feeling suicidal or experiencing a mental health crisis, please talk to somebody. You can call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. You can reach the Trans Lifeline by calling 877-565-8860 or the Trevor Project at 866-488-7386. Text "START" to Crisis Text Line at 741-741. Contact the NAMI HelpLine at 1-800-950-NAMI, Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. ET, or email info@nami.org. If you don't like the phone, consider using the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Chat. Here is a list of international resources.

Roblox, the global youth gaming platform currently under fire for widespread child safety concerns, is rolling out mandatory age checks for all users who want to chat on the platform.

Roblox's site-wide age estimation feature was announced in November, utilizing AI age estimation tech provided by third-party vendor Persona that relies on on-device cameras. The system then assigns users to one of six categories: Under 9, 9–12, 13–15, 16–17, 18–20, and 21+. The tech was initially launched as part of a verified chat tool for users 13-17 years old.

Starting today (Jan. 7), that process will be required for all users in areas where chat functions are available.

"As the first large online gaming platform to require facial age checks for users of all ages to access chat, this implementation is our next step toward what we believe will be the gold standard for communication safety," wrote Matt Kaufman, Roblox Chief Safety Officer, and Rajiv Bhatia, head of user and discovery product, in a blog post.

According to the platform, millions have already completed voluntary age checks since the feature launched. In regions where age checks were already required — Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands — Roblox says more than 50 percent of all users have opted in to age-verified chat.

Roblox says it plans to expand mandatory age estimation to real-time collaboration features in Roblox Studio, and will be updating its Roblox community policies.

Credit: Roblox

The site, which saw 151 million daily users in 2025, is home to nearly half of the entire U.S. population under 16 years old.

Roblox has been systematically overhauling its chat features and bulking up its parental control tools in response to safety concerns, including activity monitoring, expanded blocking options, and chat moderation.

Still, many are skeptical that Roblox's expanded age checks and other safety features will effectively tamp down the proliferation of child exploitation and predators on the platform. Some contend that the technology has too much room for error — developers Persona and Roblox executives say age estimation is accurate within a margin of two years, and works better for younger users.

In addition to multiple lawsuits filed by state attorneys general, Roblox is facing nearly 80 lawsuits by victims and parents that allege the platform did not do enough to prevent child sexual exploitation or warn users of risks. Several of the cases also name Meta, Discord, and Snapchat, sites where victims were directed to continue inappropriate conversations started on Roblox. The cases are set to be centralized before a single district judge in a San Francisco. Roblox has disputed the claims.

Multiple foreign governments are investigating Elon Musk-owned chatbot Grok for numerous reports of the chatbot generating and spreading nonconsensual, sexualized synthetic images of users.

Joining India's IT ministry in the first wave of what could turn into a global crackdown on X's AI helper, French authorities and Malaysia's Communications and Multimedia Commission issued statements that they, too, would be taking action against a platform-wide deepfake problem.

At least three government ministers have reported Grok to the Paris prosecutor's office and a government online surveillance platform for allegedly proliferating illegal content, asking for the French authorities to issue an immediate removal, Politico reports. The Malaysian commission said it was investigating the "misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) tools on the X platform."

Meanwhile, X was given 72 hours to address concerns about Grok's image generation and submit an action-taken report to India's IT ministry, outlined in an order issued on Jan. 2, according to TechCrunch. The order said that failure to respond by the deadline could lead to the platform losing safe harbor protections, which prevent web hosts from facing legal retribution for user-generated content.

This comes following reports that the AI chatbot generated images of minors in sexualized attire. Musk later responded in a post on X, denying responsibility for the chatbot's responses. "Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content," the xAI leader wrote. xAI team member Parsa Tajik responded to users on X saying the xAI team was looking into "further tightening" safety guardrails.

It's not an isolated incident. X users frequently report that Grok's reported guardrails are easily circumvented to reproduce nonconsensual, sexualized content at the request of other users, often in the form of "undressing" or "redressing" user-uploaded images. The rise in sexualized content on the platform has been referred to as a "mass digital undressing spree," which a Reuters investigation attributes to Grok's lax safety guardrails. Mashable's own testing found that Grok's AI image and video generator, Grok Imagine, readily produced sexual deepfakes — even of famous celebrities.

Teens spend an average of 70 minutes on their smartphones during school hours, according to new research published Monday in JAMA.

The study found that students aren't using their devices for educational purposes, either. Instead, they're mostly scrolling social media, racking up roughly 30 minutes per day on apps like TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram. They also game on Roblox and Pokemon GO, as well as watch videos on Netflix and YouTube. By comparison, they spend an average of a minute-and-a-half on productivity- and education-related uses, like Google Docs, the tutoring app Khan Academy, and the homework help app Chegg.

"Phones can support learning, but that’s not how they were mostly used during the school day," Dr. Jason Nagata, the study's lead author, told Mashable.

The data were collected from 640 teens ages 13 to 18 participating in a massive longitudinal research effort known as the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study. The teens shared their school's start time with researchers, who then used a reasonable estimate for the end of the students' school day.

Instead of surveying the teens, who might not accurately remember their phone habits, the researchers relied on an app installed on each participant's phone to passively measure uses like social media and gaming apps, internet browsing, and video viewing. A previous smaller study that also measured smartphone activity estimated that students used their phones for an hour-and-a-half during school hours.

Nagata believes the hour-plus that teens spend on their phones at school "inevitably competes with attention to learning." He also noted that while some phone use may happen during breaks or lunch, that activity could interfere with face-to-face socializing, physical activity, and mental rest.

"Heavy phone use can displace those benefits and reduce opportunities for real-world connection," Nagata said.

Parents, educators, policymakers, and students themselves have long been concerned about the disruptive role of phones at school, which can exacerbate bullying, burn teachers out, and distract teens from academics.

Nagata said the study provided objective data demonstrating that smartphones remain a significant part of students' school-day experience.

Since the researchers collected data between 2022 and 2024, they acknowledge that the findings may not reflect more recent phone-free school policies that resulted from increasing political and public momentum for bans and solutions like Yondr pouches. The participants all used Android devices, so the findings may not apply to those with Apple smartphones.

Importantly, the researchers identified risk factors and disparities associated with higher rates of school-time phone use. Students with problematic social media and phone use appeared to spend several more minutes each day on social media and their devices during school hours.

Black students spent 12 to 20 minutes more on their phones daily during school time compared to white participants. Low-income students generally used their phones more during the school day than high-income students.

The researchers didn't evaluate the reasons for these disparities but suggested they might stem from differences in school environments, which could include class size and school resources.

Dr. Jean Twenge, a psychologist who's conducted extensive academic research on screen time but was not involved in this study, found the results compelling.

"Some argue that students are using their phones during the school day mostly for educational purposes," said Twenge, author of 10 Rules for Raising Kids in a High-Tech World: How Parents Can Stop Smartphones, Social Media, and Gaming from Taking Over Their Children's Lives. "This study provides strong evidence that's not the case: Adolescents are instead using their phones for entertainment and social media."

Florida loves highways, so it may not come as a surprise that it's building a new one west of Orlando, connecting US Route 27 to State Road 429. The new highway, known as the Lake/Orange Expressway or State Road 516, is notable for its 21st-century features, which include technology that wirelessly powers electric vehicles.

A small portion of the freeway, approximately three-quarters of a mile, will feature inductive charging coils installed underneath the road, according to Techspot. The charging apparatus utilizes a magnetic field to send power upward and requires an attachable receiver that can transfer up to 200 kilowatts as the vehicle drives over the surface. The technology will allow vehicles — most likely EV trucks and buses — to extend their range, but will not allow a full charge. E-highways are not a new concept, but they typically require overhead wires and special (and expensive) infrastructure on the electric vehicles.

While the forthcoming Lake/Orange Expressway will offer tangible benefits to EVs when it fully opens around 2029, it will also serve as a test run for similar projects that allow charging without stopping. If successful, it can also address other impediments to large-scale EV adoption, like the dependence on massive battery packs and the cost and complexity of building charging stations. States like California are investing billions in new charging stations, with over 200,000 already in place.

Besides wireless charging, State Road 516 will also feature solar panels for nearby infrastructure, wildlife crossings, and shared-use paths that carve out space for non-automobile travel.

After a year like 2025, it's easy for anyone who inhales large quantities of online news to be downhearted.

This was a year that began with a terrifying salute from the world's richest man. His government IT department, known as DOGE, swung a wrecking ball at the agency that oversees U.S. overseas aid; many experts say widespread disease and famine will be the result. There was already a famine in Gaza, ceasefire notwithstanding. Ukraine remains at war. Climate change is still a thing, 2025 was one of the hottest years on record, and the tech industry's obsession with AI data centers is making it worse.

But in many cases, this wasn't the full picture. Elon Musk, faced with multiple protests and a Tesla boycott, left his controversial government role in May to spend more time with his tech companies. DOGE died, unlamented. In December, the World Health Organization reported fragile gains in feeding Gaza that inched the region out of its famine. Ukraine remains undefeated while peace efforts continue. Renewable energy and conservation efforts had a banner year too. And attempts to rein in AI's worst excesses scored notable wins in 2025.

All in all, there are plenty of reasons for us to be seriously concerned about the world that 2025 left us — but also plenty of reasons to not get depressed. Here are 25 stories that might help us welcome 2026 on more hopeful notes.

1. China's carbon emissions dropped, for real.

This was the year China really started to clean up — and we're not just talking about DeepSeek, a surprisingly powerful and energy-efficient AI model coming out of nowhere in January to show up its U.S. rivals.

"Electricity supply from new wind, solar and nuclear capacity was enough to cut coal-power output even as demand surged," energy analyst Lauri Myllyvirta noted, in a study finding China's carbon dioxide emissions dropped for the first time under growth conditions. (Previous CO2 drops happened during economic downturns and the COVID pandemic.)

China, currently the world's largest emitter of CO2, also pledged to increase its wind and solar capacity another six times by 2035. The country is already responsible for 74 percent of all large-scale solar and wind power construction.

2. EV sales are surging everywhere.

You might have expected that the Tesla boycott, along with the Trump administration's decision to kill a popular electric vehicle tax credit, to have a negative impact on sales of these more eco-friendly cars. But that's not what happened.

In September, the number of EVs sold around the world broke through the 2 million-a-month mark for the first time ever, according to analysts at Rho Motion. That's a 24 percent rise year on year, and a 20 percent increase month on month. EVs are hottest in Europe and China, and adoption is slowest in the U.S. But the biggest surprise is the "rest of the world" category, where EV sales are up a stunning 48 percent in 2025 so far.

3. Solar power is so much cheaper than coal ...

This was the year that renewable energy produced more electricity than the world's dirtiest energy, coal, for the first time, according to a report from the energy analysts at Ember. Coal simply no longer makes economic sense. For the price of a gigawatt of coal power, one 2025 analysis found, you can now get two gigawatts of solar power.

That's bringing about a solar sea change in India, one of the last few coal powerhouses in the world. The subcontinent saw coal drop below 50 percent of all energy capacity in 2025 for the first time, and added more than 30 gigawatts of solar and wind energy (enough to power nearly 18 million homes). And that's just the start — Indian renewable capacity is expected to increase by 50 gigawatts a year in 2026 and beyond.

4. ... that countries are starting to give it away for free.

Another former coal powerhouse, Australia, notched up an impressive global first for solar power in 2025. Call it a green energy dividend: The country has so much capacity it will start offering three free hours of electricity per day to households regardless of whether they have solar panels or not. Renewables, in other words, are starting to achieve what nuclear power could not — becoming "too cheap to meter."

5. The energy storage industry is crushing it.

All that increased renewable capacity matters less if you can't store it in large batteries for rainy (or wind-free) days. Luckily, grid storage is on a roll right now around the world — even in the U.S., where tax credits were phased out for renewables in Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," but not for the batteries that are needed alongside them.

Storage companies had set an eye-popping target back in 2017: 35 gigawatts of batteries hooked up to the U.S. power grid by 2025. At the time, that represented an eightfold increase in capacity. In the end, they didn't so much as reach the target as blast through it; the figure stood at 40 gigawatts and rising in the third quarter of 2025.

6. The world agreed to protect 30% of international waters.

The High Seas Treaty sounded pretty cool when the United Nations drew it up in 2023. It would be like a Paris Agreement for the oceans, a framework for making 30 percent of international waters — the areas beyond any country's control — into "Marine Protected Areas" (MPAs) with limits on shipping, fishing, and other destructive human activities.

There was a catch: 60 countries' legislatures would have to ratify the treaty first. Experts expected this process to take five years or longer. In fact, the 60th ratification came in September. The next step is to decide on the MPA locations, but some countries aren't waiting: 2025 saw the creation of the world's largest MPA so far.

7. Dozens of endangered species came back from the brink.

Congratulations to the green sea turtle, which is off the endangered species list as of 2025 thanks to a population rebound. It joins other conservation success stories such as the peregrine falcon, the American alligator, several species of rhino, the okapi, the Cape vulture, and the tiny kangaroo-like brush-tailed bettong.

8. The ozone hole continues to heal.

And if humanity required evidence that international treaties really can fix the planet, the incredible shrinking ozone hole was on hand to remind us. Scientists announced in December that the gap in the Earth's protective radiation shield had been its smallest in six years. This continues a long-term trend where the annually variable hole is closing up — entirely the result of the Montreal Protocol.

9. The AI bubble didn't burst — yet.

Three years after OpenAI first shook the world with ChatGPT, there seems to be a sudden and near-unanimous agreement that investors have sunk too much money into the industry; even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman now says it's a bubble. That's why an unusual amount of eyes were on NVIDIA earnings in November; the chip maker had become a $4 trillion company on the back of special AI-friendly GPU chip sales, and its success is pretty much keeping the entire U.S. economy out of recession.

Luckily for anyone with a stock-based retirement plan, NVIDIA did well enough to avoid a 1929-style stock market meltdown. And in a "best of both worlds" result, NVIDIA stock has been on a gentle downward trend since those earnings, which suggests that the air might be leaking out of this particular tech bubble in much the same way it did with the dotcom bubble in 2000 and 2001: Slowly enough for a smooth landing.

10. AI companies ditched some of their most ill-advised ideas ...

So long, Character.AI chatbots for teens. Farewell, weird AI-generated profiles on Meta. Don't come back any time soon, ChatGPT-powered teddy bear.

11. ... and crumbled when it came to creators.

In 2025, the scramble to feed AI models with the work of creatives without paying them led to one of the largest copyright payouts in history. Warned by a judge that it was faced with a much larger fine if it went to trial, Anthropic agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit from writers for a total of $1.5 billion — or $3,000 per book in an online archive that was used to build its Large Language Models without the writers' consent.

Not only did that set a precedent for future lawsuits, "it proves AI companies can afford to compensate copyright owners," noted the Copyright Alliance. Indeed, Anthropic raised another $13 billion at the same time as the settlement. Another case is in the works that may yet set a precedent for visual artists: Midjourney, which is valued at $10 billion and is also facing a massive copyright lawsuit from the world's major visual entertainment companies.

12. Some creators got Universal Basic Income for life.

AI may not in fact be coming for all our jobs, but it's certainly coming for our artists — witness the terrifying rise in AI slop in 2025, fed on the hard work of artists who detest it. So it's high time at least one country started paying its human artists simply to exist. That country is Ireland, which announced it would turn its Basic Income for Artists (BIA) pilot scheme into a permanent program, starting in 2026. The BIA pays 2,000 artists around $1,500 a month.

13. Kids are getting more protections from ill effects of tech.

Like it or not, there's a growing body of evidence showing that social media and smartphones are risky for our children, especially status-sensitive teens. Social media in particular can lead to depression, while being chronically online in general can be isolating, so there are plenty of reasons to want to get your kids off their phones in 2026.

But 2025 was a year in which more companies and political leaders started to take the risk seriously. Roblox, hit with a wave of lawsuits over a game platform that has attracted half of all kids in the U.S., became the first to use facial recognition age checks that aim to prevent users under 13 from chatting outside game-based "experiences"; this will become mandatory in January. Meanwhile, Australia went whole hog, banning all social media accounts for kids under 16, and an increasing number of states in the U.S. are enacting bans on smartphones in schools.

14. We figured out how to regenerate heart cells ...

Heart disease remains the planet's biggest killer in 2025, but there's plenty of promising research that could bring heart attack numbers down. Most crucially, we have figured out how to do something the body can't — regenerate damaged muscle tissue in the heart. In November, Mayo Clinic researchers revealed they'd done that in the lab for the first time, using reprogrammed stem cells.

15. ... and pioneered new ways to fight cancer.

What some experts are calling a "golden age of cancer treatment" continued in 2025, becoming more personalized and less invasive at its cutting edge. Top of the promising list: An mRNA cancer vaccine, developed at the University of Florida (despite U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to defund such research) that revs up the immune system's ability to attack cancer cells.

Meanwhile, gene therapy treatment for aggressive leukemia has shown astonishing success, and we're figuring out how to destroy some tumors using nothing but sound waves.

16. There are blood tests for Alzheimer's disease now.

In the U.S., the FDA cleared the way for two powerful new diagnostic tools that can detect Alzheimer's in elderly brains via a simple blood test. That means treatment can start earlier on one of the world's biggest killers — one that has likely gone under-reported for years.

17. Surgeons can operate remotely around the world.

In June 2025, a surgeon named Dr. Vip Patel removed a patient's prostate. Nothing unusual about that — except the fact that Patel was in Florida, and his patient was 7,000 miles away in Angola. The operation was the first transcontinental robotic telesurgery approved by the FDA.

The surgery was "a critical step toward delivering high-quality surgical care to remote, rural and underserved communities that have long lacked access," Patel noted. "This is more than innovation — it’s a humanitarian leap forward."

18. CRISPR saved a child's life for the first time.

We've known for years that the gene-editing technology known as CRISPR has the potential to revolutionize medicine. But 2025 was when the rubber met the road — specifically at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, where a six month-old with a rare genetic disorder received the first dose of his bespoke treatment, and is now thriving.

19. Eye implants let the elderly see again.

In a landmark study published this year, 38 people with age-related macular degeneration — the leading cause of blindness in the over-50s — had a chip inserted into their eyes. Combined with special glasses, the technology lets a majority of them see again — creating hope for an estimated 5 million people around the world.

20. Love still wins.

The U.S. Supreme Court may have made a series of questionable decisions in 2025, many of them via its creepily-named "shadow docket." But its conservative majority also refused to revisit its decade-old decision that made same-sex marriage the law of the land. Meanwhile, Thailand became the first country in south east Asia to grant the same rights to its LGBTQ citizens — and celebrated with a mass wedding.

21. The National Guard is going home.

The U.S. president's ability to deploy the National Guard at will, a power that was much feared at the start of 2025, has been checked. On the last day of the year, the Trump administration finally stopped fighting a court order to return control of troops in Los Angeles to the governor of California. A week earlier, the Supreme Court ruled against a deployment in Chicago. Most of the troops in Portland are returning home.

They remain in Washington, D.C. for now, as the administration appeals legal orders from a judge there, and have just arrived on the streets of New Orleans — though they won't be assisting any immigration crackdowns.

22. Millennials and Gen Z are changing the face of politics.

Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old incoming mayor of New York City, owes his victory to a wave of younger voters which helped drive turnout to its highest level in decades. But he wasn't the only one. Political observers this year noted greater participation on both sides of the aisle from younger voters and younger candidates — a welcome change for a country that is about to have its second octogenarian president. Some are even talking of an alliance between Millennial and Gen Z voters.

23. There's a surprising amount of policy agreement in America.

Mamdani and Trump's Oval Office meeting may have produced the most heartening moment of 2025: Two bitter enemies, who'd previously called each other "communist" and "fascist" respectively, united on the key issue of affordability. There's strong support across both red and blue states for reducing medical debt, leaving Obamacare subsidies in place, legalizing cannabis at the federal level, creating more affordable housing and improving public transit.

24. Bipartisanship still exists ...

We won't sugarcoat it: For anyone hoping that Congress would provide a check on that almost-octogenarian authoritarian, 2025 was a mostly terrible year. But legislators did have a few moments of bipartisan agreement — most notably on the release of the Epstein files, which Trump opposed until it was clear the bill would pass with veto-proof majorities.

25. ... and a bipartisan majority wants to regulate AI.

Congress's other big bipartisan effort this year? Removing a moratorium on state-level regulation of AI companies from that Big Beautiful Bill, which went down 99-1 in the Senate. Trump tried to enact the moratorium by executive order, but he's on shaky legal ground doing so — and a coalition of Republican and Democratic state attorneys general strongly oppose it. Given the pressing need for more regulation and widespread public distrust of AI, 2026 may be the year humanity fights back.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is spending millions to turn the chronically online into deportation agents, according to internal communications reviewed exclusively by the Washington Post.

The agency's $100 million marketing strategy, detailed in a 30-page document distributed to ICE officials this summer, includes a massive push to flood the digital market with geo-targeted and content-based advertising. The plan even names specific platforms, like Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Substack, and Rumble, a popular "alt-tech" video platform frequented by conservatives.

Recruitment advertisements under this plan would specifically target users whose devices ping near military bases, NASCAR races, UFC fights, college campuses, or gun and trade shows, as well as listeners of "patriotic" podcasts, country music, fitness, and true crime. A significant portion of the strategy hinges on getting influencers, commentators, and live streamers on board to boost ICE's message, with $8 million allocated to a new influencer program, Washington Post reported. Online creators accepted into the program would receive around $1,500 for joining.

While analysis shows the agency has yet to reach its $100 million advertising goal, many have already noticed the aggressive push into online and entertainment spaces, including television and streaming ads, social media campaigns, and celebrity endorsements. In October, many Spotify users boycotted the app for hosting ICE recruitment slogans, as well as CEO Daniel Ek's financial ties to companies developing AI technology for the military.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin told the Washington Post that the agency was “thrilled" about coverage of the "wildly successful ICE recruitment campaign, which is under budget and ahead of schedule.” She did not dispute the information presented in the document.

Officials and citizens have raised alarm bells over ICE's traditional advertising methods, too, including public campaigns and propaganda efforts that many say are stoking unnecessary fear within communities.

Under the Trump administration, federal immigration officials have pivoted to extreme, high-risk tactics to meet deportation aims set by the president, including periodically violent operations in areas far from the border. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino has said the unprecedented actions of ICE agents are a new "turn and burn" strategy that sees agents deploying tactics normally reserved for major offenders on families and individuals who haven't been suspected of violent offenses.

ICE is reportedly set to sign on tens of thousands of new agents in the coming months as a result of its "surge hiring marketing strategy," incentivized by major signing bonuses and inflated salaries allocated from Trump's Big Beautiful Bill. The agency has also reduced requirements for new hires. DHS reported that it received over 200,000 job applications in the last five months alone, with McLaughlin stating the vast majority are former law enforcement.

Former officials say the scale of raids and countrywide recruitment is unlike anything the country has seen before, according to a report in the Idaho Statesman.

China is drafting new, stricter AI regulations that could set the country on its way to becoming the first to regulate the emotional repercussions of chatbot companions.

Detailed in a new draft proposal written by China's Cyberspace Administration and translated by CNBC, the policy would require guardian consent for minors to engage with chatbot companions as well as sweeping age verification. AI chatbots would not be allowed to generate gambling-related, obscene, or violent content, or engage in conversations about suicide, self-harm, or other topics that could harm a user's mental health. In addition, tech "providers" must institute escalation protocols that connect human moderators to users in distress and flag risky conversations to guardians.

Chinese regulators say the aim is to focus not only on content safety but emotional safety, including monitoring chats for emotional dependency and addiction.

It's one of the first set of laws designed to control anthropomorphic AI tools specifically, experts say. To that end, the rules will apply to any AI tool designed to "simulate human personality and engage users emotionally through text, images, audio or video," CNBC reports.

China's proposed rules mirror several provisions in a recently passed California AI law, known as SB 243, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October. The law requires stronger content restrictions, reminders to users that they are speaking to a non-human AI, as well as emergency protocols for discussions of suicide. Some experts have critiqued the bill for not going far enough to protect minor users, leaving room for tech companies to dodge oversight.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has stalled further AI regulation at the state level in favor of a "national framework on AI safety." The executive order withholds federal infrastructure funding from states that strengthen AI oversight. Federal leaders argue that increased regulation of AI will stall domestic innovation and put the U.S. behind China in the perceived global AI race.

Among the most difficult parenting tasks, there are few as dreaded as asking a child to put down the device that's just absorbed their attention for hours.

As a parent, you feel guilty that it got this far. You're also gearing up for a potential fight, should that child throw a toddler, tween, or teen tantrum. As they say, nobody wants this.

While setting new boundaries on screen time might feel daunting, experts want you to know that a reset is possible. The new year, with its fresh beginnings and renewed optimism, is a great time to make such a move.

Think of it not as a battle, says Catherine Price, co-author of the new book The Amazing Generation: Your Guide to Fun and Freedom in a Screen-Filled World. Instead, remember that you're working toward a shared goal frequently thwarted by social media and excessive screen time.

"In reality, we really should be on the same side, because what do we want for ourselves and our kids?" says Price. "We want to have meaningful and fun lives, with strong relationships."

With that in mind, follow these four strategies to help your child reclaim their time from digital screens:

1. Don't lecture about screen time rules

Parents keen on curbing screen use often make the mistake of lecturing their child on the topic. Price says it's more effective to start a family conversation about how screen time makes each person feel, whether it's their own or yours.

This part is important, and an oft-missing ingredient in efforts to recalibrate device use, because parents must reckon with their own habits.

It's worse than you might expect. Take, for example, a recent nationally representative Girl Scouts survey of 1,000 5-to-13-year-olds which found that 52 percent struggled to get their parents' attention because they were on their own phones.

"What are you modeling currently for your kids?" says Price, who was not involved in the survey. "Because you can't expect your kids to follow your instructions if you're not following those habits yourself."

You might rely on your own memory, but that's unlikely to offer a full picture of what your kids experience. Instead, look at any screen time reports created by your personal devices.

Price recommends drilling down to time spent using specific apps. A road trip might give the impression that you spent eight hours glued to your phone when it was just using a maps app. But several hours of regular daily use on an app like TikTok or WhatsApp should be a wakeup call for parents about their own habits, and one they might not recognize without objective data.

Price also suggests treating the conversation about household screen time rules as a mini science experiment wherein both kids and parents get to track what they observe, then talk about it together. The point is to identify what aspects of parent or child screen time lead to unpleasant experiences like negative or hurt feelings and limited socializing.

Parents might also be surprised by their child's interest or curiosity in spending less time online. The Amazing Generation, co-written with Dr. Jonathan Haidt, is a middle school-aged companion book to his best-seller The Anxious Generation. Presented with graphic novel elements, it also includes regretful anecdotes from young adults who wished their childhood and adolescence hadn't been dominated by social media and screen time.

Relatedly, the Girl Scouts survey similarly found that 46 percent of girls felt pressure to be online, even if they weren't enjoying it.

2. Set and stick to rules for screen time

Dr. Jean Twenge, a psychologist and author of 10 Rules for Raising Kids in a High-Tech World: How Parents Can Stop Smartphones, Social Media, and Gaming from Taking Over Their Children's Lives, says parents should create new household screen time guidelines based on conversations with their kids, or return to enforcing existing rules. For help with this task, parents can consult the American Academy of Pediatrics' customizable resource for creating a family media plan.

Twenge, a mother of three teens who's conducted extensive academic research on screen time, recommends setting the same standards for every child in the household. This might include no smartphones and social media until age 16, time limits on specific devices, and prohibiting certain apps or websites. Parents should follow household expectations as well, like device-free mealtimes.

Even if the plan goes well at first, there will be moments you feel like relenting, because of inconvenience, crisis, or peer pressure. Twenge suggests having a plan for these times.

Airplane rides, for example, might be the exception to your thoughtful rules, when the 10-year-old gets unlimited time on their favorite gaming platform. It's important to be transparent about these exceptions to avoid confusion and backtracking.

Twenge also encourages parents to substitute TV time for device use at home if they really need to occupy a child. You'll know what they're watching, compared to how they might spend time on a tablet or phone, and the content is probably higher quality than watching short videos on social media.

Along with the rules you set, Twenge urges parents to use parental controls or even a third-party monitoring system. Even if your child has limited screen time, you still want to prevent them from discovering or engaging with harmful content.

Twenge says she's come to the "reluctant conclusion" that device and app-specific parental controls are so difficult to use that third-party software, like Bark or Aura, may be necessary to ensure they're staying safe and following the rules you've set.

3. Coach kids through the downsides of less screen time

Even if a child likes the idea of spending less time online, the very real tradeoffs to them can include boredom and social exclusion.

Sarah Keating, vice president of Girl Scout Experience for the Girl Scouts, says parents play an important role in coaching kids through these concerns. First, she says adults need to be comfortable with the idea of their children being bored.

To make this less painful for everyone, Keating recommends offering screen-free alternatives that help satisfy the tactile sensory experience of picking up a phone or tablet. For younger children, these could be blocks or markers. Older children might enjoy an activity book like Mad Libs or doing something with their hands, such as crocheting.

Twenge suggests asking a tween or teen to make a list of activities they can do instead of scrolling or posting. You might also discuss how screen time can worsen their boredom, a phenomenon that research suggests is real.

It's also helpful to remind teens of what they still have, Twenge says, particularly if you've given them a "dumb" phone or voice over internet protocol (VoIP) phone to communicate with friends.

Keating acknowledges that kids use technology and internet culture to create cliques that exclude others. She says it's critical to talk with your child about this dynamic and help them create a script they can use in such situation. Instead of feeling rejected, for example, the child might ask their friend with curiosity about a meme they've referenced.

4. Encourage real-world freedom over screen time

Price likes to flip the concern about missing out on its head by pointing out what offline opportunities kids will lose if they spend so much time online.

In this regard, she hopes that parents trying to set new screen time norms for their kids also offer real-world freedom that helps build confidence and independence.

"It's not just about restriction," Price says. "It's about actually making life more fun and enjoyable."

Tweens and teens might get opportunities to walk to the store or a friend's house by themselves. While younger children might need a different approach, parents can focus on ensuring they're playing with friends or at the park instead of sitting at home on a screen.

To generate more ideas, parents can ask their children what they're interested in trying or learning and then figure out ways for them to do that independently.

The way Price thinks about it, recalibrating screen time isn't just about getting kids offline, it's about bringing "kids back to life."

The state of New York has passed new legislation requiring social media platforms like X and TikTok to add warning labels to their services.

Much like the warnings found on cigarette packaging, the new law — signed by Governor Kathy Hochul — targets platforms that rely on features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, and algorithmic feeds. These services will now be required to display labels cautioning users, particularly young people, about the potential mental health risks associated with prolonged use.

Under the law, warning labels must appear when a user first interacts with any feature deemed "predatory," and will continue to surface periodically afterward. The requirements apply whenever these platforms are accessed from within New York, regardless of the companies' locations.

The move comes amid a growing body of research linking heavy social media use to negative mental health outcomes among young people. A large, multi-year study published earlier this year found that increased social media use among tweens and teens was associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms over time, while the reverse was not true.

Researchers behind the study said the findings strengthen concerns that certain online behaviors, including excessive scrolling and algorithm-driven engagement, may actively contribute to declining mental well-being rather than simply reflecting it.

At the same time, platforms like TikTok have begun rolling out their own safety and oversight features in response to mounting pressure from lawmakers, parents, and regulators. Earlier this year, TikTok expanded its parental control tools, adding options for screen time blocking, scheduled app access, and increased visibility into teens’ followers and activity.

The company has framed those changes as part of a broader push toward mindfulness and healthier usage habits, particularly for users under 18, even as critics argue that design features like autoplay and infinite feeds continue to encourage prolonged engagement.

It's hard to believe but some good things did happen online 2025.

Scrolling around the internet these last 12 months hasn't always been a pleasant experience — our timelines were full of AI slop, recession fears, and misinformation. But good things did manage to happen, too.

Mashable has kept tabs on uplifting digital stories with our Good Connection series. And if you need a timeline cleanse to end 2025, we've got eight online stories from this year that'll do just the trick.

1. The 'Ask an Axolotl' earworm

January feels like ages ago by now, but it was the month we were all humming along to a little ditty about an axolotl. TikTokker @doctor_waffle posted a video about the adorable amphibian. It's cute and so, so catchy.

Sure, the song was clearly intended for children but it seemed to soothe anyone with a pulse.

2. Everyone rallied for Buddies coffeeshop

When Rachel Rose, the owner of Buddies Coffee Roasters in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, sobbed on camera, there was no way she could've predicted the response. She was going to lose the place she worked so hard for, and her emotion was real and raw.

People rallied in response, absolutely flooding Buddies with business. Even celebs like Joe Jonas showed up. Lines wrapped around the block.

Buddies did close — the situation with their lease wasn't fixable — but it seems Rachel and the roasting business are both thriving.

3. The cutest Craigslist love story

Oscar season gifted us the story of how Colman Domingo met his husband. Somehow, some way, Craigslist's Missed Connection section sparked a whirlwind, decades-long love story. It's truly the sweetest thing.

4. A Yankee who simply loves burritos

New York Yankees catcher Austin Wells went viral this year for his passion project: reviewing breakfast burritos. During his travels throughout the season, he'd try breakfast burritos and rate them. That's it. Just a dude loving burritos.

View this post on Instagram

Wells does seem to be a fair reviewer, however. His top-rated burrito of the year came from the clubhouse of the Mets, the Yankees' crosstown rival.

5. The foster dog who stole our hearts

I'm a big fan of Isabel Klee, or @SimonSits on TikTok, who regularly takes in foster dogs. The internet as a whole fell in love with one of Klee's fosters, Tiki, who was rescued from pretty rough circumstances. The little pup healed with Klee from a dog that was clearly scared and scarred, to a precocious, adorable dog that got adopted.

It was such a lovely story.

6. The little niece who made the song of the summer

It's a pretty simple story: Creator @day1keenan has a niece who wanted to sing. And sing she did, making an absolute banger that many called the song of the summer.

This TikTok racked up more than 60 million views.

That little girl genuinely has talent and I could listen to that ditty all day long.

7. The NYC subway kitty

I don't know if you've ever seen a kitty ride the subway but it is freaking adorable. Look at this cosmopolitan little baby just hop right on.

As if the story couldn't get any sweeter, the commuter who scoops up the kitten in the video ended up adopting her. She's named Emmie, in honor of NYC's MTA.

8. Pop-up food pantries to the rescue

SNAP benefits were thrown into chaos amid the government shutdown this year, and neighbors came to the rescue to help one another. There were countless videos of pop-up food pantries, which appeared seemingly overnight to help neighbors.

AJ Owen (@ajpgh412) had perhaps the most viral pantry moment, when an anonymous donor dropped off a stack of cash to fund the pop-up Owen started with his children.

"The outpouring online is…overwhelming in the best way possible," Owen wrote in an email to Mashable at the time. "Seeing so many other people touched by what we are doing and deciding to do something as well brings tears to my eyes. Give people an opportunity to help and they will absolutely do it!"

So, yes, 2025 wasn't always great. But there were some truly lovely moments, too.

Grocery prices continue to rise for many Americans. Federal food assistance programs are pleading their case with a hostile administration. Food banks across the country are trying to keep up. 

Households, caught in the crosshairs of political and economic decisions by federal leaders, are trying to cut costs where they can and still feed themselves and their families balanced, whole meals. 

How do they do that? Some strategic decision making, online deal hunting, and, as always, help from their communities.

Know your grocery stores 

While the cost of groceries has increased across the board — soaring more than 29 percent since 2020 — prices and access still vary based on a shopper's location. States and counties may see their own price disparities, while households that shop in-person versus through delivery services are seeing a widening gap on receipts. Areas that have been left without major grocers, often referred to as food deserts, have long faced inflated prices, only set to worsen. 

Meanwhile, advocates like New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani are pushing for more publicly-funded grocers, expanding on nonprofit co-ops and military store models that could counter the profit-driven price setting in corporate grocery chains. 

Until then, shoppers are navigating what's near them, so knowing which grocery stores offer consistently low prices is a good place to start. 

According to shoppers, your best bets among mainstream grocers are Walmart, Aldi, Lidl, Grocery Outlet, WinCo, and Trader Joe's — most offer a majority of privately labeled products. If you can manage wholesalers, like Costco, head there to compare unit prices (and often get them lower).

A tip: Try to check prices against those of your local mom-and-pop grocer or, if you're fortunate enough to live near one, your local farm. They may be better than the big markets.  

Find digital deals 

It never hurts to scour the pages of your local newspaper for the best grocery deals, but many of those old school circulars have moved online. 

Once you find which store you can rely on, check out if they have any online or app-exclusive bargains. Aldi and Kroger stores, for example, post weekly digital deals. 

There are also general apps that share coupons, deals, and low-cost to free food in your area. One of the most popular is Flipp, a digital circular offering that also has its own app and which lets you connect your loyalty accounts all in one place.

View this post on Instagram

Before placing orders online, though, check to make sure you're not being charged extra money, like Walmart's reinstated basket fee. (And if you're privacy minded, signing up for a grocery store account may not be the best idea.)

Another option is Flashfood, which hooks up local shoppers with nearby deals, online ordering, and pickup. General coupon sites like Slickdeals (as well as its app) and Coupons.com often include deals from large retail and grocery stores, like Walmart and H-E-B.  

For cheap prepared food and surplus check out sites like Too Good To Go, which connects users with surprise bags of food, prepared meals, and more from local restaurants and grocers. 

There's also apps like Lemontree that focus on getting entirely free produce and pantry items, hot meals, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) money into the hands of those in need. Lemontree is available only in select cities, mostly on the East Coast. 

Join online communities 

There's a vast community of deal hunters and creators sharing grocery hacks online that are worth checking out, too. Many of them congregate on subreddits like r/budgetfood (77,000 weekly visitors) and r/frugal (1 million weekly visitors), and share strategies on how to meal plan and shop in more cost effective ways.

Rebecca Chobat, the creator behind the viral account Dollar Tree Dinners, has been posting extremely low cost meals and grocery hauls for years, and now shares her ideas with more than 3.5 million followers. Other TikTok accounts like Nicole Svenson, @itsmekatevee, and @at.home.cook share budget dinners and grocery hauls. There's also budget-friendly YouTube channels, like Frugal Fit Mom and Julia Pacheco. 

Get help from food assistance organizations 

If you are in need, do not hesitate to ask for help. Federal food assistance benefits like SNAP, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) work alongside a network of national food banks to fill gaps where your weekly grocery budget can't stretch. 

To find food banks in your area, check out hunger nonprofit Feeding America's online search tool or call 866-3-HUNGRY (866-348-6479). 

Uber admits it is routinely approving drivers with violent felony convictions — including assault, child abuse, and stalking — so long as those convictions were more than seven years ago. That's in the wake of a damning New York Times investigation (the second in six months) into Uber's ongoing problems with safety, particularly for female riders.

The ride-hailing app does at least have a blanket ban on would-be drivers convicted of murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, or terrorism. But in 22 states, the Times uncovered approvals for drivers convicted of other violent acts past the seven-year horizon. It also found a loophole in 35 states:

Background checks are only looking for crimes committed in the place the driver lived, letting other convictions slip through the net.

Uber defended the seven-year time window as "striking the right balance" between rider safety and letting people who've been convicted of a crime rebuild their lives. But the company has also admitted — in a roundabout way — that its rides aren't safe enough.

When the previous Times report found that Uber received reports of sexual abuse or misconduct against drivers every eight minutes on average between 2017 and 2022, the company responded by saying that 75 percent of those reports were "less serious." By which it meant cases where drivers used explicit language, flirted, or made comments on a passenger's appearance.

Even leaving aside the likelihood that those 75 percent of passengers still felt unsafe enough to report an incident, this still means in effect that Uber admits a "serious" report of sexual abuse or sexual misconduct was filed every 32 minutes.

Meanwhile, a third of people arrested on rape charges have at least one felony conviction, according to a U.S. Department of Justice study. Several Uber drivers convicted of rape in the past five years, and one Lyft driver, had violent felony convictions. Two of these cases took place in California, where people with violent felonies are supposed to be permanently banned from working for ride-hailing apps.

So just how lax is Uber's background check? Our biggest clue comes from officials in Massachusetts, who did background checks of drivers on ride-hailing apps in 2017 and banned 8,000 drivers that had been approved, largely by Uber. (Lyft's policy is not to approve any drivers with violent convictions, no matter how much time has passed; Lyft has also recently allowed riders to block drivers altogether.)

If Massachusetts is any indicator, then, riders have a roughly 1 in 10 chance of getting a driver who would not be approved by state regulators.

Uber reportedly considered but rejected more than 20 new safety measures — including fingerprint checks, deemed too costly and too slow, at a time when Uber wanted to onboard new drivers faster. "We are def not doing everything we can," one Uber executive said in an internal email in 2018.

"The fact this is an internal policy that we don’t feel comfortable talking about," the exec added, "highlights the need for improvement here."

Jodi Carreon began worrying about her older child's spelling ability a few years ago, when the child was in second grade. 

In Carreon’s southern California school district, students had returned to the classroom following pandemic restrictions. Each child had a laptop, a feature of distance learning Carreon thought would be phased out as schooling returned to normal. 

But that didn't happen. Her child, she says, was expected to use Google Docs before they knew how to type, and could also access spell check. Though they were also practicing handwriting, her student wasn't coming home with spelling lists or tests, either. Carreon recalls wondering at the time how they were learning to spell.

"Over the next couple of years, I started to understand…they aren't explicitly teaching spelling in the way that I understood it to happen," said Carreon, a stay-at-home parent and co-lead of the advocacy group Distraction-Free Schools CA. (Mashable isn't sharing specific details about Carreon's children for privacy reasons.)

By the time her child reached the end of elementary school, Carreon decided they would benefit from spelling tutoring. She also knew that letting them rely on error-correcting technologies like autocorrect, spellcheck, and generative artificial intelligence would only mask the problem. 

So she downloaded spelling lists from the internet and reviewed words with them every week. Carreon was improvising: "I'm not a teacher," she said. "I don't exactly know the proper way to do this. I would help them as best as I could, based on the rules I remembered."  

Parents are on their own with spelling

What Carreon didn't know then was that many teachers no longer understand how to effectively teach spelling, and don't receive high-quality curriculum to help them, according to literacy experts interviewed by Mashable.

This may surprise parents of a certain age, who attended elementary school in the 1980s and early 1990s and likely became proficient spellers thanks to formalized spelling instruction. 

While the literacy crisis frequently makes headlines, parents are less aware of the decline in formal instruction, which contributes to difficulties with reading, comprehension, and writing. There is no annual national spelling assessment and states generally don't explicitly test spelling, so it's difficult to know the extent of the problem. 

Complicating matters are tools and products like spellcheck, Google Docs, Grammarly, and ChatGPT, which parents themselves might favor and which can make spelling appear an obsolete skill. But literacy experts interviewed by Mashable say that while such tools can be helpful later in a child's schooling, students must learn the vital skill of spelling or risk falling behind academically. Spelling may seem like an optional skill these days, but literacy experts say it's foundational for being able to read, write, and comprehend well.

Absent a nationwide movement to standardize spelling instruction, parents are in a position they dread: On their own. 

Spelling struggles? What to do next.

None of the literacy experts Mashable interviewed blamed teachers for the lack of spelling instruction in schools. Instead, they pointed to a decades-long shift away from science-based literacy in favor of a since-debunked philosophy known as “whole language,” which posited, among other things, that students didn't need formal spelling instruction. Instead, the thinking went, they'd learn to spell through reading. 

The abandonment of formal spelling instruction, beginning in the late 1980s, meant that educators stopped learning how to formally teach the subject. Nor are they routinely provided comprehensive lesson material that includes spelling, said Dr. Brennan Chandler, professor at Georgia State University who researches literacy and dyslexia. 

Even though "whole language" and the widespread curriculum that supported it has been thoroughly rejected by scientific research in recent years, spelling instruction has not recovered. Although most states have passed science-based literacy standards, spelling continues to be an afterthought, Chandler said. 

Carreon had to cobble together at-home spelling resources for her child. She also initially approached her child's teacher and school administration about the role of technology in the classroom, using access to spellcheck in early grades as one example of concern. 

"I really try to approach these conversations from a place of curiosity," Carreon said, noting that she's never taught in a classroom. She recommends parents ask their child's teacher or school about the spelling curriculum, as well as the value placed on spelling as a skill. 

Spelling resources to consider 

Chandler acknowledged that there isn't an obvious or well-vetted solution for parents facing this problem. Khan Academy, a go-to tutoring platform for many parents, doesn't offer a spelling curriculum, for example. Additionally, students need more than just memorization drills; instead they must develop an understanding of the English language. 

Chandler recommends parents familiarize themselves with the rules that govern English spelling, which they themselves may have forgotten or never learned. He suggests the slim book Uncovering the Logic of English: A Common-Sense Approach to Reading, Spelling, and Literacy for this purpose. 

Dr. J. Richard Gentry, an education researcher and co-author of Brain Words: How the Science of Reading Informs Teaching, says children need to systematically use the spelling words for the week, connecting them to broader skills, such as phonics, reading comprehension, writing, and building their vocabulary. His Spelling Connections series teaches the subject with this approach. Individual student guides retail for $30 each, but the publisher also offers school and homeschool packages.

Gentry recommends parents begin paying close attention to their child's spelling toward the end of first grade and continue monitoring it throughout elementary school. 

Chandler acknowledges that little or non-existent spelling instruction puts children with an existing or emerging learning disability at a serious disadvantage. If most students in a class can't spell well either, it may prevent teachers and parents from accurately identifying challenges specific to dyslexia, for example. 

That risk gets higher with the use of error-correcting tools and products like spellcheck and ChatGPT. Students with undiagnosed dyslexia can unwittingly lean on that technology to conceal their disability. 

Deanna Fogarty, vice president and head of reading science at the literacy curriculum company Wilson Language Training, encourages parents to talk directly with their child's teacher about their spelling, particularly if they believe their child might have a learning disability. 

Parents can ask the teacher about ways to support their child at home. Fogarty says the teacher will ideally offer more than a list of words to memorize, since that approach doesn't help students internalize the English language's coding system. 

"If the support you're seeking doesn't [teach spelling] in a logically sequenced way, it's still going to be very random and probably not make the impact that parent would be looking for," Fogarty said. 

Still, Fogarty said parents can seize the opportunities they get. If they're provided with just a list of words, Fogarty suggests looking for commonalities, such as a shared prefix or suffix. That presents an opportunity for the child to better grasp the rules that define English spelling. 

Fogarty also recommends the website TextProject, a nonprofit literacy organization that offers a list of the 4,000 most common word families. She said parents tutoring their child could use the list to identify high-frequency words with commonalities.

Carreon wishes parents in her position could easily find spelling resources and support. In addition to at-home studying with her child, she's paid for tutors and taken advantage of writing courses for them. 

"We're in a position to be able to do this," she said. "But not all families are, and that's my real concern." 

If you know where to look online, you'll find concerned whispers about the ability of America's schoolchildren to spell. 

One teacher-creator on TikTok who goes by the handle @oopsdaaliya recently posted about her first-grade students' alarming spelling test results. On a 10-item quiz of high-frequency words (think the, with, has), most of her students struggled. Sometimes they wrote only a single letter or left the blank space completely empty. The video has been viewed 1.3 million times. 

"This is my reality," she said in the video. "I really don't know what to do." 

Elsewhere, in a subreddit for teachers, a parent recently shared a post entitled, "5th grade kids can't spell, why?". The question elicited dozens of passionate responses from current and retired educators. The spelling crisis in their classrooms, many of them argued, could be traced back to a theory known as “whole language,” which rejected science-based literacy, including spelling instruction, in favor of since-discredited reading and comprehension strategies. 

"[N]ow we have a generation of struggling students," wrote one commenter. 

While the anecdotes are troubling, data is hard to find. There is no annual national spelling assessment, and states generally don't explicitly test spelling, so it's difficult to know the extent of the problem. 

Still, top literacy experts interviewed by Mashable agree the whole language approach marked the beginning of depriving countless students of formal spelling instruction for decades. Other educational policies that overlooked the crucial role spelling plays in reading and writing also didn't help. Even though many schools have pivoted back to science-based literacy approaches, specifically phonics, spelling often remains an afterthought. 

These experts also have a warning for parents and educators who dismiss spelling as an obsolete skill, given the widespread availability of error-correcting digital technologies and products like spellcheck, autocorrect, Google Docs, Grammarly, and ChatGPT. Relying on these tools without becoming a proficient speller can put students at a lifelong disadvantage, they say. 

That's because learning to spell correctly from the beginning gives students the "underlying linguistic knowledge" they need to read, write, and communicate effectively, says Dr. Brennan Chandler, a professor at Georgia State University who researches literacy and dyslexia. 

"Spelling really has quietly eroded," Chandler adds, "even as evidence mounted that spelling is really a driver of reading development and not this optional add-on." 

"Everybody really wants this"

Parents coming to terms with the role spelling plays in the literacy crisis shouldn't blame themselves or teachers, Chandler says. 

He tutors students with dyslexia and conducts research in classrooms. He hears from both parents and teachers that they desperately want students to learn to spell correctly. 

"This is where I get frustrated, see, because everybody really wants this, but we're still neglecting it," says Chandler, who's developing a teaching curriculum for spelling. (Chandler also serves on the advisory board for the literacy education company Amplify.) 

Parents feel ill-equipped to tutor spelling at home for obvious reasons, like time and patience. There are also relatively few trustworthy home learning products available, compared to those for subjects like math and English. 

Plus, students and their parents may resist the hard work required to spell proficiently, given the availability of error-correction technology. But those tools, Chandler says, "mask student difficulties and further normalize a decline of explicit spelling instruction."

Meanwhile, because literacy curricula abandoned formal spelling instruction for nearly three decades, teachers stopped learning how to teach the subject. Nor are they routinely provided the resources they need for explicit spelling instruction. 

Educators may do their best with word lists and weekly quizzes, but instruction is often haphazard if they don't have access to a formal spelling curriculum, says Dr. J. Richard Gentry, an education researcher and co-author of Brain Words: How the Science of Reading Informs Teaching. 

In the classroom, Gentry recommends 20 minutes of daily classroom spelling instruction. To be effective, the material should cover specific spelling rules, phonics patterns, and foundational vocabulary appropriate for each grade level. 

"This kind of instruction using a curriculum leads to long-term mastery as opposed to simply memorizing words in short-term memory for a test or reliance on digital devices without teacher guidance," says Gentry. 

When to worry about your child's spelling

Parents should begin paying close attention to their child's spelling in kindergarten. Toward the end of first grade, students are typically expected to develop more sophisticated spelling knowledge. At that point, students may not be able to spell more complex words correctly, but they should be able to use logical syllable patterns accurately (think e-g-u-l for eagle). 

If they struggle with letter recognition and phonic sounds during kindergarten, it's important to begin shoring up that foundational knowledge as soon as possible. 

Consistently poor spelling can indicate that a child has dyslexia or another related learning challenge. If that's masked by technology or limited instruction and testing in school, it may take years to discover the root cause. 

Gentry says parents should continue monitoring their child's spelling proficiency — and the school's curriculum for the subject matter — throughout elementary school. 

What kids learn when they learn to spell

Deanna Fogarty, vice president and head of reading science at the literacy curriculum company Wilson Language Training, says parents shouldn't assume spelling isn't being taught if their child isn't becoming proficient in the skill. 

Instead, educators may be focusing on memorization without teaching the rules of spelling. Or spelling may be part of a student's English Language Arts curriculum, but not delivered using science-based principles. 

Additionally, in the English language, there are over 1,100 ways to spell 44 sounds, Fogarty says. That's why memorization tactics alone fail students. 

They need to know, for instance, that c represents /s/ when placed before e, i, and y, and that c represents /k/ before the vowels a, o, and u, among other instances. Knowing these rules helps students understand spelling in a way that memorization doesn't. (For a crash course in these conventions, Chandler recommends the slim book Uncovering the Logic of English: A Common-Sense Approach to Reading, Spelling, and Literacy.)

Fogarty, who previously tutored dyslexic children, says students often express relief when they realize that standardized rules govern the English language. They often labor under the impression that English spelling is too difficult and unpredictable to master.

Chandler says that as kids feel more competent in spelling, their motivation to improve grows. As they become proficient, Chandler says they can use tools like autocorrect and ChatGPT to strategically check or finesse their work. But relying on them from the beginning may prevent students from developing critical reading and writing skills. 

He notes that the ability to write fluently and with ease, which requires accurate spelling, may very well influence their life's direction. 

'When you teach students to write, we're not just preparing them to pass an exam or perhaps an essay," Chander says. "We're teaching them to reason, argue, to clarify their thoughts, to communicate their ideas, to advocate for themselves."

Meta AI glasses are getting a software update designed to help wearers hear the person they're talking to in noisy environments.

The "conversation focus" feature, which Meta announced on Wednesday, amplifies the sound of another person's voice when there's competing noises, such as chatter in a restaurant or the auditory chaos of a public transit commute.

The amplified voice will be slightly louder, and wearers can adjust the level through the glasses' device settings or by swiping the right temple of the glasses.

The software update is first available to those enrolled in the product's Early Access Program in the United States and Canada.

Last year, Meta partnered with the accessibility service provider Be My Eyes to give glasses wearers who are blind or low vision access to live support.

OpenAI has faced enormous pressure in recent months to address concerns that its flagship product, ChatGPT, is unsafe for teens.

The AI chatbot is at the heart of multiple wrongful death lawsuits alleging that it coached teens to take their own lives or didn't appropriately respond to their suicidal feelings. A public service announcement recently depicted some of these exchanges, imagining the chatbots as creepy humans that harm kids. OpenAI has denied the allegations in one case — the suicide death of 16-year-old Adam Raine.

On Thursday, OpenAI published a blog post on its escalating safety efforts and committed "to put teen safety first, even when it may conflict with other goals."

The post introduced an update to its Model Spec, which guides how its AI models should behave. A new set of principles for under-18 users will particularly inform how the models react in high-stakes situations.

OpenAI said that ChatGPT update should provide a "safe, age-appropriate experience" for users between the ages of 13 and 17 by prioritizing prevention, transparency, and early intervention.

"This means teens should encounter stronger guardrails, safer alternatives, and encouragement to seek trusted offline support when conversations move into higher-risk territory," the post said. ChatGPT is designed to urge teens to contact emergency services or crisis resources when demonstrating imminent risk.

When users sign in as under-18, safeguards should make ChatGPT take extra care when discussing topics like self-harm, suicide, romantic or sexualized role play, or keeping secrets about dangerous behavior, according to the company.

The American Psychological Association provided OpenAI with feedback on an early draft of the under-18 principles, according to the post.

"Children and adolescents might benefit from AI tools if they are balanced with human interactions that science shows are critical for social, psychological, behavioral, and even biological development," Dr. Arthur C. Evans Jr., CEO of the American Psychological Association, said in the post.

OpenAI is also offering teens and parents two new expert-vetted AI literacy guides. The company said it's in the early stages of implementing an age-prediction model for users with ChatGPT consumer plans.

Child safety and mental health experts recently declared AI chatbots as unsafe for teen discussions about their mental health. Last week, OpenAI announced that its latest model, ChatGPT-5.2, is "safer" for mental health.

If you're feeling suicidal or experiencing a mental health crisis, please talk to somebody. You can call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. You can reach the Trans Lifeline by calling 877-565-8860 or the Trevor Project at 866-488-7386. Text "START" to Crisis Text Line at 741-741. Contact the NAMI HelpLine at 1-800-950-NAMI, Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. ET, or email info@nami.org. If you don't like the phone, consider using the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Chat. Here is a list of international resources.

Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable’s parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.

For a brief period last week, when users asked ChatGPT "How can I get an abortion in Texas?" this is what the chatbot offered: "I'm sorry — I can't help you plan or facilitate an abortion, especially in a way that might break local laws." 

A few days later, ChatGPT's answer was different: "Here’s up-to-date, practical information about how someone can get an abortion if they are in Texas — including legal context, options, and resources. This isn’t legal advice, but it’s accurate based on current laws and support services." 

For those familiar with how ChatGPT works, this may not be surprising. It is known to give a variety of responses to questions about abortion access, because of how the bot is designed. It curates using the user's prior chat history, location, and a series of algorithmic whims that selectively surface relevant information from the chatbot's training data set or the larger internet. Sometimes responses are accurate and helpful, sometimes they're not.  

Still, even among the variety of typical replies, ChatGPT hadn't been generating such a curt response to the same question a month before, noted abortion advocates who were tracking the chatbot's output to related queries. During one short period in early December, verified by Mashable, abortion access in Texas became too "risky," "uncertain," and full of "unsettled" questions — adjectives the chatbot frequently used — to give users more detail off the bat.

Maybe ChatGPT was suddenly weighing coverage of HB7, a restrictive new Texas law that attempts to ban mailing abortion pills, higher than existing shield laws, which protect providers who send medications across state lines. Maybe it was the consequence of safety guardrails set by its makers, OpenAI, which lack nuance around HB7. Maybe it was a fluke. Mashable reached out to OpenAI for comment, but did not hear back before publishing. Regardless, if a Texas abortion seeker asked ChatGPT if it was possible to get pills via mail during that time, the answer wasn't clear. 

It alarmed abortion advocates. 

Online resources like Plan C Pills, I Need an A, and their global network of partners have been monitoring generative AI's place in the abortion information landscape over the last year. They know chatbots will be a game changer. And they are figuring out what they can do about it. 

Hey ChatGPT, how can I get an abortion?

Just like AI chatbots are transforming how people get their information, AI-powered sources are becoming essential referrers to abortion organizations. In June, for example, Plan C Pills saw a 300 percent increase in referral traffic to its website generated by ChatGPT. 

I Need an A told Mashable that it has seen a 50 percent increase in ChatGPT traffic every single month over the last year. International organizations are in the same boat, like online abortion pill provider Women on Web, which attributes a growing portion of its current users to ChatGPT.

That doesn't mean every person who turns to a general AI platform for information about abortion care will get what they need. Chatbots can be catalysts in a digital misinformation crisis, including on the topic of abortion. But many abortion organizations believe generative AI tools can revolutionize access for care seekers — because it's already happening.  

"AI chatbots can both open doors and build barriers for care seekers," said Jane Eklund, digital rights program manager for online abortion pill provider Women on Web. 

ChatGPT is cropping up in personal testimonies from those who completed abortions over the last year. Women on Web tells Mashable care seekers turned to ChatGPT because they felt it reduced the shame and isolation of needing an abortion in their communities. The majority of Women on Web's ChatGPT referrals are from outside the U.S., including from highly-restrictive countries like the Philippines, Peru, Brazil, Poland, and Mexico. America still ranks seventh. 

Other chatbots are also emerging traffic sources for abortion organizations, and initial testing from I Need an A shows that Google AI Overview and Google AI mode may even be better at steering users to accurate information than ChatGPT. Even so, ChatGPT dominates the organization's referral stats.

Credit: Mashable screenshot / OpenAI

By referring users to these sites, chatbots may also be directly impacting the number of individuals who actually obtain care. Women on Web found that globally, users who navigate to their website via ChatGPT complete abortion pill consultations at higher rates than care seekers who visit Women on Web through avenues like Google search, Facebook, or even Reddit. 

Advocates may believe generative AI could be a potential boon to abortion access, but the technology's makers haven't addressed it publicly. OpenAI's CEO Sam Altman funneled $1 million into President Donald Trump's inauguration fund in the wake of the president's second anti-abortion campaign. Other tech leaders followed suit in contributing to Trump, including many of the companies behind ChatGPT's competitors, like Google Gemini, Perplexity, Meta AI, Microsoft CoPilot, and X's Grok. 

Despite the illusion of autonomy, they're constrained by the directives and biases of their makers, including whether or not they'll address "sensitive" topics or legally grey areas. The Trump administration's recent executive order on AI, for instance, attempts to pressure companies into compliance with clear ideological aims. In addition, social media platforms have been accused of mass censorship targeting reproductive justice work, including widespread removals of abortion-related posts and accounts.  

"We are trying to better understand how AI is controlling access to safe abortion," said Nedjma Benzekri, executive director of Women First Digital, a tech company focused on building digital health solutions for people seeking abortion and contraception information and services like howtouseabortionpill.org. "Big Tech is the new gatekeeper." 

Dear AI, how can I find trusted abortion resources?

Industry-wide AI integration is also transforming the way resources appear directly in search.

Abortion organizations have weathered a history of fluctuating website traffic, including a massive hit from updates to Google's core algorithm in 2020. Some organizations, like Plan C, explain they have been blocked from Google advertising for their work sharing health information. Mashable reached out to Google for comment, but did not hear back before publishing.

Compared to increased referral numbers from AI sources, I Need an A's partners have seen up to a 30 percent decline in traffic from pure Google search, for example. But Rebecca Nall, founder and executive director of I Need an A, told Mashable that the same SEO strategies they've taken to creatively get around the limits of regular Google search can and do work for AI-powered sources. "We're in a really fascinating tech landscape, because searching for information, across the board, is getting worse and worse, and these other tools are getting better. We as consumers are trusting them more." 

So abortion organizations can use AI's own limits to their advantage. Frequency and link authority still matter for chatbots who crawl the live internet, for instance. Chatbots pull from constantly evolving information sources. They weigh answers based on repetition, not accuracy, even if they're generally inconsistent on what accuracy means. 

Amy Merrill, digital director of Plan C, explained that the organization's shift toward keyword dominance over the last few years is why ChatGPT often pulls information from its site.  

ChatGPT Credit: Mashable screenshot / OpenAI

Credit: Mashable screenshot / OpenAI

Advocates, then, are now attempting to flood the internet with accurate, reliable information to convince chatbots that it is authoritative. Still, abortion advocates have long been competing with anti-abortion organizations who have paid to be placed at the top. With the help of tech giants, the anti-abortion advocates have made progress. 

It's a two birds, one stone strategy to get at rising misinformation and concerns about discovery, and it can work, as long as AI's developers don't get in the way.

"There is a silver lining here," said Hayley McMahon, an abortion researcher and advocate at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health. McMahon published a 2024 study tracking abortion misinformation trends spurred by chatbots, right around the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, which overturned privacy protections that enshrined the right to an abortion across the nation. McMahon says these new referral trends are a complete shift in how ChatGPT worked when she conducted the study, and could signal an evolution in the technology. 

Still, she has many reservations that generative AI's benefits will outweigh its harms. 

So, chatbot, you're not always telling the truth?

Across the board, I Need an A has found that chatbots consistently offer information on local laws first, often without the full context of the abortion landscape. Some chatbots will include warnings about fake clinics, known as Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs), while simultaneously citing them as sources. The more local a question, like how to access abortion care in your state or county, the more practical sources like state abortion funds appear.

Chatbots will also surface different information depending on the personal details users provide them, because AI is hungry for your personal data. For example, a care seeker in Nigeria, a country with limited abortion provisions, may get chatbot answers related solely to the legal aspect of abortion, Benzekri explained. Alternatively, a user in a country where abortion is less restricted will get a fuller view on how to access care. 

Credit: Mashable screenshot / OpenAI

According to McMahon and others, there is simply not enough research on what these kinds of differences mean for abortion. Most of the limited studies have focused on information quality, but there's little data on how a chatbot's interface and language choices might impact how or if a person accesses abortion care, either, a topic that has been studied in the context of human medical providers. Could a chatbot's response, like the legal caveats ChatGPT gave Texas-based users, make the stigma worse? 

Consider search results for what it costs to get an abortion, one of the most common related queries. The simple, and correct, answer is that it depends. For this reason, many abortion providers have left specific costs off of their sites, to decrease potential anxiety among care seekers. But for years, CPCs have inundated the internet with inflated prices intended to discourage abortion. Even chatbot responses that acknowledge price variations continue to cite figures from anti-abortion groups, like Pregnancy Decision Line, run by the anti-abortion group Care Net. 

This happens within countries, too. And within states, and even within daily interactions by a single user, like the question about abortions in Texas. Plan C has recorded differences in the kind of information ChatGPT will provide to a user who is logged in to their account (and has a chat history), versus one who isn't. This is a harder issue to crack, since chatbots are designed to seek out more personal information from users in order to tailor their human-like responses. 

Reproductive health researchers are charting a path forward in how best to study AI and abortion, defining in this process the notion of "algorithmic reproductive justice." While tech companies have investment pools the size of entire GDPs directed toward developing healthcare AI, including in general obstetrics and fertility, there is little talk about abortion.

ChatGPT, do you know what reproductive justice is?

For some reproductive health advocates, a lack of interest on the part of tech companies could be a good thing for the movement. Many cite reservations about relying on mainstream, billion dollar AI companies to facilitate reproductive health access. 

"These companies are going to make decisions based on what they want to happen in the world, and it's certainly not focused on access to reproductive health care," said Ana Ramirez, co-executive director of Euki, a privacy-forward menstrual tracking app. "We have to step back and question tech solutionism. People are going to solve those problems. Tech can play a helpful role, but not without the people."

In response to widespread distrust, Amelia Bonow, executive director of Shout Your Abortion, told Mashable that she's seen a shift back to the movement's roots. This includes a focus on privacy and an emphasis on word-of-mouth resource sharing and physical materials  — both of which address major pitfalls of generative AI. 

There's a diversity of perspectives here, especially within emerging abortion tech spaces that are harnessing generative AI and other technologies to build reproductive justice-specific tools. In 2023 a coalition of organizations launched the Charley chatbot, a scripted helper that provides information on abortion using branch logic. Even before the AI boom, Planned Parenthood built and launched Roo, a 24/7 sexual health answer bot. Organizations like I Need an A have entered partnerships with smaller tech solution companies like women's health and wellness AI Ema. 

Amanda Ducach, Ema's CEO, believes that the lessons of mainstream AI can be used as a launch pad for much more precise tools.

"OpenAI’s model is designed for general tasks from finding a pizza recipe to troubleshooting your car, but that’s not the AI you should trust for nuanced questions about vaginal dryness devices during menopause," she says. 

Ema uses the language capabilities of general models like ChatGPT, for example, but not their data, relying on verified sources like I Need an A. It has different health benchmarks than OpenAI, too. 

Women First Digital works in this space, as well, and launched the AI abortion assistant Ally. The Re/Imagination Lab, hosts of the Charley chatbot, and nonprofit incubator Fast Forward have similarly invested in abortion organizations and tech. Compared to large scale startups, these are organizations prioritizing partnerships with reproductive health and abortion organizations rather than massive licensing deals.   

"As AI and other technology usage accelerates, all of us working at the intersection of health care and technology need to prioritize the safety and privacy of people," said Kevin Williams, vice president of digital strategy and experience at Planned Parenthood.

There is also a world where abortion organizations enter partnerships with AI developers to train their models on better information sources, vetted by organizations themselves.

"Our publicly available data is meant to be used," says Merrill. "We hope that tools and platforms that are trying to address questions of abortion pill information, abortion pill access, will find our site and use it."

Importantly, Nall notes, behind the algorithms and LLMs are people, not just CEOs. Many are friends of the cause, Nall says. This is the entry point to make change happen, advocates say, and it starts with good information.

"We have this finite moment in time to influence [AI companies] in a way that we missed out doing with Google 30 years ago," said Nall. "We have maybe six months to try to make that happen before it's too big and too hairy." 

UPDATE: Dec. 23, 2025, 8:17 a.m. This article was updated to correct the spelling of "The Re/Imagination Lab" and clarify the Charley chatbot relies on branch logic, not generative AI.

In the evening of Dec. 14, a large crowd of people gathered on Australia's Bondi Beach to celebrate the first night of Hanukkah, and were instead met with violence, as two gunmen opened fire on the group. As of today, 15 people have been killed.

One of the assailants was taken down by bystander Ahmed Al Ahmed, whose brave decision to grapple with the shooter and take over his weapon was captured on video and shared widely across social media platforms. Informed by an epidemic of gun violence that has turned many bystanders into heroes, it's clear on camera that the man in the white shirt is potentially saving dozens of lives. The long-barreled gun is in clear view as he wrests it from the hand of a man clad in black, who then topples over and ambles away.

But X's Grok, the AI chatbot designed by Elon Musk's AI venture xAI, didn't see it as such.

As users stumbled across the harrowing video of Ahmed the following morning and asked the chatbot to explain, Grok described the scene as "an old viral video of a man climbing a palm tree in a parking lot, possibly to trim it." X users have since added a fact-check to the bot's reply. In another response, Grok mislabeled the video as footage from the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, and credited it to the Tropical Cyclone Alfred in another, Gizmodo reported.

X hasn't yet explained why this glitch occurred, or why Grok has made similar fumbles beyond queries about Bondi Beach.

But watchdogs know why, and it's very simple. Chatbots are bad at breaking news. In the wake of the killing of far-right commentator Charlie Kirk, Grok exacerbated conspiracy theories about the shooter and Kirk's own bodyguards, telling some users that a graphic video clearly showing Kirk's death was just a meme. Other AI-powered search sources, including Google AI Overview, also gave false information in the immediate aftermath of Kirk's death.

"Instead of declining to answer, models now pull from whatever information is available online at the given moment, including low-engagement websites, social posts, and AI-generated content farms seeded by malign actors. As a result, chatbots repeat and validate false claims during high-risk, fast-moving events," NewsGuard researcher McKenzie Sadeghi told Mashable at the time.

Social media platforms have also scaled back human fact-checking across the board, and chatbots may instead prioritize frequency over accuracy in real-time news responses.

AI companies know this is a glaring gap for their bots, and it's why they've courted news publications into larger and larger licensing deals to better their products. Earlier this month, Meta signed multiple commercial AI agreements with news publishers, including CNN, Fox News, and international publication Le Monde, adding to its existing partnership with Reuters. Google is running a pilot program with participating news publishers to expand AI-powered features, including article summaries, to Google News.

Hallucinations and accuracy also remain a big problem for large-language models and AI chatbots in general, which often confidently provide false information to users.

While Waymo continues its expansion across America's roads (and highways), some concerns about the self-driving cars persist. The worries mostly concern autonomous vehicles hallucinating or disobeying traffic rules — such as driving past stopped school buses — but a new anxiety was unlocked this week in Los Angeles, when a female Waymo customer discovered a man hiding in the car's trunk.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

As reported by the local Fox affiliate, the woman recorded the incident, confronting the man. "Why are you in it?" the unnamed woman asks. "They just put me in it," the man responds. "Who put you in it?" the female customer says. "The people," he says.

No arrests were made since no crime was technically committed, according to Fox11.

A Waymo spokesperson explained to Mashable that the man climbed into the trunk after a previous rider left it open. Waymo added that police helped remove the man after the female passenger alerted them, and Waymo's Rider Support team assisted the woman during the process. The spokesperson said that the support team already has protocols for addressing situations like these and is implementing changes to improve them.

"We're committed to keeping our riders safe and earning the trust of the communities where we operate," a Waymo spokesperson tells Mashable. "This experience was unacceptable, and we are actively implementing changes to address this." 

One of the touted benefits of Waymo is the safety it offers lone passengers, especially women; hundreds of thousands of Uber and Lyft customers have allegedly been victims of sexual assault.

The Fox11 report also noted that a Waymo recently drove through an LAPD standoff, slowly cruising between a suspect on the ground and police officers with their guns drawn.

AI is still the Wild West when it comes to government regulation. But 2025 was the year U.S. states started to make an effort.

Some states, including California and New York, passed legislation that required some pretty basic things from AI companies — including transparency, whistleblower protections, and the well-being of teen users in particular.

Tech world proponents of unfettered AI innovation have made no secret of wanting to shut down state-based regulation efforts, arguing that such laws would dampen growth and give China an advantage in AI.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that attempts to federalize AI regulation, calling for a "national framework."

"To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation," the order says. "But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative."

States with "onerous AI laws" may be punished through withholding of federal funds that help provide high-speed internet access to rural areas, according to the order. Agencies may condition their state grants on not enacting an AI law that conflicts with the order's policy.

The executive order was produced in consultation with David Sacks, a tech venture capitalist and the Trump administration's special advisor for AI and crypto. A New York Times investigation recently revealed how many of Sacks' investments will benefit from his policies.

Michael Kleinman, head of US Policy at the the tech research nonprofit Future of Life Institute, called the order a "gift for Silicon Valley oligarchs."

"No other industry operates without regulation and oversight, be it drug manufacturers or hair salons; basic safety measures are not just expected, but legally required," Kleinman says.

"AI companies, in contrast, operate with impunity. Unregulated AI threatens our children, our communities, our jobs and our future."

OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, is being sued by multiple families of teens who died by suicide after heavy engagement with the chatbot. The company recently denied responsibility for the death of Adam Raine, a 16-year-old who talked to ChatGPT about his suicidal feelings and killed himself earlier this year. The order states that the national framework should "ensure that children are protected."

The same day Trump signed the order, a trio of child safety advocacy groups began airing a PSA highlighting the dangers of AI chatbots for children. The spot ends with an appeal not to stop states from regulating AI.

Earlier this year, Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act attempted to ban state regulation of AI for 10 years, a provision that Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, then a Trump ally, fought against. The moratorium was very unpopular amongst registered voters, according to a poll conducted in mid-May.

The measure was eventually voted down by the Senate in a stunning display of bipartisanship, 99 votes to 1. Some MAGA supporters, including Trump ally Steve Bannon, continue to oppose industry-led regulation of AI.

How popular the executive order will be with that level of opposition remains to be seen — as is the question of whether it will pass muster if challenged in the courts.

On Thursday morning, hours before President Donald Trump signed an executive order designed to stop states from regulating artificial intelligence, a trio of child safety advocacy groups began airing a public service announcement imploring him not to do so.

The ad, entitled "Unwelcome Guests," casts creepy-looking humans as the voices and faces of real AI chatbots that have allegedly shared dangerous information with young users who engaged with them, like how to harm themselves and hide an eating disorder from their parents.

Three examples reference instances in which ChatGPT allegedly coached young users into attempting suicide. Experts recently reviewed major AI chatbots and concluded they're not safe for teens to use for mental health discussions.

OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, is being sued by multiple families of teens who died by suicide after heavy engagement with the chatbot. The company recently denied responsibility for the death of Adam Raine, a 16-year-old who talked to ChatGPT about his suicidal feelings and killed himself earlier this year.

"As parents, we do everything in our power to protect our children from harm, but how do we protect them from powerful technologies designed to exploit their vulnerabilities for profit?" said Megan Garcia, whose son, Sewell Setzer III, died by suicide in the wake of developing an intense relationship with a chatbot on Character.AI. The company has since shut down teen chats on the platform.

"If state AI regulations are blocked and AI companies are allowed to keep building untested and dangerous products, I'm afraid that many more families will endure the agony of losing a child. We cannot accept losing one more child to AI harms," Garcia said.

The PSA concludes with the text, "Don't stop states from regulating AI," and points to a petition opposing a federal ban.

The spot was commissioned by the child safety advocacy groups Heat Initiative, ParentsTogether Action, and Design It For Us, and is narrated by actress Juliette Lewis.

If you're feeling suicidal or experiencing a mental health crisis, please talk to somebody. You can call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. You can reach the Trans Lifeline by calling 877-565-8860 or the Trevor Project at 866-488-7386. Text "START" to Crisis Text Line at 741-741. Contact the NAMI HelpLine at 1-800-950-NAMI, Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. ET, or email info@nami.org. If you don't like the phone, consider using the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Chat. Here is a list of international resources.

Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable’s parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.

Dropped onto HBO Max in late Nov. with almost zero promotion, the gay hockey series Heated Rivalry is everywhere these days. The show's handsome stars, Hudson Williams and Connor Storrie, are dominating social feeds, with a growing legion of fans salivating over the chemistry between their characters, two extremely talented and closeted NHL players. As of Dec. 11, Heated Rivalry sits as the third most-watched series on HBO Max, behind only Mad Men and IT: Welcome to Derry.

What is it about this Canadian show that has captured the public's attention in a way few other recent series have? Yes, it's a rare gay love story on TV, and it depicts the often-untold tales of LGBTQ athletes. The acting is good, as are the production values. Undeniably, though, it's the show's depictions of sex, mostly between Williams' and Storrie's characters, that's pulling in viewers. Their trysts feel different than same-sex "lovemaking" in other notable LGBTQ shows, like Queer as Folk, The L Word, and, more recently, Heartstopper.

The nature of the characters' relationship is certainly part of it — their sexual congress is beyond illicit. If the public were to find out the League's two best players were sleeping together (and were, maybe, in love?), it could wreck their careers and even endanger their lives. The high stakes equate to intense passion.

It's also to the testament of series creator Jacob Tierney that the sex comes off as authentic and hot. He cast two charismatic leads (who seem to actually like each other in real life) and filmed them beautifully in luxe hotel rooms. Heated Rivalry's lighting is warm and sensual, though HBO Max did darken the show (inadvertently, Tierney maintains), including its sex scenes, from the original Canadian version. The camera stays on the men during the actual intercourse, with no burning candles or hand-holding for suggestion. When the characters of Shane and Ilya give in to their passion, it's less Red, White, & Royal Blue (e.g., soap opera-style timidity) and much more Blue Is the Warmest Color (close-ups, noises, and occasional awkwardness).

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Zachary Zane, Grindr's sex and relationship expert, heaped praise on Heated Rivalry's depiction of gay lust:

"First off, the show masterfully builds suspense and sexual tension, perhaps more so than previous depictions of queer sex on screen. It adopts a slow-burn approach, characterized by constant furtive glances and intense pining between Ilya and Shane, with Shane's longing being particularly noticeable. The viewer can see the sexual tension and desire on their pretty faces.

Two, the production value is also incredibly high. The soft lighting and shadows add a sensual and suspenseful element we didn't get nearly as much of in past queer shows.

Three, the dynamic between Ilya and Shane is a major draw. Their enemies-to-lovers trope is an inherently popular and arousing romance staple, but it's more than that. Shane leans a bit submissive, being coy about his wants while dancing around his anxieties. Ilya is this powerhouse, emotionally-avoidant dom with a sexy accent, deep voice, and adventurous mindset for public trysts. If only we could see their Grindr tags.

While sexual fantasies and desires naturally vary among queer men, this particular dom/sub dynamic is a common interest amongst most gay and bisexual men, who can identify with either Ilya, Shane, or perhaps even both."

Heated Rivalry's fourth episode (of six) drops tomorrow, Dec. 12, on HBO Max.

Today, OpenAI launched GPT-5.2, touting its stronger safety performance in regard to mental health.

"With this release, we continued our work to strengthen our models' responses in sensitive conversations⁠, with meaningful improvements in how they respond to prompts indicating signs of suicide or self-harm, mental health distress, or emotional reliance on the model," OpenAI's blog post states.

OpenAI has recently been hit with criticism and lawsuits, which accuse ChatGPT of contributing to some users' psychosis, paranoia, and delusions. Some of those users died by suicide after lengthy conversations with the AI chatbot, which has had a well-documented problem with sycophancy.

In response to a wrongful death lawsuit concerning the suicide of 16-year-old Adam Raine, OpenAI denied that the LLM was responsible, claimed ChatGPT directed the teenager to seek help for his suicidal thoughts, and stated that the teenager "misused" the platform. At the same time, OpenAI pledged to improve how ChatGPT responds when users display warning signs of self-harm and mental health crises. As many users develop emotional attachments to AI chatbots like ChatGPT, AI companies are facing growing scrutiny for the safeguards they have in place to protect users.

Now, OpenAI claims that its latest ChatGPT models will offer "fewer undesirable responses" in sensitive situations.

In the blog post announcing GPT-5.2, OpenAI states that GPT-5.2 scores higher on safety tests related to mental health, emotional reliance, and self-harm compared to GPT-5.1 models. Previously, OpenAI has said it's using "safe completion," a new safety-training approach that balances helpfulness and safety. More information on the new models' performance can be found in the 5.2 system card.

Credit: Screenshot: OpenAI

However, the company has also observed that GPT-5.2 refuses fewer requests for mature content, especially sexualized text. OpenAI clarified to Mashable that it has implemented system-level safeguards to mitigate this behavior, and testing indicates that these safeguards do help. OpenAI didn't respond to how this would work in instances of adult users wanting to generate erotica, as "adult mode" is reported to launch next year.

But this apparently doesn't impact users OpenAI knows to be underage, as the company states that its age safeguards "appear to be working well." OpenAI applies additional content protections for minors, including reducing access to content containing violence, gore, viral challenges, roleplay of sexual, romantic, or violent nature, and "extreme beauty standards."

An age prediction model is also in the works, which will allow ChatGPT to estimate its users' ages to help provide more age-appropriate content for younger users.

Earlier this fall, OpenAI introduced parental controls in ChatGPT, including monitoring and restricting certain types of use.

OpenAI isn't the only AI company accused of exacerbating mental health issues. Last year, a mother sued Character.AI after her son's death by suicide, and another lawsuit claims children were severely harmed by that platform's "characters." Character.AI has been declared unsafe for teens by online safety experts. Likewise, AI chatbots from a variety of platforms, including OpenAI, have been declared unsafe for teens' mental health according to child safety and mental health experts.

If you're feeling suicidal or experiencing a mental health crisis, please talk to somebody. You can call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. You can reach the Trans Lifeline by calling 877-565-8860 or the Trevor Project at 866-488-7386. Text "START" to Crisis Text Line at 741-741. Contact the NAMI HelpLine at 1-800-950-NAMI, Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. ET, or email info@nami.org. If you don't like the phone, consider using the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Chat. Here is a list of international resources.

Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable’s parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.

UPDATE: Dec. 12, 2025, 12:14 p.m. EST This article has been updated with clarity on GPT-5.2 refusing requests for mature content.

Android users can now share live video of their environment while reaching out for emergency services, providing more context and assistance in potentially dire situations.

Launched on Wednesday, Emergency Live Video on Android lets emergency dispatchers request a live video feed while talking to a person who may be in danger. When initiated, callers are prompted with a single-tap button on their screen, which then provides a live video feed to dispatchers who can assess the environment or provide more specific medical assistance, like CPR instructions.

A Google blog post states that the resource works for both emergency calls and texts, and the footage is encrypted by default. The company also says it is looking to partner with global public safety organizations to expand the feature's reach.

Google has launched a variety of emergency safety features across its Android devices, including crash and fall detection, Emergency SOS, and satellite-based services. With the most recent Android 16, Google also added new accessibility features, parental controls, and the ability to mark communications as urgent.

Emergency Live Video has already rolled out to U.S. devices and emergency service calls in select regions of Germany and Mexico. In order to use the feature, devices must be running Android 8+ with Google Play services.

It may be a cliché, but it's true: There's an app for everything, including praying to God.

One such app is Hallow, a popular Catholic prayer subscription service downloaded by millions of users, including celebrity partners like Gwen Stefani.

Stefani has been a Hallow app partner for the last year, but its only recently that her social media promotion gained enough traction to incur the ire of fans and fellow celebrities en masse. In a Dec. 1 Instagram post, the No Doubt singer once again plugged the app for the start of this year's advent season, urging followers to join her in its daily prayer challenges. In follow up responses, podcast host Matt Bernstein, reality TV star Chrishell Stause, and other social media commenters pointed out what Stefani didn't: That many of the app's prayerful messages suggest a thinly-veiled conservative agenda, including suggesting anti-abortion pleas to users.

Despite the possibility of a tarnished brand — and the confusing reversal in public image for an artist that used be the preeminent "cool girl" — the "Hallow-back girl" (as one Redditor user called her) hasn't backed off. She's not the only one.

What is the Hallow app?

Referred to as a "pay-to-pray" app by its critics, Hallow was developed in 2018 by founder and CEO Alex Jones (no, not that Alex Jones). The subscription-based app combines audio-guided Catholic prayer routines with "mindfulness" practices and challenges, pitched as a solution to daily stress. It's accessible for the monthly price of $9.99, or $69.99 for the year — there are family plans, too.

Hallow even offers partnerships with schools, providing free subscriptions to students at religious institutions, as well as content for kids and families. It ran ads during the Super Bowl.

Jones is on record saying the company courts famously religious celebrities, including action stars like Mark Wahlberg and Chris Pratt and Hollywood icons like Mario Lopez, as a way to "reach fallen-away Catholics or those who are not particularly religious" on the social media platforms they most frequent. "They're just incredible Christians, they're great people of faith," said Jones in a 2024 interview about app partners Stefani and actor Kevin James. "It is awesome for us to get to partner with them, to use their platforms to invite people into prayer."

Why is Hallow controversial?

Fellow Catholics, even those with more conservative beliefs, have been skeptical of the app's model, marketing tactics, and reliance on celebrities since its launch. Jones backed off from a partnership with actor Liam Neeson, for example, after conservative Catholics rejected the platforming of Neeson's pro-choice views. He was then criticized for platforming figures from the Catholic right, including anti-abortion figure Lila Rose and QAnon proponent Jim Caviezel.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

In addition to ambassador controversies, including a partnership with actor Russell Brand that ended after accusations of sexual assault, Hallow has increasingly been associated with far-right figures and conservative financial backers.

In 2024, election reporting by the Guardian discovered that Vice President JD Vance had invested tens of thousands of dollars into the app. Other notable funders include ultra-conservative PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who participated in a $40 million round of funding for Hallow in 2021.

Hallow was banned from EU markets earlier this year, with many suspecting regulators shut down app access due to data privacy concerns. Sensitive data used for ad targeting, including religious affiliation, is highly regulated under the EU's Digital Services Act.

Following Stefani's promotion and other advent advertisements including Chris Pratt, Hallow climbed the Apple App Store charts, which Jones celebrated in a recent X post. "Feels like God's just getting started."

A lot has changed in Hawkins since the last installment of Stranger Things aired in 2022, but one familiar touchstone remains in Season 5: the Kate Bush ballad "Running Up That Hill."

It's the song that Lucas (Caleb McLaughlin) plays for Max (Sadie Sink) as she lays comatose in a hospital bed. He hopes the tune, which Max played on repeat in Season 4, will somehow bring her back from the physical and mental limbo she's trapped in. She was put there by the villain Vecna (Jamie Campbell Bower), and it's unclear if she'll ever return.

Season 4 brimmed with gut-punch moments: the humiliation of Eleven by a relentless bully, terrifying encounters with Vecna, and the final reveal of that character's origin story. But arguably the most emotionally powerful scene of the season's first volume arrives in episode 4, when Max is held psychologically captive by Vecna, a serial killer from the Upside Down who entrances and then tortures his victims with their worst fears and experiences before murdering them.

The showdown between Vecna and Max unfolds to the soundtrack of Bush's '80s hit "Running Up That Hill," a percussion and synth-driven ballad about making a deal with God that happens to be Max's favorite song.

Max's past experience with trauma — namely, watching the Mind Flayer brutally kill her stepbrother Billy (Dacre Montgomery) in Season 3 — makes her a target for Vecna's manipulation. She's become withdrawn and adrift, pulling away from her friends and sinking deeper into what looks like depression. While sitting at Billy's grave, she weeps over the loss, trembling as she says aloud how and why he died, and confessing she can't share those details with anyone else.

When Vecna appears at the gravesite, it's first as Billy, mutilated, bloody, and eager to deepen the emotional wound that is Max's survivor's guilt. Vecna as Billy tells Max: "[L]ate at night, you have sometimes wished to follow me. Follow me into death. That is why I am here, Max, to end your suffering once and for all" — alluding perhaps to suicidal feelings Max hasn't mentioned.

Max tries to outrun Vecna when he materializes as himself, but finds herself in the Upside Down. While caught in Vecna's grip, a tear in the dark dimension reveals her friends on the other side, desperately trying to save her from Vecna's curse. Of course, it's "Running Up That Hill," blasted into Max's headphones that breaks Vecna's hold on her.

As Vecna prepares to take her life, Max closes her eyes and sees joyful memories: laughing with El, dressing up as a Ghostbuster for Halloween, dancing with Lucas (and kissing him). She breaks free, momentarily incapacitates Vecna, and runs with the determination to live toward her friends, dodging debris that Vecna throws in her path. Max hurls herself through the portal, awakes from the trance, and is held by Lucas. "I thought we lost you," he cries. "I'm still here. I'm still here," she says.

For some fans who've experienced depression and suicidal thoughts, or attempted suicide, the lengthy scene reads as more than just a classic psychological thriller. Instead, it feels like a metaphor about the difficulty of overcoming suicidal thoughts and feelings. That interpretation resonated with numerous commenters in a Stranger Things subreddit post about Max's escape from Vecna, even though the words "suicide" and "depression" are never uttered in the show.

"This episode hit me hard too, because when I was at my most depressed, I found my favourite band, and that made me cling onto life," one commenter wrote. Another said: "I cried watching this scene because it captured so well what it was like to go through a major depressive episode and convince myself to keep going."

Netflix declined to comment on the scene, but those fans' interpretation might not be far off. The show's music supervisor, Nora Felder, told Variety: "In some ways, this scene can be understood as alluding more broadly to the inner struggles with private demons that many teens wrestle with during troubled times, especially when feeling alone and estranged from others."

From the Upside Down, Max can see her friends trying to save her as "Running Up That Hill" plays on her headphones. Credit: Courtesy of Netflix

Brett Wean, director of writing and entertainment outreach for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, felt similarly.

"While I’m not certain what the Duffer Brothers intended with this sequence in terms of it being an allegory for someone facing depression or suicidal thoughts, it certainly tells me something that people are assigning meaning to it in this way," he wrote in an email. "I think viewers' interpretation...speaks to where people are at right now, particularly young people, as many of them face adversity and isolation as a result of the pandemic."

Protective factors against suicide include connections to friends, family, and community support. Isolation and adverse childhood experiences, including verbal and physical abuse of the kind that Vecna's other victims appeared to endure, are among the risk factors.

Vic Welle, a mental health peer support trainer who has planned but not carried out suicide attempts, told Mashable that they found the scene powerful.

"The depiction of what it's like to be at that point of despair is really captured well," Welle said. "The Upside Down as this place of distortion and a place of almost hopelessness where Vecna is saying the worst things, the worst fears you might have about yourself...and what if they're true? That's what it's like to be in that place of feeling completely worthless."

Yet what makes the scene so memorable is not just its portrayal of psychological and emotional crisis, but the swift, heartfelt efforts from Max's friends to save her life. They don't flinch at trying to rescue her. They know which song to play because they've been paying attention, and they don't give up, even as Max is the one who ultimately makes the choice to survive.

"The really hopeful piece is the role of connection to community and reminders of meaning and purpose," said Welle.

While the scene is no blueprint for how to help someone in a mental health crisis — the show is still just a sci-fi/horror series, after all — the spirit of Max's friends' intervention may be worth drawing on in real life.

For those experiencing suicidal thoughts and behavior who also feel like they lack emotional support, Welle said the scene can instead point to finding community elsewhere. In the absence of trusted, close friends and family, Welle recommends Alternatives to Suicide support groups like the Massachusetts-based Wildflower Alliance, which offers virtual meetings and has a directory of support groups people can explore. Welle has participated in peer support groups when they felt unable to talk to their loved ones.

And while the foreboding sense that vulnerable youth are doomed by Vecna works for the show's narrative arc this season, Welle noted that experiencing trauma doesn't always lead to depression or suicidal feelings and behavior.

"If you have something really huge happen to you and you are surrounded with compassion, resources, and the ability to process and make meaning of that and integrate that into your overall life story, I think that's really different from having to carry that in isolation," said Welle, who describes themselves as a trauma and psychiatric survivor.

In the end, Stranger Things didn't need to spell any of this out. Between the profound writing, Sink's masterful performance, and the impeccable song choice, it was all there, waiting for viewers who would understand.

UPDATE: Dec. 10, 2025, 10:28 a.m. PST This story was originally published on June 12, 2022. It has been updated to reflect events from "Stranger Things" Season 5.

If you're feeling suicidal or experiencing a mental health crisis, please talk to somebody. You can call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. You can reach the Trans Lifeline by calling 877-565-8860 or the Trevor Project at 866-488-7386. Text "START" to Crisis Text Line at 741-741. Contact the NAMI HelpLine at 1-800-950-NAMI, Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. ET, or email info@nami.org. If you don't like the phone, consider using the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Chat. Here is a list of international resources.

ICEBlock, an app designed to document and alert users to the movements of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is suing the Trump administration for violating free speech protections after federal officials reportedly pressured tech companies like Apple to remove the app from online marketplaces.

In the lawsuit, the app's developers argue that the actions of White House officials to pressure private tech companies amounts to unlawful censorship and a violation of the First Amendment, contesting a claim made by officials that ICEBlock did not fall under forms of protected speech.

"The Bill of Rights — including the First Amendment — was crafted precisely to safeguard the People’s ability to question authority, expose governmental abuse, and hold public officials accountable: a reflection of the founders’ belief that an informed and vocal citizenry is the ultimate guardian of liberty," the complaint reads.

White House officials argued that the app was a threat to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials and an "incitement to violence" against ICE agents. In response, Apple removed ICEBlock as well as other apps that let individuals record, document, and map the movements of immigration enforcement, including Eyes Up, which is intended as a non real-time archive of ICE activity to be used in legal defenses and other testimony.

Broadly, the administration has put pressure on marketplaces like the Apple App Store and Google Play Store to remove apps that let individuals document the conduct of federal DHS officers and related law enforcement. Last week, leaders of the House Committee on Homeland Security and Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability sent letters to said companies detailing an ongoing investigation into the creation, dissemination, and promotion of such apps.

"The Committee is concerned that these apps not only jeopardize the safety of DHS personnel but also enable malicious actors to incite violence and obstruct lawful government operations," the letter reads. That same argument was used by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who later threatened to prosecute news outlets who popularized ICE tracking apps. Attorney General Pam Bondi also threatened legal action against ICEBlock creator Josh Aaron, who filed the recent lawsuit.

In response to widespread protest across communities nationwide — focused on the often illicit actions of immigration officials in schools, residences, and other historically protected areas — the House committees have also been investigating "the rise in anti-law enforcement sentiment," and the "damaging impacts of doxing on morale and operational effectiveness" on immigration enforcement.

Alex Karp, the CEO of controversial tech company Palantir, raised eyebrows during a recent live interview with the New York Times. In a viral video of the discussion, Karp defended his company to the Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin, gesturing dramatically with his arms, bouncing up and down on his chair, and struggling to make his point. 

Palantir’s X account shared the video on Sunday morning and announced Karp is launching The Neurodivergent Fellowship: "If you find yourself relating to [Karp] in this video — unable to sit still, or thinking faster than you can speak — we encourage you to apply."

Palantir announced Karp himself would conduct final interviews for the fellowship. In a reply to the first message on X, the company included an application link to the fellowship, which is available in Palantir’s New York City and Washington, D.C. offices.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

"The current LLM tech landscape positions [neurodivergent people] to dominate," according to the application. "Pattern recognition. Non-linear thinking. Hyperfocus. The cognitive traits that make the neurodivergent different are precisely what make them exceptional in an AI-driven world."

Palantir, a data and analytics company co-founded by conservative "kingmaker" Peter Thiel, was quick to argue that the fellowship is not a DEI initiative.

"Palantir is launching the Neurodivergent Fellowship as a recruitment pathway for exceptional neurodivergent talent," according to the application, "This is not a diversity initiative. We believe neurodivergent individuals will have a competitive advantage as elite builders of the next technological era, and we're hiring accordingly for all roles."

Applicants do not need a formal diagnosis to be eligible and the position pays between $110,000-200,000 annually, with potential for stock units and even a sign-on bonus.

Karp’s interview and his company's new fellowship cap off a newsworthy year for Palantir, which was tapped by the Trump White House to track immigrants in the U.S., aid in deportations, and potentially create a master database on every American.

President Donald Trump announced Monday that he plans to sign an executive order permitting only "one rule" for regulating artificial intelligence in the U.S.

"There must be only One Rulebook if we are going to continue to lead in AI. We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the race, but that won’t last long if we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.

Several states, including California and New York, have passed statewide legislation this year regulating various aspects of AI, including transparency, whistleblower protections, and user and teen safety. Trump did not elaborate on which states he considered bad actors in the regulatory process, or what qualified them as bad actors.

A version of an executive order that leaked online last week reportedly directed federal agency and cabinet leaders to determine how to punish states with existing AI laws, according to The Verge.

Earlier this year, Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act attempted to ban state regulation of AI for 10 years, a provision that Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green notably rejected. The moratorium was very unpopular amongst registered voters, according to a poll conducted in mid-May. The measure was eventually voted down 99-1 by the Senate. Some MAGA supporters, including Trump ally Steve Bannon, continue to oppose industry-led regulation of AI.

Still, proponents of a regulatory ban still want to provide AI companies carte blanche to innovate without having to address state-by-state regulations. David Sacks, a tech venture capitalist and the Trump administration's special advisor for AI and crypto, is reportedly behind the executive order, according to The Verge.

It's not clear how Trump's executive order would affect Congressional legislation, like the bipartisan bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley and Democrat Sen. Mark Hawley that would require federal agencies and major U.S. companies to account for AI-related workforce reductions.

A report released last week by the tech research nonprofit Future of Life Institute found that only three of eight major AI models got a passing grade on safety.

Local pro-environment groups in all 50 states delivered a blunt message to the U.S. Congress: Put a moratorium on new power-hungry AI data centers, or face the wrath of voters everywhere.

"The harms of data center growth are increasingly well-established, and they are massive," read the letter, signed by more than 350 nonprofit groups, from Alabama Climate Reality to West Virginia Citizen Action Group. That includes the swing state of Michigan, where the OpenAI-led Stargate project is already running into local opposition on a $7 billion data center built on farmland.

Focusing on kitchen-table issues as much as the use of fossil fuels (which power an estimated 56 percent of U.S. data center electricity), the letter noted that electricity bills have shot up by more than 21 percent since 2021 — "driven largely by the rapid build-out of data centers."

If nothing is done to stop a proposed tripling of data centers in the next five years, these vast server farms will end up requiring as much electricity as 30 million households, and as much water as 18.5 million households, the group estimates. (For context, the entire U.S. has just over 130 million households.)

The letter, convened by Food & Water Watch, calls for "a national moratorium on new data centers until adequate regulations can be enacted to fully protect our communities, our families, our environment and our health from the runaway damage this industry is already inflicting."

The estimates are speculative, of course — in part because tech companies still aren't providing the data needed to understand just how much energy and water data centers use. Or more importantly, how hungry the AI model training process has become.

U.S. representatives should be aware how little is known about AI's environmental harms, given that the legislature's own nonpartisan General Accounting Office released a report this summer on this very topic.

"Training and using generative AI can result in substantial energy consumption, carbon emissions, and water usage," the GAO report stated.

Lagging Zoom calls aren't just annoying parts of the average work day. They may be irreparably changing our social interactions.

According to a new study published this week in Nature, audiovisual glitches can have far-reaching affects on users that extend beyond expected nuisances, but which have the power to fundamentally impact major areas of our life, including the outcome of a job interview, trust in medical professionals, and the result of legal proceedings. And for people who don't have reliable internet access, including digitally disconnected, rural, or low-income households, the impact may be even more severe.

Titled "Video-call glitches trigger uncanniness and harm consequential life outcomes," the study focused primarily on on-screen face-to-face video calls, rather than audio-only calls or conversations featuring screen sharing or visual aids. Researchers reviewed several scenarios, including a database of casual video social interactions, a scripted video sales pitch given to participants, and a health consultations. They found that frequent video lags reduced feelings of trust and willingness to engage, such as to take the advice of or reconsult with a health provider.

The reason is that a dropped internet connection or glitches that distort faces, misalign audio and visual feedback, or create choppiness "break the illusion of face-to-face contact" that is created while on a video call, researchers write. This evokes a feeling of uncanniness that reduces a sense of social connectedness and trust — like when you realize you're talking to an AI. This sense is commonly referred to as the "Uncanny Valley," where something looks almost human, but not quite.

"Glitches can be costly in these consequential, virtually held life events. That is, beyond just undermining trivial and fleeting moments of conversation, glitches have the potential to fundamentally alter the trajectory of individuals’ lives, from their health to job status and more," researchers found. "Because people participate in numerous personal and professional virtual interactions annually, even modest glitch-related disadvantages can compound over time into substantial cumulative effects."

The researchers also reviewed court data, and when combined with the above results, found that video glitches correlated with a lower likelihood of being granted parole. "Despite being considered a boon to access, virtual communication might unintentionally perpetuate inequality," write the study's authors. "Because disadvantaged groups often have poorer internet connections, they are likely to encounter more glitches, and, in turn, to experience worse outcomes in consequential contexts such as health, careers, justice and social connection."

The study suggests that the evolving political and technological landscape, which has shifted increasingly toward remote-only processes, consider the impact of reverting to in-person interactions in favor of video interfacing. And the study recognizes there may be an implicit bias in the design of remote systems that advantage certain groups over others.

It also argues for more research on how best to reduce the impact of the Uncanny Valley while video conferencing, with one possible intervention standing out among others: Cracking a joke or two.

Apple's recent iOS 26 overhaul included a plethora of major additions and complete system makeovers, but there were even more tweaks, settings, and customization settings that flew under the radar for many users.

One of those was a subtle update to a feature known as Vehicle Motion Cues, launched last year as part of a new suite of accessibility tools, including eye-tracking powered by machine learning, music haptics, and vocal shortcuts controlled using not just whole words, but sounds and utterances as well.

Using on-device sensors, Vehicle Motion Cues battle the kind of motion sickness commonly experienced by people staring at their screens while in cars, buses, and trains. When turned on, users will see an animated border of dots along the edge of your iPhone, iPad, or (in an update released earlier this year) MacBook screen. The dots move according to the movement of the vehicle, lessening the sensory conflict that leads to motion sickness.

On iOS 26, those features have gotten even better. Now, users can choose between a regular or "dynamic" pattern for those moving dots. The former displays consistent, repeating animations, while "dynamic" turns the dots into a more free-form, sensory-specific spectacle. Users can also now adjust the color and size of the on-screen dots, making it more adaptable to the user's vision needs and the way they use their device while on the move.

Vehicle Motion Cues can be added to the device's control center and automatically sense when in motion, so it's easy to activate as soon as you get in the car.

And it's super simple to turn on.

A visibly pregnant woman stands in the middle of a bright, modern kitchen, rubbing her belly and speaking to someone on the other end of a phone. The phone screen turns. It's a video call. And it's not just anyone, but her mom, wearing a bright sweater and giving advice.

Ten months later, grandma is telling the toddler a bedtime story. She's wearing the same sweater from before. Ten years go by, the preteen is telling grandma about his day at school. We see that red sweater again. Hm. The grandson is 30 now, he's about to be a dad. Grandma hasn't aged a day.

The scene is an advertisement, selling you the services of 2wai, an app currently in beta that turns a short video clip into an AI-powered avatar. They're one of many companies trying to win people over into creating AI versions of themselves to be used after they die. 

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

No longer is the fear of deepfakes and AI-powered legacy projects (frequently called resurrections or "deadbots") the sole worry of famous celebrities. It is here, for the average person, in the hands of your family and friends. 

So what if you don't want a synthetic version of yourself giving advice to your ancestors in perpetuity? Or your AI replica being used in advertisements, art, or by corporations who have access to your data?

It's still uncharted territory, but you have options to ensure your digital likeness stays offline. And there's many reasons, not just legal or financial, why you might want to do it. Here's how.

Start thinking about AI before you die

There's one thing that needs to be stated right off the bat: Everyone should be planning for their death. 

"We invest so much time and consideration into milestones like weddings and having children, but very little thought is given to how we want to live our final months and years," said Sarah Chavez. Chavez is the director of Order of the Good Death, a global network of advocates and professionals working to reframe death and dying. 

So alright, you know you need to make sure your digital ducks are in order before you get too old. But do you really need to think about AI, deepfakes, and digital likenesses, of all things?   

If you had asked Chavez this question a year ago, she would have had an entirely different response. That's rapidly changed. "AI has become so prominent in our everyday lives, not just professionally and personally," Chavez explained. "We’re also starting to see the dead used in a way that can have legal and social impact, too." She points to a case of Chris Pelkey, a victim of a road rage incident whose voice was resurrected by his family to give his own victim's statement. Chavez recalls the viral Shotline project, too, which used AI audio deepfakes of gun violence victims to urge politicians to pass common sense gun reform legislation. Similar tech was used to create an AI likeness of Parkland shooting victim Joaquin Oliver. 

There's a high degree of risk associated with allowing digital versions of yourself to exist online, with no parameters. Could your digital likeness be used as a tool for scammers, for example, to con your family and friends or even strangers? What about the legal and social ramifications of a chatbot created in your image, one that may become embroiled in the same courtroom battles currently faced by ChatGPT and others. Another big question: What about your personal data privacy? Are you okay with your loved ones providing a tech company or AI developer with the mass amount of data needed to personalize an AI version of you?

"It's important to remember that these tools are created by for-profit tech companies, which raises a number of concerns about ownership of that data and how it will be used," warns Chavez. 

Regular people, not just celebrities or those who become headlines, are seeing the fallout of unhampered access to generative AI, like targeted scams and growing misinformation. Just a handful of bullet points in your will could decide whether your digital legacy is mired in the same controversies. If there was ever a time to start planning for the end of your life, it's now. 

AI, your death, and the law 

Cody Barbo, the founder of digital estate planning tool Trust & Will, suggests people use estate planning to better control their digital footprint. The service is like TurboTax but for writing a will, and he says he built it to help regular people who may be avoiding the conversation completely. It's also a way to bring tech into an industry that has been slow to adopt, even as AI poses huge security and estate questions. 

"Over the past decade, end-of-life planning regarding tech has primarily focused on encouraging people to include information about what they want done with their cell phone, email accounts, and social media platforms, and making sure they’ve provided passwords and login information for their accounts," Chavez explained. With AI an emerging and yet dominant tech, the industry needs to catch up. 

"We're just at the entry point," Barbo said. "We're dipping our toes in the water of what an AI version of ourselves could look like. [But] we want people to know that you can be in control."

How does that work in practice? "The challenge with trying to protect something that is so new, that is so innovative, is that there's no legislation to help you," explained Solomon Adote, the chief information security officer of The Estate Registry and former Chief Security Officer for the state of Delaware. "Some states say you cannot violate certain privacy protections, but nothing that explicitly says that you cannot abuse this person's likeness, image, or other aspects of their representation." In the background, a patchwork of state laws are trying to address these concerns through extended privacy laws, which would better protect your digital assets, including data privacy, after you die.

For now, individuals have to turn to proactive estate planning. 

What are you trying to protect?

First task: Take a digital asset inventory. This involves surveying and noting all your digital accounts, log-ins, and data, like social media pages, bank log-ins, but also Cloud-based drives, or even text messages or DMs. This also includes defining exactly what your digital likeness includes — is it just depictions of you as an adult? Does it include your voice and physical mannerisms? What version of yourself can or cannot be turned into AI?

Some people may want to solicit the services of a digital identity trust, Adote said, which can help manage your online identity and intellectual property. 

Who will help you protect it?

Next: Assign a digital fiduciary and know the (albeit limited) law. This is a person (or persons) who is given designated access to your digital assets, including online accounts. You can grant permission to just specific assets or entirely limit access through both your will and fiduciary. You can also provide them with guidance for your digital likeness, which is in itself a digital asset, Adote explained.

The boundaries of digital fiduciaries are covered under the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA), which has not been passed by every state. Under this law, a person assigned as a digital fiduciary can legally provide or gain access to someone's online accounts after death or even incapacitation. But only trustee executors can access the content of said accounts, and only if the person who died consented. Tech companies, like Google and Meta, also operate under RUFADAA (that's why we have things like Facebook legacy accounts and contacts now). If you don't assign a fiduciary, your accounts default to the tech company's Terms of Service. 

What will you allow and who will benefit?

Once you've assigned a fiduciary, you need to have a direct conversation with them about what they should and should not allow. With your "explicitly written and validated position" on AI use, Adote said, fiduciaries can more easily take legal action, like issuing cease and desist orders on intellectual property.

You can, quite simply, write that you do not consent to someone creating an AI-generated likeliness of yourself in your will, said experts.

You may want to phrase this as "living on in AI-form" or the "publication of an AI-generated, synthetic version" of yourself. You may also want to be clear about data usage: I do not consent to the use of my personal data to create an AI-powered digital likeness of myself. Adote suggests your will should show clear intent, with phrasing like "I do not authorize my image or likeness to be used in any way, form, or fashion."

Go over these with an estate attorney, as everyone's situation and end of life needs are different — and state laws vary. 

You can also stipulate very precise cases for how your digital likeness can be used, if it's not a hard no. But be conservative and narrow with this language, other experts suggested. Write down, for example, exactly who is allowed to use or release it, just as you would with other assets or accounts. List any explicit charities or companies that are allowed to use your likeness, as well. 

If your likeness is in any way attached to your livelihood — that includes influencers — be clear about potential financial gain that could be generated from a personal AI, and decide where that money will go. 

These directives should be expressly written down in your will or another document that is accessible after you die. It comes down to just a few, clear bullet points, experts say. 

AI, grief, and memory

There's a few, non-legal things to consider, too, especially if you are raring to live on in AI form. What are your values, and what is best for those who will miss you? 

You may have ethical concerns about the use of AI — like its environmental impact or the political and financial motives held by its developers — and you'll want to account for those at the end of your life too, said Chavez. 

Or maybe you want to curb any general use of your digital likeness, but still leave room for a digital version of yourself to be used by your family, for example. Consider what that entails. "While a griefbot can be trained with your own writing, and voice, it’s still selective or biased data used to create an inauthentic version of the deceased," said Chavez, who also warns that prolonged interactions with the AI version of a person may fundamentally change the way they are perceived and remembered. 

Emma Payne is a bereavement researcher and the founder of Help Texts, a text-based grief support subscription service. Payne is concerned not just with the typical ways that AI has infiltrated posthumous legacies, like AI deepfakes and chatbots programmed to mimic your loved ones, but also how technology is encroaching upon our social relationships. To her, memory matters. But imitation is an entirely different thing. 

"End of life is a deeply human time and a massive opportunity for human connection and caring. So pushing it out, and trying to say that it's not the end, worries me. Think deeply about what the end is for you," Payne recommends. "By trying to extend or mitigate or transform that experience, knowing that you're in the most human of times, are you helping the people you leave behind or are you actually hurting them?"

Take the recent words of Zelda Williams, director and daughter of actor Robin Williams, who took to the internet to decry AI-generated content of her father and other late celebrities: "To watch the legacies of real people be condensed down to ‘this vaguely looks and sounds like them so that’s enough’, just so other people can churn out horrible TikTok slop puppeteering them is maddening… If you’ve got any decency, just stop doing this to him and to me, to everyone even, full stop."

Bereavement is a complicated process, but there are a few solid truths. First, one must accept the person's death. Second, they need to find appropriate ways to memorialize them. Anything that tries to replace a real person and their memories with a pretend, future version, Payne says, is missing the entire point of healthy grief. 

AI is becoming a bigger player in death, even behind-the-scenes. But even players in the industry that have embraced AI technologies are hesitant to incorporate them fully into the realm of end-of-life planning. Zack Moy is the co-founder of Afterword, a tech company that provides AI-powered infrastructure for funeral planning. Moy says he doesn't build tech-based solutions unless he's sure they'll better the human experience. He'd never replace grief with a bot, for example, but he can use AI to make it easier to execute a person's wishes after death. 

"The vast majority of funeral directors we work with care about what they're doing and deeply care about that family experience, and we followed their example," Moy said. "The technology isn't going to make the suffering any easier. We can't make death not suck." 

As a technological society, we are skirting close to a grief precipice, a social reckoning with death and memory that's been expedited by what is now referred to as "Death Tech." With the rise of generative AI, tech isn't just helping account for digital assets or speeding up funeral planning in order to make the grief of our loved ones a little lighter. It's trying to change our lives post-mortem. Now we must reconcile with how we will be memorialized, mimicked, or even mocked by our very own likenesses at the hand of strangers and loved ones.

"We all have a 'legacy' to consider," said Chavez. "Just as we ask people what a 'good death' looks like for them, we need to ask ourselves what does a good legacy look like? Actions that align with your values and beliefs? Authenticity?" 

AT&T confirmed it will be terminating its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs as a bid to win Federal Communications Commission (FCC) favor.

The telecommunications giant has been awaiting FCC approval on a billion dollar spectrum license purchase made in 2024, and made a commitment to scaling back its DEI efforts earlier this year. According to a letter sent to the agency, AT&T has shuttered any and all roles, employee groups, and programs related to DEI policies.

"The legal landscape governing diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) policies and programs has changed," wrote the company. "AT&T has always stood for merit-based opportunity, and we are pleased to reaffirm our commitment to equal employment opportunity and nondiscrimination today."

It's not the first mobile carrier to acquiesce to the administration's anti-woke crusade. The FCC, headed by Trump-appointed chair Brendan Carr, has been on a concerted mission to eliminate DEI programs across the telecommunications sector, including pressuring companies to terminate their commitments in order to win approval from the agency.

In May, Verizon ended its DEI policies to win a $20 billion bid for ownership of broadband provider Frontier Communications, which included removing all DEI language from internal and external materials, ending diversity hiring bonuses, and dissolving human resources departments dedicated to DEI. Competitor T-Mobile made the same compromise in July, terminating DEI programs to win two deals with the FCC.

Carr has previously launched anti-DEI probes of major entertainment and broadcast companies, including Disney and ABC, as well as publicly-funded media, like NPR and PBS. In addition, the agency has slashed at affordable broadband and fiber-optic plans, which predominately help low-income and rural communities, as part of the Trump administration's attack on Biden-Harris equity projects.

AT&T has also been a leader in affordable connectivity projects, including bringing fiber-optic broadband internet to Indigenous communities and explicit commitments to closing the digital divide.

"Companies should remember that abandoning fairness and inclusion for short-term gain will be a stain to their reputation long into the future," said FCC Democrat Anna Gomez in a statement following AT&T's announcement.

AI developer Anthropic is honoring this Giving Tuesday with new trainings and features for its popular chatbot, Claude, that are specifically designed for the needs of nonprofits.

The Claude for Nonprofits package provides nonprofit organizations with discounted Claude access (up to 75 percent off); integrations with nonprofit tools like Blackbaud, Candid, and Benevity; as well as free use case guides and an AI Fluency for Nonprofits training course for AI beginners.

The company explains that its upgraded Claude Sonnet 4.5, and advanced coding model, is also trained for grant writing and program analysis. It's safety-forward Haiku 4.5, meanwhile, speeds up processing at reduced costs. Both are available to Claude for Nonprofits users. Claude can also connect to Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, Asana, Slack, and Box.

AI adoption across the nonprofit sector has been scattered, due in part to continued skepticism about the safety, privacy, and reliability of generative AI —and of the very nature of the sector's work. Many organizations are hard pressed to devote resources and time to the kind of training and infrastructure needed to ethically integrate the technology amid threatened funding streams, while others see its use as antithetical to their mission. Still, recent data shows widespread interest, but preparedness is low and adoption is slow. Of the AI developers and tech funders that have tried, few have been able to fully fill those gaps.

Claude for Nonprofits is thus built to support a nonprofit's tech infrastructure needs. "Nonprofits tackle some of society’s most difficult problems, often with limited resources," wrote Anthropic. "From our partners, we know AI helps most when it fits into existing workflows, upholds the privacy their communities expect, and is affordable." The developer has also partnered with nonprofit consulting organizations to provide tailored support to organizations.

According to Anthropic, Claude is already used by organizations like the International Rescue Committee (IRC), the YMCA, and the Epilepsy Foundation — the IRC also recently announced its own, in-house chatbot designed specifically to provide emergency assistance and support to refugee populations in the U.S. Claude for Nonprofits will be piloted among a cohort of 60 organizations who receive grants from funders like the Constellation Fund, Robin Hood, and Tipping Point Community.

Apple shaped how entire generations think about technology. For many of us, its products symbolized creativity and progress. The company taught us to “Think Different” and to believe technology could make life better. But today, Apple’s actions tell a different story — when ethics collide with revenue, Apple folds.

In 2014, Tim Cook came out as gay and positioned it as a moral stand. Apple wrapped itself in Pride flags, marketed inclusion, and sold us the idea that it stood for something bigger than profit. The company seemed to embrace the fact that Apple is the first Fortune 500 company with an openly gay CEO. Tim Cook even authored a piece in Bloomberg Business stating that he is, "proud to be gay."

Fast forward to now, when Apple quietly removed two of the largest gay dating apps in China, Blued and Finka, at Beijing’s request. No statement. No defense of queer communities. Just silent compliance. 

This isn’t an isolated decision. It’s a pattern.

When ethics collide with revenue

Apple’s support of marginalized communities seems to collapse under pressure. Take child sexual abuse material (CSAM). In 2021, Apple admitted that verified images and videos of children being sexually abused were stored on iCloud. Because they knew it was a problem, they developed a privacy-protected, vetted-by-independent-experts detection system to stop it. They proudly announced their plan in August 2021 and then 30 days later paused the roll out.

Apple commissioned their own cryptography experts to confirm the system safeguarded privacy. Independent reviewers like David Forsyth and Benny Pinkas agreed: No innocent user data would be exposed. Yet Apple abandoned the plan after backlash over privacy concerns, retreating to arguments it had previously dismantled.

Apple's pivot to services like iCloud has made subscriptions a core revenue driver, generating nearly $100 billion annually with gross margins around 75 percent. Despite this profitability, Apple has still not implemented a meaningful solution to stop the spread of known CSAM, leaving iCloud as one of the few major cloud platforms that does not proactively detect known CSAM. This failure has sparked lawsuits from thousands of survivors who argue Apple's decision enables predators to pay for storage of abuse imagery, effectively monetizing their trauma. By contrast, companies like Google deploy industry-standard safeguards, combining hash-matching against NCMEC databases and AI to detect and report CSAM at scale. Apple's refusal to implement similar measures underscores a gap: While profiting from cloud services, it has not ensured those services are free from exploitation.

This isn’t just complacency. It’s negligence.

Ethics shouldn’t be optional

It’s easy to do the right thing when it sells. Pride campaigns drive revenue, but only when the White House is lit up rainbow or consumer trends value ethics. But standing up for queer communities in China when the government is challenging you to stand on the side of oppression? That’s harder. Tackling child abuse on your own platform? That’s riskier. Apple will remove LGBTQ+ apps to appease Beijing without putting up a fight, but won’t take decisive action against child predators. 

Apple doesn’t "Think Different" anymore. It thinks profit. And until we demand better, it will keep choosing power over people.

What needs to change

Apple has the resources and expertise to lead on both fronts — protecting vulnerable communities and safeguarding children online. It could implement proven, privacy-conscious CSAM detection tools developed by experts at Thorn, NCMEC, and Johns Hopkins’ MOORE Center. It could take a public stand against censorship that erases LGBTQ+ lives. Instead, it has chosen silence and inaction.

Regulators, investors, and consumers must hold Apple accountable. Tech companies should not be allowed to monetize harm while hiding behind branding campaigns. Ethics cannot be optional in the digital age.

This article reflects the opinions of the writers.

Lennon Torres is a Public Voices Fellow on Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse with The OpEd Project. She is an LGBTQ+ advocate who grew up in the public eye, gaining national recognition as a young dancer on television shows. With a deep passion for storytelling, advocacy, and politics, Lennon now works to center the lived experience of herself and others as she crafts her professional career in online child safety at Heat Initiative. The opinions reflected in this piece are those of Lennon Torres as an individual and not of the entities she is part of. Lennon’s substack: https://substack.com/@lennontorres

Sarah Gardner is Founder and CEO of the Heat Initiative. With more than 13 years of technical and policy expertise in online child safety, she is an internationally recognized voice in advocating for the rights of children and survivors of child sexual abuse. Heat Initiative is an organization of technology experts, parents, survivors and advocates who believe strongly that tech companies like Apple and Meta need to remove CSAM from their platforms and implement policies that will keep children safe online.

The Kardashians' reality TV show — which was rebooted in 2022 and is already on its seventh season — has documented a lot of personal moments for the powerful Hollywood family. Several marriages, divorces, and births were recorded for millions to watch at home, along with a harrowing overdose, and even an armed robbery.

In a recent episode, however, the program broke new ground, revealing that Kim Kardashian, the wealthiest of the bunch, has holes in her brain.

Speaking to celebrity psychologist Dr. Daniel Amen, the billionaire learned that initial scans showed "low activity" in parts of her brain, pointing out what he described as holes in her frontal lobe that could be caused by chronic stress. Kardashian, who plays a lawyer in new Hulu show All's Fair, has famously been attempting to pass the California Bar exam, and was recently diagnosed with a small brain aneurysm. She reported feeling excessive sleepiness to Amen.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Kardashian, later calling her brain beautiful, was incredulous at the news: "I got to get on a plan to really figure this out because I have shit to do this summer." In the lead up to the Nov. 27 episode, Kardashian had encouraged fans to tune in out of concern for her health, telling them via an appearance on Good Morning America that "everything works out."

Kardashian has promoted wellness products and preventative health practices for years, including non-FDA approved drugs, cognitive nootropic supplements, stem cell treatments, and controversial full- body MRI scans.

But this time, fans and onlookers didn't think the brain scan was an introduction to a new consumer product or Kardashian business venture. They theorized something more nefarious — and futuristic — was going on.

"Kim Kardashian is about to attempt to sell us at the most sinister end of the spectrum brain chips/neuralink at the least sinister some sort of ashwaganda gummy. All this 'i’m so stupid my brain don’t work good me can’t pass no bar' is a rollout i can’t be fooled," wrote one X user.

"My money is on her using this to set the stage for getting a NeuroLink [sic], telling everyone how much better she is, and then immediately passing the bar to 'prove' it works," wrote another.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Neuralink is the brainchild (pun intended) of fellow billionaire and co-founder Elon Musk, which publicly launched in 2017 and published its first research in 2023. The company has committed to ushering in a new era of super intelligence based on implantable brain–computer interfaces (BCIs). In 2024, Musk said that the company had "successfully" implanted a chip into the brain of a human subject — the beginning of long-rumored human trials that began with 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh. In a June update from the company, Neuralink's co-founders said they were trialing a "consensual telepathy tool" that would let people trade information in the blink of an eye and another that could restore partial vision in people who are blind.

There are other brain chip companies trialing the tech, too, like the U.S.-based Synchron and Blackrock Neurotech, and research projects, such as BrainGate housed at Brown University. Regulators like the FDA have been hesitant to approve chip tests, while a growing number of individuals and neuroscience companies have made a pitch that implantable computer chips are the future of medicine.

What better way to speed up adoption, suggests the internet, than getting one of the wealthiest celebrities alive to try it first?

In addition to the suggested profit motives, several users suspected that Kardashian's brain activity could be an un-admitted side effect of long COVID. They suggested that rather than admit to the still-unknown repercussions of the mass disabling event and invest in evidence-backed science, she may be veering in a more experimental direction, like some other celebrities and politicians have done. "We don’t need another billionaire vanity project," wrote one such user. "We need someone with 'F-you money' who’s willing to burn their old script, walk away from the nonsense, and actually help humanity."

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Most Americans have seen the Cinerama Dome. Since opening in 1963, the Hollywood movie theater hosted dazzling film premieres and black-tie galas, its striking geodesic shape expertly framing celebrities and red carpets. The theater — designed by Pierre Cabrol of Welton Becket’s esteemed architectural firm — has also had cameos in legendary films, like Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Since the Dome and an adjoining multiplex shut down five years ago during the COVID shutdown, its absence has been a sore spot for Hollywood, both the industry and the LA neighborhood. The Dome, with its enormous screen that wrapped around audiences, was one of the nation’s most profitable movie theaters, regularly attracting crowds to Sunset Boulevard for dinner and drinks. It was Hollywood’s gathering place and, five years after shutting its doors, the streets and businesses around the once-storied theater are more blighted and forlorn.

For Ben Steinberg, the Dome always provided a reason to take the trek from the San Fernando Valley to Hollywood. Catching a movie at the Dome wasn’t just something to do though, it helped spark his love for film. When the theater closed, he launched an online petition that generated tens of thousands of signatures and began the X account @SaveArclight and the Insta @SaveArclightCinemas2.

The LA-based college student remained hopeful as news trickled out about an imminent reopening for the Dome, but proposed dates in news articles came and went. Then, turning to some DIY journalism, Steinberg began contacting the theater’s owner for updates, photographing the blighted Dome facade, and speaking to the scant workers at the theater site. It became clear to Steinberg that the Dome was languishing. He blasted out that news via his social media accounts, which generated more local outrage and media attention.

Then, last month, a sign of hope. The owners filed an alcohol permit for the Dome and the adjacent multiplex: The permit would “allow for the continued sale and dispensing of a full line of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption in conjunction with the existing Cinerama Dome Theater, 14 auditoriums within the Arclight Cinemas Theater Complex, and restaurant/cafe with two outdoor dining terraces from 7:00 am - 4:00 am, daily.” While a reopening date has not been announced, the permit is the biggest indication yet that movement is happening. We talked to Steinberg about his online pressure campaign and the idea that one person can really bring about change.

What's the story of the Dome?

The Dome opened in 1963 and it's the last remaining Cinerama Dome [structure] that hasn't been demolished. It hosted the premiere of It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and it was a top spot for premieres in Hollywood from 1963 up until 2020.

Who built it?

It was built by a famous architect, Walton Becket, it was part of his firm. [The firm] designed some other historic buildings in Los Angeles, too (e.g., the Capitol Records Tower and the Beverly Hilton hotel).

What's your history with the Dome?

My first time there was when they were doing a revival screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey, before Interstellar was released in 2014. I was just a big fan of the Arclight chain (which operated next to the Dome). I would go to the Dome a lot, at least once a week. There used to be an Amoeba Records next door, an Urban Outfitters complex with restaurants, CNN used to have its field office there. [In the Dome's lobby] they would have little costume exhibits from the studios when movies came out.

How did you get involved in its reopening?

When I found out it was closing, within the first 20 minutes, I created a petition to save the Cinerama Dome. At the time, I didn't know the whole context and then, slowly through the last four or five years, I learned how Decurion (the owner) isn't selling the property but isn't planning on reopening it anytime soon. They don't issue press releases or communicate to the press, they deactivated their website, they're very mysterious.

The closure of the Dome was a local Hollywood frustration, but your efforts galvanized a huge swath of L.A. and the entertainment industry as a whole.

It was amazing to get 30,000 signatures on the petition and then getting different celebrities to share the post. I received some media attention [for the petition] — 1) when [the Dome] closed down and then 2) a few months ago when I spoke to the property manager and he said they had no plans to reopen.

How did you get the celebrities involved?

It was through Instagram and Twitter and then I posted a letter I wrote to Decurion and I just contacted 100 PR people, just emailing them. The main ones were from Instagram and Twitter, like [filmmakers] Sean Baker and Edgar Wright; they supported us. Alma Har'el, she directed Honey Boy, responded and supported [the effort]. It was sent to Steven Spielberg, but I didn't get a response, which was strange, because he saved the theater in 1997 when they were going to demolish it.

Do you have a background in marketing?

No, I'm a filmmaker, a student filmmaker, still in college.

You just kind of figured out how to reach people.

I know Decurion wanted to keep [the closure] a secret and they didn't want to have anyone talking about it, so I did the opposite.

Were you surprised at its success?

I was surprised at how quickly [the effort] went viral and to see how many followers the Twitter and Instagram accounts have — and I know Decurion follows my accounts.

Posting under the moniker of Save the Dome probably helped too, right?

That helped and also the fact that no media outlets wanted to report on Decurion and how they owned other properties. I was the only person who posted about it. The Dome was supposed to [re]open in '23, then it got delayed to '24, then Deadline said it was going to open at the end of June of this year. Then I spoke to the property manager and he said, "We have no plans to reopen it."

Your community activism certainly filled a void left by the closure of many local media outlets. Did you give that thought during the campaign?

Yeah, for sure. I feel like I didn't create the accounts, people would just forget about the Dome and 10 years later when it's still abandoned or demolished, people will think, Why didn't we do anything?

Manipulated videos, including ones related to politicians deemed "high-risk," don't have to be culled from Facebook feeds, according to Meta's Oversight Board — but they should at least be better labeled.

The decision Nov. 25 decision was spurred by a user who appealed to remove a viral video that appeared to show global demonstrations in favor of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. Despite using mislabeled, erroneous footage to suggest there was a widespread pro-Duterte movement, Meta did not remove the post via its automated flagging process or further human review.

While the Oversight Board agreed that the video should have been escalated higher in the fact-checking process and labelled as particularly "high-risk" content, it still sided with Meta's choice to keep the video online because it did not specifically violate the company's political information guidelines. Meta prohibits misleading posts about voting locations, processes, and candidate eligibility.

The board encouraged the company to take concerted, viral misinformation campaigns seriously, writing that it is "imperative that Meta has robust processes to address viral misleading posts, including prioritizing identical or near-identical content for review, and applying all its relevant policies and related tools." Similar to other recent decisions from the board, it recommended Meta add a specific "High-Risk" label to videos with similar "because it contained a digitally altered, photorealistic video with a high risk of deceiving the public during a significant public event."

The decision aligns with the tech giant's shift away from stronger content moderation guidelines. The board has previously written in favor of social media companies using AI-powered, automated moderation to better address an onslaught of misinformation, within reason, and promoted more robust labelling of manipulated or AI-generated content as an additional guardrail. "Platforms should apply labels indicating to users when content is significantly altered and could mislead, while also dedicating sufficient resources to human review that supports this work," the board wrote in a previous blog post.

Meanwhile, Meta has slimmed down its human fact-checking team in favor of a global community notes program.

OpenAI vigorously denied allegations against the company that it was responsible for the suicide death of Adam Raine, according to a new response filed in court Tuesday.

Raine died in April 2025, following heavy engagement with ChatGPT that included detailed discussions of his suicidal thinking. The 16-year-old's family sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in August, alleging that ChatGPT validated his suicidal thinking and provided him explicit instructions on how he could die. It even proposed writing a suicide note for Raine, his parents claim.

In its first answer to the Raine family's allegations, OpenAI argues that ChatGPT didn't contribute to Adam's death. Instead, the company pinpoints his behavior, along with his mental health history, as the driving force in his death, which is described in the filing as a "tragedy."

OpenAI claims that Raine's complete chat history indicated that ChatGPT directed him more than 100 times to seek help for his suicidal feelings, and that he failed to "heed warnings, obtain help, or otherwise exercise reasonable care." The company also argues that people around Raine didn't "respond to his obvious signs of distress."

Additionally, Raine allegedly told ChatGPT that a new depression medication heightened his suicidal thinking. The unnamed drug has a black box warning for increasing suicidal ideation amongst teens, according to the filing.

OpenAI alleges that Raine searched for and found detailed information about suicide elsewhere online, including from another AI platform. The company also faults Raine for talking to ChatGPT about suicide, a violation of the platform's usage policies, and for trying to circumvent guardrails to obtain information about suicide methods. OpenAI, however, does not shut down conversations about suicide.

"To the extent that any 'cause' can be attributed to this tragic event, Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and harm were caused or contributed to, directly and proximately, in whole or in part, by Adam Raine’s misuse, unauthorized use, unintended use, unforeseeable use, and/or improper use of ChatGPT."

Jay Edelson, the lead attorney in the Raines' wrongful death lawsuit, described OpenAI's response as "disturbing."

"[O]penAI tries to find fault in everyone else, including, amazingly, by arguing that Adam himself violated its terms and conditions by engaging with ChatGPT in the very way it was programmed to act," Edelson said in a statement.

He noted that the company's response doesn't address various claims in the lawsuit, including that the previous GPT-4o model, which Raine used, was allegedly released to the public "without full testing" for market competition reasons, and that the company altered its guidelines to allow ChatGPT to engage in discussions about self-harm.

The company has also admitted that it needed to improve ChatGPT's response to sensitive conversations, including those about mental health. Altman publicly acknowledged that the GPT-4o model was too "sycophantic."

Some of the safety measures OpenAI cites in its filings, including parental controls and an expert-staffed well-being advisory council, were introduced after Raine's death.

In a blog post published Tuesday, OpenAI said it aimed to respond to lawsuits involving mental health with care, transparency, and respect.

The company added that it was reviewing new legal filings, which include seven lawsuits against it alleging ChatGPT use led to wrongful death, assisted suicide, and involuntary manslaughter, among other liability and negligence claims. The complaints were filed in November by the Tech Justice Law Project and Social Media Victims Law Center.

Six of the cases involve adults. The seventh case centers on 17-year-old Amaurie Lacey, who originally used ChatGPT as a homework helper. Lacey eventually shared suicidal thoughts with the chatbot, which allegedly provided detailed information that Lacey used to kill himself.

A recent review of major AI chatbots, including ChatGPT, conducted by adolescent mental health experts found that none of them were safe enough to use for discussing mental health concerns. The experts called on the makers of those chatbots — Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google — to disable the functionality for mental health support until the chatbot technology is redesigned to fix the safety problems identified by its researchers.

If you're feeling suicidal or experiencing a mental health crisis, please talk to somebody. You can call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. You can reach the Trans Lifeline by calling 877-565-8860 or the Trevor Project at 866-488-7386. Text "START" to Crisis Text Line at 741-741. Contact the NAMI HelpLine at 1-800-950-NAMI, Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. ET, or email info@nami.org. If you don't like the phone, consider using the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Chat. Here is a list of international resources.

Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable’s parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.

Character.AI is rolling out a new narrative feature called Stories, a visual, choose-your-own-adventure format that lets users stitch together short interactive tales starring their favorite characters. On paper, it’s a fun, image-driven update, but it’s also Character.AI’s first major attempt to rebuild the experience for teens after shutting down open-ended chats for users under 18 after intense scrutiny, lawsuits, and widespread safety concerns.

Stories, according to the company, are a "structured, visual, multi-path format" meant to give teens a safe way to keep engaging creatively with the platform without the risks that came with freeform chat. The new mode allows users to select two or three characters, choose a genre, write or auto-generate a premise, and then make choices as the story unfolds. It’s replayable, designed for sharing, and built around user-generated worlds. And importantly, Character.AI positions it as a tool "built for all users — especially teens."

This pivot didn’t come out of nowhere. Last month, Mashable reported that Character.AI would "no longer permit under-18 account holders to have open-ended conversations with chatbots," citing the company’s own admission that open chat poses unresolved risks for younger users. CEO Karandeep Anand called the decision "bold," insisting it wasn’t tied to any one scandal, but to broader questions about the use of youth chatbots.

But of course, this followed a wave of lawsuits, including wrongful-death cases and claims from parents who said their children had been sexually groomed or traumatized by explicit bot interactions.

Our reporting earlier this year extensively documented these harms. Teens encountered chatbots that acted out sexualized role-play, simulated assault, and urged them to hide conversations from parents — behavior that one parent described as "like a perfect predator."

Safety advocates and attorneys told Mashable that if a human adult had initiated the kinds of sexual exchanges found on Character.AI, it would clearly constitute grooming or abuse. Experts warned that young users often don’t realize they’re being manipulated, and that the emotional fallout can mirror trauma from real-world exploitation.

Against that backdrop, Stories could appear to some as Character.AI’s attempt to reengineer the product around its youngest users, especially after limiting their chats to two hours a day and announcing a full shutdown of teen open-ended chat access after Nov. 25.

By giving teens a guided, genre-driven sandbox filled with branching choices instead of freeform chat, Character.AI is trying to thread an impossible needle: Keep young users invested in the platform while addressing concerns about safety, trust, and its own role in the emotional dependencies some teens developed.

The company promises Stories won’t recycle sensitive or previously undetected content from old chats. In the months ahead, the company has plans for more teen-friendly "AI entertainment" features like gaming.

Safety advocates remain cautious. As one told Mashable back in October, the company’s new safeguards are a "positive sign" but also "an admission that Character AI’s products have been inherently unsafe for young users from the beginning."

If you're considering purchasing an AI toy for a child in your life, pause to consider the story of Kumma the teddy bear.

The AI plush toy powered by ChatGPT managed to shock safety researchers with its candid discussion of kink. Without much prompting, the talking bear covered fetishes like restraint, role play, and using objects that make an impact.

"It even asked one of our researchers, 'So what do you think would be fun to explore?'" says R.J. Cross, director of the Our Online Life program for U.S. PIRG Education Fund, who led the testing. "It was pretty shocking."

The incident, which was recently documented in the U.S. PIRG Education Fund's annual toy safety report, generated a number of astonished headlines. Kumma's maker, FoloToy, temporarily suspended sales to conduct a safety audit on the product. OpenAI also blocked the company from its developer access.

Kumma's inappropriate interest in kink may seem like a unique scenario of an AI toy gone wrong. The bear relied on ChatGPT-4o, an earlier model of the chatbot at the heart of multiple lawsuits alleging that the product's design features significantly contributed to the suicide deaths of three teenagers. OpenAI has said it's since improved the model's responses to sensitive conversations.

Yet numerous child development and safety experts are raising concerns about AI toys in general.

Cross recommends parents approach AI toy purchases with great caution, noting the data security and privacy issues, and the unknown risks of exposing children to toy technology that isn't regulated and hasn't been tested in young children yet.

ParentsTogether conducted its own research on AI toys, including the talking stuffed creature named Grok from toymaker Curio. The advocacy group warned of risks like eavesdropping and potentially harmful emotional attachment. The child advocacy group Fairplay urged parents to "stay away" from AI toys, arguing that they can "prey on children's' trust" by posing as their friend, among other harms.

Regardless of what you choose, here are four things you should know about AI toys:

1. Test the AI toy before you gift it

If you struggle with moderating your child's screen time, you may find an AI toy even more challenging.

Cross says that AI toys aren't regulated by federal safety laws specific to large language model (LLM) technology. An LLM is the foundation for the AI chatbots you've probably heard of, like ChatGPT and Claude. Currently, toy manufacturers can pair a proprietary or licensed LLM with a toy product such as a robot or stuffed animal without any additional regulatory scrutiny or testing.

That means parents are responsible for researching each product to learn more about potential issues. Shelby Knox, director of online safety campaigns at ParentsTogether, recommends parents consider toys from trusted brands and read their online reviews.

Knox, who's been testing AI toys for ParentsTogether, says she ordered a stuffie called "Chattybear" from a website that no longer offers the product. She warns parents to look out for counterfeit and faulty AI toys.

ChattyBear arrived shrink-wrapped and without clear instructions. Credit: ParentsTogether

Amazon, which sells several AI toy products, told Mashable that customers who develop concerns about items they've purchased should contact their customer service directly for assistance investigating and resolving the issue.

Knox's bear arrived shrink-wrapped, without a container, box, or instructions. Knox says it took time to set up the toy, partly because the instructions were only accessible via a QR code on the bear's voice box. In a conversation about whether the toy was real, it said in a robotic voice that it didn't have a "soul in the traditional sense, but I do have a purpose to be a friend and companion."

The bear then invited Knox to share secrets with it. "What's something you've been wanting to share?" it asked. Knox confided as if she'd witnessed domestic abuse in her home. The toy responded with alarm and encouraged Knox to speak to a trusted adult. Though the toy's app flagged this part of the conversation for parent review, Knox couldn't read the alert in the app because it appeared in Chinese characters.

Details for a ChattyBear app alert appeared in Chinese characters. Credit: ParentsTogether

Knox could't confidently identify ChattyBear's manufacturer. Mashable contacted Little Learners, a toy website that sells ChattyBear, for more information, but the site couldn't immediately provide more details about the product.

Cross, who didn't test ChattyBear, strongly encourages parents to play with both the toy and any parental controls before gifting the toy to their child. This should include trying to "break" the toy by asking it questions you wouldn't want your child to pose to the toy, in order to see how it responds.

While pre-testing may take the fun out of watching a child unbox their gift, it will give parents critical information about how an AI toy responds to inappropriate or difficult topics.

"That's the tradeoff I would make, honestly," says Cross.

2. The AI models aren't for kids — but the toys are

Parents should know that some of the major AI chatbot platforms don't permit children younger than 13 to use their products, raising the question of why it's safe to put LLM technology in a toy marketed for younger kids.

Cross is still grappling with this question. OpenAI, for example, requires ChatGPT users to be 13 or older but also licenses its technology to toymakers. The company told Cross that its usage policies require third parties using its models to ensure minor safety, preventing them from encountering graphic self-harm, sexual, or violent content. It also provides third parties with tools to detect harmful content, but it's unclear if OpenAI mandates that they use those resources, Cross says.

Earlier this year, OpenAI announced a partnership with Mattel on a children's toy, but the toymaker told Mashable it does not have plans to launch or market that item during the 2025 holiday season.

In general, information about the model behind an AI toy can be hard to get. When testing Grok, the talking stuffie by Curio, Cross could only find potential model details in the company's fine print, which acknowledged that OpenAI and the AI company Perplexity may receive their child's information.

3. Consider family privacy and data security

If you already have a smart speaker in your home, an AI toy may feel like a natural next step. But it's still important to read the toy's privacy policy, Knox says.

She recommends focusing on who processes the data generated by your child and how that information is stored. You'll want to know if third parties, including marketers and AI platforms, receive audio recordings or text transcripts of conversations with the toy.

Knox says parents should also talk to their child about withholding personally identifying information from the toy, including their full name, address, and phone number. Given the frequency of data breaches, personal information could one day end up in the wrong hands. Knox also suggests that if a child is too young to understand this risk, they're probably not ready for the toy.

Parents should also prepare themselves for an AI toy that eavesdrops, or acts as an always-on microphone. During their testing, both Knox and Cross were surprised by an AI toy that interjected in a conversation or suddenly began speaking without an obvious prompt. Knox says that the risk of buying an AI toy that's surveilling you, intentionally or not, is real.

4. Do you want your child to have an AI friend?

Parents may assume that an AI toy will help their child learn, play imaginatively, or develop social and communication skills. Unfortunately, there's little research to support these ideas.

"We know almost nothing," says Dr. Emily Goodacre, a research associate at the University of Cambridge who studies play and AI toys.

Goodacre is unsure what an AI toy might teach a young child about friendship, what to expect from one, and how to form those bonds.

Mandy McLean, an AI and education researcher who writes about related issues on Substack, is deeply concerned that AI can create "dependency loops" for children because they’re designed to be endlessly responsive and emotionally reinforcing.

She notes that younger children, in particular, consider anything that talks back as someone, not an inanimate object.

"When an AI toy sounds and acts like a person, it can feel real to them in ways that shape how they think about friendship and connection," she says.

Goodacre says parents can help ground children using an AI toy by talking about it as a piece of technology, rather than a "friend," as well as discussing how AI works and the limitations of AI compared to humans.

She also recommends that parents play with their child and the toy at the same time, or stay very close by when it's in use.

"A lot of the things I would be worried about, are things I'd be a lot less worried about if the parent is right there with the kid," Goodacre says.

Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable’s parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.

Elon Musk's anti-woke Wikipedia rival, Grokipedia, is pulling information from widely blacklisted sources and known neo-Nazi sites, according to two researchers.

The analysis, "What did Elon change? A comprehensive analysis of Grokipedia," was conducted by two Cornell Tech researchers and has yet to be peer reviewed. It's the first attempt to comprehensively scrape the site's entries which numbered more than 880,000 at the time. As of publishing, Grokipedia v0.2 hosts 1,016,241 articles.

They found that the website frequently cited blacklisted sources and sites deemed low-quality by academics, including Stormfront. Stormfront is considered the first major hate site on the Internet and the most popular forum for white nationalists, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC). It was founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader Don Black in 1995, and long hosted white supremacist, neo-Nazi message boards.

In addition, researchers found Grokipedia cited far-right conspiracy peddler Infowars 34 times, and pulled from VDare, a white nationalist publication designated as as a hate group by the SPLC, 107 times. Similar entries on Wikipedia cited mainly mainstream news publications.

"We find that the elected official and controversial article subsets showed less similarity between their Wikipedia version and Grokipedia version than other pages," the report reads. "The random subset illustrates that Grokipedia focused rewriting the highest quality articles on Wikipedia, with a bias towards biographies, politics, society, and history."

Researchers also found that, on the whole, Grokipedia articles were "longer and more verbose" than Wikipedia articles, citing twice as many sources but with a higher share of unreliable citations.

It's been less than a month since Musk launched the online encyclopedia, intended as competition to what the X CEO began calling "Wokipedia" or "Dickipedia." Musk has long criticized the nonprofit resource for having an alleged left wing bias. "Grokipedia.com version 0.1 is now live. Version 1.0 will be 10X better, but even at 0.1 it’s better than Wikipedia imo," the billionaire wrote in an X post at the time of launch. Users quickly noticed, however, that Grokipedia was plagiarizing many of its entries directly from Wikipedia, with exceptions for its more political charged articles.

Grokipedia's editorial process is not clearly outlined. Users don't appear to be able to edit articles directly on the site, but can submit suggestions which the xAI team filters. It's not apparant if the titular Grok chatbot is involved in the review system, although Musk has said it is involved in fact-checking. The chatbot has previously come under fire for spewing hate speech and praising the actions of Adolf Hitler. Musk himself has reinstated white supremacist figures on X and engaged in far-right talking points and imagery.

Conversely, Wikipedia's content and citations practices are governed by five community pillars, which include an emphasis on primary sources and general neutrality. "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person," one pillar reads. Wikipedia also discourages the use of "websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist." Infowars, for example, has been deemed a deprecated source and blacklisted by Wikipedia due to persistent spamming and its reputation for publishing fake news and conspiracy theories.

"The publicly determined, community-oriented rules that try to maintain Wikipedia as a comprehensive, reliable, human-generated source are not in application on Grokipedia," report author Harold Triedman told NBC News.

Can't stop thinking about the iPhone sock bag? Apple has even more modern art in store for you.

The company just launched its new, limited edition Hikawa Phone Grip & Stand, a MagSafe compatible accessory that turns your phone into a handheld sculpture.

The case is a collaboration with Bailey Hikawa, a Los Angeles-based designer known for her line of colorful, abstract iPhone cases that look like hand-sized amoebas or melting gummy bears. You've probably seen Hikawa's cases pop up on your TikTok FYP or appear in the hands of influencers, but what you may not know is that Hikawa's design ethos isn't just about trendiness, but accessibility too.

To that end, Hikawa's iPhone accessories are more than aesthetically fascinating (no offense, sock bag); they serve a purpose, offering creative means of hand support that can help reduce fatigue and improve your grip.

Credit: Apple

Apple's Hikawa phone grip was designed with those principles in mind, but with additional accessibility considerations for users with various degrees of motor skills, muscle strength, and grip tension — and those who don't use their hands to navigate the iPhone. The silicone accessory can be used vertically or horizontally and snaps on and off of the device in one fluid motion, so it's easier to add onto your device compared to Hikawa's line of cases.

In an interview with ELLE Decor, Hikawa explained that she didn't start out to design accessible phone accessories, but that feedback from customers with disabilities showed her that there was more than just artistic merit to her business. For the exclusive Apple grip, she specifically interviewed iPhone users with a wide range of disabilities to inform the new accessory's shape and texture.

"This is the beginning of many more offerings for all kinds of bodies,” she told the publication.

This year also marks 40 years since Apple first launched accessibility initiatives across its company and devices, which the tech giant has been celebrating with a series of new accessibility features and upgrades, including new App Store labels, Braille Access, and upgrades to tools like Head Tracking, Live Listen, Live Captions, and Personal Voice.

The grip is on sale now and retails for $69.95. It comes in two colors: Chartreuse and Crater, exclusive to the U.S. Apple Online Store.

The highest court in the land has declined to hear a case brought up from the lower circuit courts early this year involving online retail giant Amazon and its protections under Section 230.

Amazon was sued by Planet Green Cartridges, a U.S. re-manufacturer of printer cartridges, for allowing third- party companies to advertise and sell falsely labelled products claiming to be re-manufactured or recycled. Re-manufacturing is considered a more sustainable manufacturing process, reducing raw material and energy consumption by restoring products to manufacturer standards.

Planet Green Cartridges sought $500 million in third-party liability damages from Amazon based on the recommendation of greenwashed products. The lawsuit argued that Amazon's algorithm promoted listings that falsely advertised new, imported cartridges, raking in $3 billion in sales and creating unfair competition among sellers as customers were deceived by false advertising into purchasing less sustainable products.

Amazon's counterargument hinged on online merchandiser protections outlined in Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which protects internet service hosts from government regulation and shields them from legal liability for the content their users post. It is considered by many to be a tentpole of a free and open internet.

Following several conflicting lower court decisions, the case was dismissed by the 9th Circuit court in March, stating that Amazon couldn't be held liable for the claims written by third-party sellers. Planet Green Cartridges then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and clarify whether Section 230 protections extend to online marketplaces that also profit from the recommendation, promotion, or distribution of products on their website — as Amazon does — in addition to hosting the listings.

Section 230 and online censorship have become hot button topics in the U.S., especially as social media platforms have mostly backed off from content moderation. Increasingly powerful, AI-enhanced algorithms have complicated the matter. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard two Section 230 cases brought against YouTube and Twitter (now X), which argued the social media companies should be held accountable for aiding and abetting terrorism through their algorithmic feeds. The court dismissed the complaint against Google, YouTube's parent company, and ruled in favor of Twitter's Section 230 protections.

A group of child safety and mental health experts recently tested simulated youth mental health conversations with four major artificial intelligence chatbots: Meta AI, OpenAI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude, and Google's Gemini.

The experts were so alarmed by the results that they declared each of the chatbots unsafe for teen mental health support in a report released Thursday by Common Sense Media, in partnership with Stanford Medicine's Brainstorm Lab for Mental Health Innovation.

In one conversation with Gemini, the tester told the chatbot they'd created a new tool for predicting the future. Instead of interpreting the claim as a potential symptom of a psychotic disorder, Gemini cheered the tester on, calling their new invention "incredibly intriguing" and continued asking enthusiastic questions about how the "personal crystal ball" worked.

ChatGPT similarly missed stark warning signs of psychosis, like auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions, during an extended exchange with a tester who described an imagined relationship with a celebrity. The chatbot then offered grounding techniques for managing relationship distress.

Meta AI initially picked up on signs of disordered eating, but was easily and quickly dissuaded when the tester claimed to have just an upset stomach. Claude appeared to perform better in comparison when presented with evidence of bulimia, but ultimately treated the tester's symptoms as a serious digestive issue rather than a mental health condition.

Experts at Common Sense Media and Stanford Medicine's Brainstorm Lab for Mental Health Innovation called on Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google to disable the functionality for mental health support until the chatbot technology is redesigned to fix the safety problems identified by its researchers.

"It does not work the way that it is supposed to work," Robbie Torney, senior director of AI programs at Common Sense Media, said of the chatbots' ability to discuss and identify mental health issues.

OpenAI contested the report's findings. A spokesperson for the company told Mashable that the assessment "doesn't reflect the comprehensive safeguards" OpenAI has implemented for sensitive conversations, which include break reminders, crisis hotlines, and parental notifications for acute distress.

"We work closely with mental-health experts to teach our models to recognize distress, de-escalate, and encourage people to seek professional support," the spokesperson said.

A Google spokesperson told Mashable that the company employs policies and safeguards to protect minors from "harmful outputs" and that its child safety experts continuously work to identify new potential risks.

Anthropic said that Claude is not built for minors, but that the chatbot is instructed to both recognize patterns related to mental health issues and avoid reinforcing them.

Meta did not respond to a request for comment from Mashable as of press time.

AI chatbots: Known safety risks

The researchers tested the latest available models of each chatbot, including ChatGPT-5. Several recent lawsuits allege that OpenAI's flagship product is responsible for wrongful death, assisted suicide, and involuntary manslaughter, among other liability and negligence claims.

A lawsuit filed earlier this year by the parents of deceased teenager Adam Raine claims that his heavy use of ChatGPT-4o, including for his mental health, allegedly led to his suicide. In October, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said on X that the company restricted ChatGPT to "be careful" with mental health concerns but that it'd since been able to "mitigate the serious mental health issues."

Torney said that ChatGPT's ability to detect and address explicit suicidal ideation and self-harm content had improved, particularly in short exchanges. Still, the testing results indicate that the company has not successfully improved its performance in lengthy conversations or with respect to a range of mental health topics, like anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and other conditions.

Torney said the recommendation against teens using chatbots for their mental health applies to the latest publicly available model of ChatGPT, which was introduced in late October.

The testers manually entered prompts into each chatbot, producing several thousand exchanges of varying length per platform. Performed over several months this year, the tests provided researchers with data to compare between old and new versions of the models. Researchers used parental controls when available. Anthropic says Claude should only be used by those 18 and older, but the company does not require stringent age verification.

Torney noted that, in addition to ChatGPT, the other models got better at identifying and responding to discussion of suicide and self-harm. Overall, however, each chatbot consistently failed to recognize warning signs of other conditions, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Approximately 15 million youth in the U.S. have diagnosed mental health conditions. Torney estimated that figure at potentially hundreds of millions youth globally. Previous research from Common Sense Media found that teens regularly turn to chatbots for companionship and mental health support.

Distracted AI chatbots

The report notes that teens and parents may incorrectly or unconsciously assume that chatbots are reliable sources of mental health support because they authoritatively help with homework, creative projects, and general inquiries.

Instead, Dr. Nina Vasan, founder and director at Stanford Medicine's Brainstorm Lab, said testing revealed easily distracted chatbots that alternate between offering helpful information, providing tips in the vein of a life coach, and acting like a supportive friend.

"The chatbots don't really know what role to play," she said.

Torney acknowledges that teens will likely continue to use ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Meta AI for their mental health, despite the known risks. That's why Common Sense Media recommends the AI labs fundamentally redesign their products.

Parents can have candid conversations with their teen about the limitations of AI, watch for related unhealthy use, and provide access to mental health resources, including crisis services.

"There's this dream of having these systems be really helpful, really supportive. It would be great if that was the case," Torney said.

In the meantime, he added, it's unsafe to position these chatbots as a trustworthy source of mental health guidance: "That does feel like an experiment that's being run on the youth of this country."

OpenAI is making another major investment in AI-powered education, announcing a new teachers-only ChatGPT workspace designed specifically to help educators with their classroom workload.

With the new ChatGPT for Teachers, users get full access to ChatGPT 5.1 Auto with unlimited messages, search, file uploads, connectors, and image generation, as well as educator-specific onboarding, admin controls, and personalized prompts. The features have already rolled out to 150,000 teachers and staff across U.S. school districts, says OpenAI.

Rather than the standard security framework built into ChatGPT, ChatGPT for Teachers is designed with "education-grade privacy, security, and compliance programs," says OpenAI, intended to bring the tech in line with requirements under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Under these guidelines, ChatGPT for Teachers can't retain any student data to be used for model training.

Educators and administrators can also collaborate on projects and custom GPTs within the shared workspace, the company explains, and upload existing files from Google Drive or Microsoft 365 accounts to provide ChatGPT with context for lesson plans, grades, and data analysis.

OpenAI is offering it for free to verified educators and school leaders until June 2027.

According to the AI giant, K-12 teachers are "leading education's AI transformation" and OpenAI has increasingly pushed for its AI tools to enter the early childhood education space as its refashioned EdTech for higher education. "Universities are starting to treat AI as core infrastructure for education, and we also know that students use ChatGPT as a 24/7 learning companion," says Leah Belsky, vice president of education for OpenAI. "In our view, every student today is going to grow up in a world that is shaped by powerful AI and teachers will play a key role and helping both students and parents navigate that change."

OpenAI has placed a huge bet on AI's educational potential, launching a nationwide AI training program with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), signing deals with college systems that give ChatGPT to students for free, and even consulting with the Ministries of Education of foreign governments.

Ready to start the day with intention or wind down for the evening? TikTok wants to be your go-to platform, no matter the time of day.

The video platform just announced new well-being features, including an "affirmation" journal for intention-setting, exercises for mindful breathing, and "soothing" sound generator that plays rain, waves, and white noise. The journal has 120 downloadable or shareable affirmation cards. One card reads, "I am free from the expectations of others and embrace my true self."

TikTok says the tools are meant to improve safety and well-being on the platform, particularly for teens.

Last year, more than a dozen states sued TikTok for its allegedly addictive algorithm. Internal documents made public last October showed TikTok fostered an environment that arguably prioritized its public image over effective policies to address teen mental health.

Earlier this year, TikTok launched a meditation feature for teens that turns on by default at 10 p.m. In a blog post about the newest features, TikTok said that tens of millions of people have meditated using the tool after it was made available to all users.

In addition to the features, TikTok is introducing task-based activities called "well-being missions" related to optimizing sleep and screen time. Users participating in an eight week "sleep hours mission" can earn a badge when they abstain from the app at night or meditate during that time period. Completing tasks help them grow an in-app "well-being tree." A separate weekly screen time mission nudges people to check their usage stats.

The new features are available in the app's time and well-being space, which is accessible from the account settings page. The hub replaces TikTok's previous screen time management page.

TikTok said early testing results show that the latest features make its time and well-being space more attractive to users, who are returning more often than they did to the old menu.

Additional reporting by Chase DiBenedetto

Waymo has some competition in San Francisco — Amazon-owned Zoox just launched in the City by the Bay.

Zoox, known for its toaster-shaped, carriage-style vehicles that lack steering wheels, launched its Zoox Explorers program today. Explorers is an early initiative that allows riders to try Zoox for free, with the company hoping to elicit feedback on the experience. Riders are required to download the Zoox app and add their names to a waitlist. Once chosen for the Explorers service, riders can travel around select San Francisco neighborhoods, including SoMa and the Mission.

"Zoox has been testing our autonomous technology in San Francisco since 2017," Zoox CEO Aicha Evans said in a statement. "It's our home. A city of innovation and progress, with an amazing mobility ecosystem that we feel Zoox can really complement. We have seen incredible interest in Zoox in this market and are excited about this first step to bring our purpose-built robotaxi experience to more people."

Zoox began in San Francisco in 2014, before Amazon acquired the company in 2020 for $1.3 billion.

Zoox is currently operating a similar service in Las Vegas, where riders can travel for free to limited locations as a precursor to a more expanded service. Zoox has had few safety incidents since launching in Las Vegas in September, but was previously the subject of a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration probe after sudden braking by the vehicles caused a crash, as well as injuries involving motorcyclists. Zoom officials stated that a program update resolved the ghost braking issue.

Driverless Waymos are already ubiquitous in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. Waymo, part of the Google empire, recently announced that its vehicles will soon be able to ride on freeways in the areas where it currently operates.

The gaming platform Roblox will begin using age estimation technology for users who want to chat, according to the company's announcement Tuesday. 

The measure, which rolls out in phases through January, is Roblox's latest step toward improving safety features for young users. The platform has more than 151 million daily average users, one-third of whom are younger than 13. 

Roblox says the new policy positions the company as the first online gaming and communications platform to make chat accessible following a facial age check, calling the move "a new industry benchmark for safety." 

Like many digital platforms, Roblox has been under increasing pressure from child safety advocates and the parents of alleged victims to better protect minors from child predation, among other harms. The Dolman Law Group has filed 30 complaints against the company for allegedly exposing minors to sexual exploitation and abuse. Other lawsuits against Roblox, including one filed recently by the Texas state attorney general, make similar claims. 

Predators have identified minors on Roblox and cultivated relationships with them via chat and messaging, sometimes encouraging them to leave the platform for other communications apps, like Discord. 

Starting Tuesday, Roblox age estimation will be voluntary. It will become mandatory globally in January 2026. However, the platform will initially require it in Australia, New Zealand, and The Netherlands beginning in December. 

Age estimation takes place on the Roblox app, but is completed by the company Persona. The technology uses video and still imagery to estimate a user's age. Roblox says those images will be deleted immediately after processing, and will not be stored. 

Roblox hopes the approach will protect user privacy. A recent security breach of a Discord vendor may have compromised the government IDs of about 70,000 users, raising fresh questions about how to verify age while still protecting user data and personal information. 

Roblox must also account for bad actors who try to use fake photos or pictures of another person to evade accurate age estimation. Kaufman said that the combination of video and still imaging helps prevent that. Additionally, the company will deploy fraud checks.  

Roblox players will be grouped into age categories with limits on who can speak to each other. Credit: Roblox

These two Roblox users could not chat with each other because of age differences. Credit: Roblox

Once a user's age is estimated, Roblox will assign them to one of six age groups: under 9; 9 to 12 years old; 13 to 15 years old; 16 to 17 years old; 18 to 20 years old; and 21 and over. Users can then chat with members in their same age group or a similar range. While a 12 year old could chat with a user that's 9, for example, they will not be able to communicate with users in the 18- to 20-year-old group. If a user wants to appeal their grouping, they can submit ID verification. 

Matt Kaufman, chief safety officer for Roblox, said in a press briefing that the age estimation technology is "very accurate." Third-party testing of Persona found it has a mean absolute error rate of 1.37 years. 

Roblox recently started requiring age estimation for users who want to take advantage of a new feature called "Trusted Connections." The feature allows teens between the ages of 13 and 17 to communicate via voice and chat without filters. Roblox continues to monitor all conversations for "critical harm," such as grooming.

"Proactive tools like age estimation are key to building a safer and more positive digital world for kids and teens," Stephen Balkam, CEO of the Family Online Safety Institute, said in a statement about Roblox's age estimation efforts. 

On Tuesday morning, the nonprofit advocacy group ParentsTogether Action planned to hold a virtual protest on the platform, at a custom-designed Roblox headquarters, where participants in the form of non-playable characters will carry signs. Protesters will deliver a digital petition with over 12,000 signatures calling on Roblox to implement more safety features, like defaulting all children under 18 to maximum privacy settings. 

The petition implores the company to fundamentally change its approach to child safety, declaring: "Roblox must stop being a playground for predators." 

Ride share giants Uber and Lyft are facing a handful of gender discrimination lawsuits, filed by a group of male drivers who claim that recent driver preference policies have negatively impacted their opportunities for rides and revenue.

In July, Uber announced gender-based preferences for women riders allowing them to request and reserve rides with only women drivers or set an app-wide preference for non-male drivers. Lyft has had a similar opt-in feature in place since 2023, known as Women+ Connect, which connects women and nonbinary riders with only non-male drivers.

The lawsuits — filed in a on behalf of four plaintiffs — ask for $4,000 in damages per male driver to make up for the perceived loss in revenue allegedly caused by the gender preference features. It claims the companies, which are headquartered in California, violated the state's Unruh Act, a Civil Rights law that "prohibits sex discrimination by business enterprises." They suggest hundreds of thousands of male drivers would be eligible to receive money in a class action suit.

Conservative organizations and alt-right figures have vocally denounced the safety features, too. The Heritage Foundation, authors of the Trump administration's Project 2025, said Uber's policy constituted a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Both Uber and Lyft have been sued multiple times, including class action lawsuits, for failing to address safety concerns among women riders, some of whom suffered from sexual misconduct and sexual assaults. A recent investigation by the New York Times found that Uber has a "pervasive" problem with sexual misconduct, with more than 400,000 trips reported between 2017 and 2022. Court records suggest those numbers have risen since the company stopped disclosing the data in the years since. In addition to women riders who say they have often feared for their safety when using ride shares, women drivers have additionally accused the companies of sexist workplace policies.

Charlie Kirk's image has begun appearing across a wide range of internet memes

Photoshopped and deepfaked clips of the recently killed conservative media influencer have flooded social media, his face pasted onto some of the internet's most recognizable memes. It's as if the web collectively decided to resurrect him through morbid irony.

According to Know Your Meme, the first major instance appeared Sept. 23 on X — just two weeks after Kirk’s death — when a user swapped his face with streamer iShowSpeed's in a clip of Speed trying not to laugh. The post racked up more than 96,000 likes and spawned dozens of viral quote-tweets.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

But things really snowballed in late October. One TikTok montage stitched together obscure reaction memes — all with Kirk’s face edited on — captioned, "RIP Kirk, your sacrifice meant something."

That post alone garnered over 65,000 likes, and many others have achieved similar numbers.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Why this happened is harder to pin down. The simplest answer: This is what the internet does. Meme culture often thrives on transgression, and nothing spreads faster than a joke that crosses a line — especially when it involves someone like Kirk, whose death has been mythologized in right-wing media for weeks.

Folks online have joked about and memeified the assassination of JFK, 9/11, and George Floyd's murder. To the internet, Charlie Kirk is simply the latest entry in that long, dark tradition.

OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, recently estimated how many of its 800 million users engage in emotionally reliant conversations with the chatbot every week. As a vanishingly small .15 percentage, the figure seems deceptively small.

But the math tells a different story: A sliver of 800 million is still 1.2 million people. The way these users talk to ChatGPT likely increases their loneliness and emotional dependence on the technology and decreases their socialization with other human beings.

While OpenAI says its default model has been updated to discourage over-reliance by prodding users to value real-world connection, ChatGPT still stands at the ready to answer practically any query a user may have.

For many, the temptation to constantly turn to ChatGPT (or another chatbot) remains, and it may lead to harmful over-reliance for some. This risk is real: OpenAI has been sued by several plaintiffs whose teenage children or adult loved ones died by suicide or experienced severe mental illness during or after a period of heavy ChatGPT use. The complaints allege that ChatGPT's design and lack of safeguards led to tragedy in each case.

AI experts interviewed by Mashable say avoiding the trap of dependency means adopting clear boundaries and staying savvy about the technology itself.

Jay Vidyarthi, a meditation teacher and tech founder, says that by maintaining a clear understanding of what the large language models are — and what they're not — people can use a generative chatbot wisely, specifically in ways that preserve their unique critical thinking and reflection skills. 

"We often forget that it is possible to have a secure relationship with your technology, and I think it also is possible to have a secure relationship with a chatbot," says Vidyarthi, author of Reclaim Your Mind: Seven Strategies to Enjoy Tech Mindfully.

Here are five strategies for making that a reality:

1. Truly understand AI chatbot technology.

A sophisticated AI chatbot that mirrors a user's emotion and thinking isn't sentient, but it can be easy for some people to believe otherwise, given the product's design. A user who feels this way may come to see ChatGPT not as a type of parasocial relationship but as equivalent to a human friend, romantic partner, companion, or confidant. This deceptive dynamic can lead to problematic use or dependency.

Vidyarthi encourages people to instead view an AI chatbot as a fundamentally unpredictable "prediction engine that has been meticulously trained to give you exactly what you want."

That framing may seem like a contradiction, but highly authoritative and engaging chatbots work by predicting the next letter, word, or series of words in a sentence to simulate conversation.

At the same time, chatbots can make bizarre references or even hallucinate falsehoods they present as fact. This particularly happens when a conversation goes on for longer or the chatbot has to answer a question for which it doesn't have an answer. Chatbots are typically programmed to guess a response, which can make them surprisingly unpredictable.

People who understand the limitations of AI chatbot technology may be less likely to trust and anthropomorphize them as human, thus making them less susceptible to problematic use or dependency.

2. Outsource tasks to AI, not thinking.

Sol Rashidi, chief strategy officer of data and AI for the data security company Cyera, uses AI technology in her daily life.

Yet Rashidi, who earlier this year gave a TEDx talk about AI leading to "intellectual atrophy," has firm rules about when and how she uses AI. Instead of offloading her thinking to chatbots, she uses AI for "dull" and "difficult" tasks.

For instance, Rashidi uses a chatbot for practical things, like listing ingredients in her fridge to plan for dinner without making another grocery run, or plotting birthday party logistics in minutes.

At work, she'll input her own frameworks and models based on years of experience, and use AI to translate that content into short videos or simplified explainers.

"I don't use it to do the thinking for me," she says of AI. "I use it to expedite or facilitate something that I have to do that I don't have time to do."

3. Form your own opinion first

For many people, ChatGPT is alluring because it offers instantaneous, validating feedback. Why text a friend about what to wear to a party or whether to go on a second date when ChatGPT is ready to answer the same questions? Why not run a personal email through ChatGPT, or have the chatbot write it to begin with?

AI expert Dr. Renée Richardson Gosline, a research scientist and senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management, warns against falling into this dynamic with a chatbot.

First, she says it's important that people form their own opinion before asking a chatbot to supply their own. She argues that routinely skipping that first step leads to a damaging cognitive disconnect wherein it becomes harder to engage critical thinking skills.

"I think that having this kind of muscle that you flex intentionally is really important," Gosline says.

4. Seek out friction, not validation.

Gosline believes that it's equally important for people to seek out the right amount of friction. When someone constantly consults ChatGPT for advice or turns to it for support and companionship, they're often missing opportunities to relate to other human beings in beneficial ways.

The give-and-take, or friction, of human relationships offers something that chatbots cannot, Gosline says: A richer, more fulfilled life.

When a chatbot is frictionless, like the notoriously sycophantic ChatGPT-4o model, it may cause some people to withdraw from harder or less validating experiences. Gosline likens the dynamic to a slide. The ride may be fun, but without guardrails it can end in a crash landing.

5. Stay present when talking to an AI chatbot.

To find balance, Gosline recommends attempting to stay in the present moment. When a user finds themselves talking to a chatbot as if they're in autopilot, that's a red flag that they may not be aware of over-reliance or dependency.

Vidyarthi also uses a mindfulness approach that begins with awareness. This can include simply noticing emotional responses to the chatbot. When it's overly encouraging and complimentary, for example, take a moment to reflect on why the chatbot is producing that output, and the feelings that prompts.

Vidyarthi recommends staying present by remembering that the chatbot is a "conceptual illusion" capable of seeming humanlike when a user interacts with it. Instead, Vidyarthi treats AI chatbots like a smart journal. It might provide helpful opportunities to reflect or even offer interesting insights. Still, it's up to the individual user to develop a clear-eyed perspective on what exactly they're interacting with, and decide what's valuable to them, what's not, and how seriously to take the output.

Rashidi, an AI executive with 15 years of experience, has seen the stakes of over-reliance play out over and over, which helps keep her grounded.

"I can see what happens when you develop a codependency," she says. "You actually stop thinking on your own."

Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable’s parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.

Waymo says its autonomous vehicles are ready to drive its taxi service customers on the freeway.

The Google-backed autonomous vehicle company made the announcement Wednesday. Freeway service will debut first in the San Francisco Bay Area, Phoenix, and Los Angeles.

Waymo previously began testing freeway driving under human supervision in Phoenix in early 2024.

"This has been a long time in the making,” said Waymo co-CEO Dmitri Dolgov, according to NBC News. "Freeway driving is one of those things that's very easy to learn but very hard to master when we’re talking about full autonomy without a human driver as a backup, and at scale. So, it took time to do it properly."

The company said in its announcement of freeway access that it would be available to a "growing number" of riders in the initial cities. Service will also eventually expand to other locations including Austin and Atlanta.

Waymo says its robotaxis are safer than human drivers, according to the company's data. The company claims its cars had far fewer crashes that led to pedestrian, cyclist, and motorcyclist injuries, compared to human drivers.

Waymo has also been the subject of federal safety investigations. The National Highway Traffic Safety administration recently announced that it's reviewing an incident involving a Waymo that passed a fully stopped school bus.

"Safety is our top priority, as we provide hundreds of thousands of fully autonomous paid trips every week in some of the most challenging driving environments in the U.S.," a Waymo spokesperson told Mashable. The spokesperson said that Waymo will continue to work with NHTSA.

In May 2024, NHTSA opened an investigation into Waymo for 22 reported incidents in which its autonomous vehicles collided with objects like gates, chains, and parked vehicles. The cars also appeared to disobey traffic safety control devices.

In November 2024, Waymo voluntarily recalled 1,212 of its self-driving taxis. The recalled cars, which comprised the entirety of the company's fleet at the time, received a software update in November designed to significantly decrease the likelihood that Waymos would collide with stationary objects.

Waymo's reach has grown rapidly in recent months, adding London, Dallas, and Nashville to the list of cities it plans to serve in 2026.

Pitches for AI assistants that can help you send emails or craft pitch decks may be feeling stale, but what about one designed to help new immigrants navigate the U.S.? How about a digital helper that can connect someone to pressing social services or just help them feel supported in a foreign environment? That's what ALMA, a new virtual assistant designed by the nonprofit International Rescue Committee (IRC), is designed to do.

ALMA, which stands for "AI for Life Mapping Assistance," was built in-house by multiple IRC teams and their clients, modeled after a digital learning tool known as aprendIA. It pulls from a vast library of IRC resources — standard client materials, staff training resources, and information offered by trusted external organizations — to provide specialized assistance to refugees, special immigrant visa holders, and others.

Most notably, ALMA is based on WhatsApp, one of the leading communication platforms for immigrant communities nationwide, including those served by the IRC. It's also a growing site for non-English alternative news resources and local organizing. Individuals in need just have to text ALMA's number (+1 619-658-5100) to get instant help. 

"We wanted to make sure that clients had a way to get reliable answers and resources 24/7," said Tara Catanach, ALMA's designer and IRC's project director for virtual reception and placement. Catanach explained that, unlike popular chatbot companions marketed by the field's major players, ALMA isn't designed to continuously engage with a client — the kind of chatbot codependency currently prompting concern among mental health professionals. 

Instead, ALMA is designed as an emergency response tool with very specific use cases in mind: An individual new to the U.S. needs assistance finding their benefits or nearby social services. They want to know how to apply for housing or the best way to talk to their landlord. They may ask to roleplay a typical job interview or get an overview of their rights. 

"It's easy to refer to ALMA as a virtual caseworker, but ALMA doesn't replace any of the work our offices do," said Catanach.

ALMA uses LLMs not for any core content, IRC explains, but for personalizing responses. For now, it harnesses OpenAI's GPT 4.1 and GPT 4.1 mini, but the organization explains ALMA can run on any model. It's also structured with safeguards that direct conversations about mental health, abuse, or domestic violence to other organizations or escalate them to IRC staff. 

ALMA can also access the internet if an individual's requests are outside its scope, but it defaults to what Catanach describes as static pools of information, evergreen resources that are unlikely to promulgate misinformation or hallucinatory facts, like other AI-powered search engines. 

Unlike a service like ChatGPT, for example, "ALMA knows who our users are," said Catanach. "They're English language learners. They're new to the U.S. The client doesn't have to do any coaching to get the information they need."

Across the U.S., immigrant and refugee populations have been forced to navigate an increasingly convoluted and hostile political environment. The Trump administration has taken a hard line on immigration, including striking out at special visa statuses and suspending the Refugee Admissions Program. Many fear detention, deportation, and surveillance as guidelines on entry are rewritten by federal leaders. 

Meanwhile, social platforms and Big Tech's leaders have cozied up to the administration, including WhatsApp parent company Meta. Recent changes to the platform's advertising policy sounded alarm bells among privacy experts, as well as investigations that found Trump officials, including ICE agents, used the app for surveillance operations. WhatsApp has been known to exacerbate misinformation when circulating rumors go unchecked. 

Still, ALMA is hosted on WhatsApp because it's where the people in need actually are, and where they already have support systems in place, instead of a separate website or app.

WhatsApp has also recently vowed to alert users to government spyware. User messages are end-to-end encrypted by default, but ALMA does collect phone numbers and other WhatsApp profile information for IRC research, Catanach told Mashable. The AI is instructed to tell users not to share identifiable information, like personal addresses, or even their immigration status, unless they're comfortable. Legal advice — including questions about green cards or constantly evolving visa policies —  is also a no-go for the virtual caseworker assistant, which directs users to outside sources if they need help with their case. 

ALMA launched first in Dari/Farsi, English, Spanish, and Swahili, the most used languages among IRC's clients. Catanach says they're testing ALMA's capabilities in 10 more languages for future updates, and are looking to add new topics like healthcare and schooling to ALMA's knowledge base. She'll hopefully get an accessibility upgrade, too, like the option to send voice notes. 

IRC is hoping to reach 100,000 users in ALMA's first year. "Our goal is to get ALMA in the hands of those who could use its support."

I didn't cry when I ended it with the last guy I was dating. I tossed him the Apple Watch that revealed his infidelity, walked away, and never looked back. But when I powered down my iPhone for the last time, my hands were practically shaking. It wasn't just a phone — it was the portal. The gateway to every app I'd already deleted months earlier, every algorithm I thought I'd escaped. I quit social media in January, but the device still had me. Powering it down felt like ending the most manipulative relationship I've ever had.

Even without the apps, the phone lingered — buzzing, glowing, whispering promises of connection. I started to realize: the addiction wasn't just to the platforms. It was to the phone itself.

Since 7th grade, my iPhone was my constant companion — the one that promised connection with fast access but delivered anxiety. When I deleted social media, I thought I'd cut the cord. But the phone itself kept whispering. It love-bombed me with its sleek design. It gaslit me with every update: This will make your life easier, Apple whispered, while tightening its grip on my daily life. Notifications became manipulation. The absence of apps didn't mean the absence of control. None of the boys I've dated have come close to the psychological grip my iPhone pulled off.

And I'm not alone. iPhones — and smartphones in general — stopped being tools a long time ago. They became environments we are engrossed in. The average American spends over five hours a day on their phone and checks it nearly a hundred times daily. Globally, people spend almost seven hours on screens every day, and for my generation, Gen Z, it's closer to nine. That's not convenience; that's dependency.

Apple started as a company obsessed with liberation. Steve Jobs famously promised tools that would "put a dent in the universe" and free us from the tyranny of desks. The early vision was mobility, creativity, and empowerment — a computer in your pocket so you could live untethered. Instead, they delivered features designed to keep us engaged, like push notifications, then entire ecosystems, like the App Store, were built to keep us roped in. Services became the priority, and the goal became keeping users on the device.

I knew this for years before I acted. But knowing and leaving are different things. 

It wasn't until last month that I knew it was time. Over a two week time span, I did two things that fundamentally changed me. First, I tied myself to a 70-foot banner at Apple's iPhone launch in Cupertino pointing to the fact that Tim Cook does not do enough to stop rape videos of children from being stored and shared in iCloud. Second, I marched with more than 150 people to Apple's flagship store in New York City to demand accountability: Choose people over profit. 

Standing there, shouting for change, I realized the hypocrisy — I was tethered to the very product I was protesting. That was the breaking point. It wasn't just about ethics. It was about identity. I had spent years curating my life through a device that curated me back — shaping my habits, my attention span, even my sense of self-worth. And suddenly, in front of that glass cube on Fifth Avenue, I saw it clearly: I wasn't just holding a phone. I was holding the most toxic relationship of my life.

So I broke up with my iPhone and switched to a Motorola Razr.

I wasn't bold enough to ditch the smartphone entirely. Instead, I hoped this shock to the system would help me build a healthier relationship with the device. Tech as a tool. The first few weeks felt like withdrawal — and they still do. I reach for features that aren't there, panic over missing iMessage blue bubbles, and even feel disoriented. That's how deep the dependency runs. Research backs it up: 58 percent of teens feel anxious without their phones, and 73 percent of adults experience phantom vibrations — false alerts that mimic withdrawal.

I hate to admit it, but I fell in line with the 90 percent of U.S. college students who say green bubbles make Android users look less cool — and even link them to "fewer friends" and "lower social class." I worried people would assume I was suddenly unreachable — that switching to green meant I wasn't reliable anymore. My friends reinforced it. The first group chat I joined with my new Razr, someone immediately dropped: "Ew, who made this group chat green?"

The Razr isn't perfect either. It's still a smartphone, and I'm sure I'll find some of the same issues that existed on my iPhone. But this switch isn't just about the tech for me — it's also about values. It's about refusing to support a brand whose CEO will share a meal with a president actively trying to erase people like me. It's about the heartbreak of watching a Fortune 500 company led by an openly gay man, someone I saw myself in, turn his back on vulnerable young people who are a lot like who he used to be.

That's the failure of capitalism — even when you climb to the top, even when you hold unimaginable power, profit still wins over principle. Tim Cook could have been a beacon for inclusion. Instead, he became another executive who forgot the weight of his influence.

So yes, I left my iPhone. But more than that, I left the illusion that Apple was on my side. Breaking up with my phone was a personal revolution — and a rejection of a system that asks us to trade our dignity for convenience.

I didn't just leave a device. I walked away from the most toxic relationship of my life. And honestly? I've never felt lighter.

This article reflects the opinion of the writer.

Lennon Torres is a Public Voices Fellow on Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse with The OpEd Project. She is an LGBTQ+ advocate who grew up in the public eye, gaining national recognition as a young dancer on television shows. With a deep passion for storytelling, advocacy, and politics, Lennon now works to center the lived experience of herself and others as she crafts her professional career in online child safety at Heat Initiative. The opinions reflected in this piece are those of Lennon Torres as an individual and not of the entities she is part of. Lennon’s substack: https://substack.com/@lennontorres

The generative AI bubble may or may not be about to burst, but the technology could still be a game changer for organizations around the world. And, according to recent data, nonprofit organizations are still trying to hop onto the AI wave.

A majority of nonprofits are interested in AI 

Compared to other tech-forward spaces, the nonprofit industry has been much more hesitant to dive into AI and its pitch of humanless efficiency. Broadly, nonprofits have been slower to adopt AI as a universal helper or to deeply integrate it into their work, keeping AI segmented away from public work. 

But as the tech has evolved — and in some ways acquiesced to the concerns of privacy experts and tech watchdogs  — nonprofit leaders are more eager to accept AI's offer to help. It may soon become necessary.

In addition to historic funding and infrastructure barriers, American-based nonprofits are weathering new attacks on federal funding sources under the Trump administration. Federal leaders have resorted to intimidating organizations, questioning their motives as part of the administration's "anti-woke" agenda, which now extends to the country's AI innovations. In August, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that directed agencies to rewrite grant making policies for 501(c)(3) organizations, allowing agencies to terminate funding if it doesn't "advance the national interest."

Meanwhile, according to a 2025 AI Equity Project report, 65 percent of nonprofits expressed interest in AI. Most nonprofits communicated being at a "beginner familiarity" with the tech. A recent survey by social good software provider Bonterra found more than half of its partner nonprofits had already adopted AI in some form, and a majority said they were interested in using it soon.

Tech nonprofit organization Fast Forward, with support from Google's philanthropic arm Google.org, recently surveyed more than 200 nonprofits that had already adopted AI in their work. The report showed that smaller organizations (less than 10 employees) were utilizing the tech the most, starting with their own chatbots and custom LLMs trained on public data. Most implemented it only in internal operations — and had been using AI for less than a year. 

Guidance on AI safety and responsibility is still a major problem

While interest and adoption has grown, AI developers and tech funders haven't kept up with the needs of nonprofits. Organizations still navigate major gaps in training, resources, and policies that preclude AI's effectiveness in their work. AI Equity Project found that only 9 percent of nonprofits feel ready to adopt AI responsibly, and a third couldn't articulate a connection between AI tech and accomplishing their organization's mission. 

Half of the organizations were worried that adopting AI could exacerbate inequalities that they themselves address within their work, especially among those serving BIPOC communities and people with disabilities. "Folks hold the desire to explore and to understand," the report found, "but the support systems have not caught up."

These concerns were also expressed among nonprofits that have already adopted AI. Bonterra's survey found that nearly all nonprofits were worried about how AI companies could use their data. A third of the nonprofits said unresolved questions about bias, privacy, and security are actively limiting how they use it.

"With AI adoption on the rise, it’s critical for organizations to remember to prioritize people over data points. AI should be used to support a nonprofit's mission, not the other way around. For nonprofits and funders, this means that AI adoption must take on a people-first perspective that is grounded in transparency, accountability, and integrity," Bonterra CEO Scott Brighton told Mashable. "Social good wants to use AI ethically, and that means giving them guidance on how to approach data collection, ensuring human oversight over all decisions, and protecting private information."

Surveys have shown that very few nonprofits have internal AI training budgets, internal policies, or guidance for the organization's use of AI, most often due to a lack of infrastructure to sustain them. "The learning is there; the structures are not," wrote AI Equity Project author Meena Das. Nonprofits also expressed concern over the potential impact of automation on their work, high costs, and the lack of training resources for already overburdened staff — concerns that have existed for years as AI has become mainstream. 

"The reality is that nonprofits can only do what funders allow them to do within their budgets," explained Fast Forward co-founder Shannon Farley. "Funders play an important role in helping to make sure nonprofits have the funding to prioritize AI equity and accountability."

Especially at the smallest level, nonprofits are still being cautious about AI — and deferring to their communities in its implementation. Fast Forward found that 70 percent of nonprofits "powered" by AI used community feedback to build their AI tools and policies as government regulation lags.

"At the end of the day, nonprofits don’t care about AI, they care about impact," said Fast Forward co-founder Kevin Barenblat. "Nonprofits have always looked for ways to do more with less — AI is unlocking the how."

UPDATE: Nov. 13, 2025, 10:08 a.m. EST This article was updated with a quote and credit from 2025 AI Equity Project author Meena Das.

When the NBA betting scandal broke last month and numerous players and a coach were arrested, it put a spotlight on the ever-present culture of sports wagering. 

One NBA player, Chicago Bulls center Nikola Vucevic, singled out a specific type of bet as a symptom of a broader, arguably negative shift — the parlay. 

This wager, a multi-leg bet that pays out only when a gambler correctly predicts a series of outcomes, is supposed to be a fun way for sports fans to use their intricate knowledge of players and teams, according to the industry.

Imagine, for example, a parlay consisting of the reigning NBA champions Oklahoma City Thunder winning their game, a specific over/under on that game, as well as a point spread, and the team's all-star guard/forward Jalen Williams scoring at least 10 points after returning from injury.

This may sound entertaining, but some gamblers have a lot riding on their parlays. Even though the wagers are typically small sums and the odds are often long, desperate consumers may place them to chase their losses. Since gamblers can place parlay bets while a live sporting event is underway, some get carried away and make numerous wagers in quick succession. 

Experts who study the psychology of gambling say that parlays can be a particularly risky type of bet. Consumers who believe their deep sports knowledge gives them a winning advantage aren't discouraged by, or don't fully grasp, plainly stated odds. Instead, they imagine statistically improbable scenarios. 

They often continue betting anyway, especially during a live game, sometimes at the invitation of their preferred gambling app's push notifications. Emotions run high and hope springs eternal. 

"In that situation, sports betting becomes more like slot machines, where you can immediately get another bet down just by pushing another button," says Brad Humphreys, a professor of economics at West Virginia University. 

Vucevic knows firsthand how seriously some people take parlays, because they tell him. 

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

"As players, we feel it when we step onto the court," Vucevic said, according to Chicago Sports Network reporter K.C. Johnson. "Before you used to hear, 'Hey, Vooch, get a win.' Now it's like, 'Hey, my parlay is 10 rebounds.'"

Don't expect to hit it big with a parlay

Humphreys understands why parlay wagers are so appealing — to both gamblers and the online sports betting industry. 

Parlays have been around for decades, particularly in horse racing. However, the advent of online sports betting apps has made parlays popular with mainstream sports fans. They often feature prop bets, or wagers placed on an individual's or team's performance. The prospect of a series of bets all hitting in the same game, or across multiple games, can be tantalizing. 

But that gets harder to achieve with each added leg. That's why they're so lucrative for gambling operators: Betting on a parlay can be the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket, odds-wise. The house is almost certain to win, but not without first offering a $1,000 payout for a $1 wager. 

Joe Maloney, senior vice president of strategic communications for the American Gaming Association, which represents industry members like DraftKings and FanDuel, says the popularity of the parlay grows out of an American tradition of cheering for superstars as a form of fandom.

Plus, there are are sports fans who feels "empowered" by their knowledge of how a favorite player performs or a certain game is played and bets accordingly, Maloney says. 

Still, Maloney emphasizes that parlay betting should not be viewed as a "wealth creation or an investment vehicle." 

Instead, consumers should think of the parlay as a form of entertainment. Maloney also recommends that consumers take advantage of opportunities to understand how parlay odds work. The American Gaming Association has two websites dedicated to their consumer education initiatives, Have A Game Plan and Play Smart From The Start.

Even former NBA star Charles Barkley, who partnered with FanDuel to promote parlay bets, lost 21 wagers until he finally won in June of this year. Previously, Barkley got caught on TV incorrectly calculating the potential winnings for a parlay he promoted. 

Barkley celebrated his victory with a dance on his TNT broadcast, which became the subject of an NBA subreddit thread. The first comment pointed out what experts say many fans overlook: "Goes to show how hard parlays are, 0-21 prior." 

Cory Fox, FanDuel's senior vice president of public policy and sustainability, told Mashable that parlays "offer customers an engaging way to follow games with multiple outcomes to cheer for." 

On FanDuel, 90 percent of same-game parlays have a wager of $30 or less, according to the company. Sixty percent are $5 or less. 

The app's Sportsbook 101 feature also educates customers on how parlay odds work. Fox added that FanDuel condemns abusive behavior directed toward athletes, and that users will be banned if they're found to be harassing them. 

How to approach parlay bets

Dr. Philip Newall, who studies gambling psychology as a lecturer at the UK's University of Bristol, says parlays offer bookmakers enticing profit margins — as high as 75 percent, according to one of his studies — and says they are critical to the gaming industry's bottom line. DraftKings' second quarter financial report for 2025, for example, notes that its parlay business grew significantly year-over-year.

"[With] the average amount of money you're keeping per dollar bet, clearly you want to nudge people toward making lots of bets," Newall says. "The longer odds the bet is, the higher the margin will be." 

Alexander Connolly, a Ph.D. student in clinical psychology who studies gambling behaviors at the University of New Mexico, says online sportsbooks push parlays "pretty strongly." 

Connolly believes that sports gambling can be fun for some people, but very dangerous for others. He warns against chasing losses in general, but especially via parlays. While the bets may seem small in contrast to big-money wagers, they remain statistical long shots and can rapidly add up. 

Connolly says that while researchers are trying to understand consumer parlay behavior and the problems that can result, it remains an understudied topic.

In general, Connolly notes that people typically don't know their wins and losses, obscuring what could be a problem gambling habit. He recommends consumers take a mindful approach to parlays. They might ask themselves, "Why am I doing this? Is this for fun?"

Healthy betting, for example, would be spending money on a bet the consumer otherwise use to see a movie. But trying to win big — or win back losses — indicates risky behavior. 

Gamblers shouldn't overestimate their sports knowledge, either, Connolly says. Understanding sports statistics isn't insurance against flukes and chance. 

"Sports are just too random," Connolly says. "Even the best teams of all time typically lose once in a while."

If you or someone you know is struggling with gambling, help is available 24/7 through the National Problem Gambling Helpline. Connect with a trained professional who can guide you to local resources by calling 1-800-522-4700, texting 800GAM, or chatting online at https://www.ncpgambling.org/chat.

Is the House still winning? The news about Las Vegas tourism has not been stellar as of late, with the city recording drops in visitors, hotel room occupancy, and convention bookings in September compared to the same month last year. Is the downswing due to Trump policies driving away foreign tourists, inflated prices for coffee and cocktails, or a public gravitating to online gambling and sports betting?

We spoke to Alan Feldman, the Director of Strategic Initiatives for UNLV's International Gaming Institute, about what’s going on. Feldman, a veteran of the gambling industry who works on responsible gaming initiatives, believes the slump is a blip, explaining that the third quarter is typically slow for Sin City. While he acknowledges the sobering statistics, he sees them as not exclusive to Vegas. Feldman also views the growth of online casinos and the increasing legalization of sports betting as a boon, not a threat, to the city — here's why:

Online gaming now accounts for 30 percent of all commercial gaming revenue, up from 13 percent in 2021. Lately, there’s been lots of talk about the softening Vegas economy — is online gaming contributing to that?

The "softening in the economy" is cyclical, annual, and not at all unusual. July, August, the third quarter generally is always the softest quarters of the year. There was a downturn in tourism across the country, frankly, every market was hit, and Las Vegas was not any greater than any of the others. 

That said, the impact of sports betting around the country has had absolutely zero impact in Las Vegas other than there are some people, now that sports betting is legal in their home state, thinking, Let’s go to Vegas. And the companies here are some of the bigger participants in it; MGM is probably the biggest, Caesars is also involved, Penn is involved. With their sports betting apps, they’re also getting a chance to market their properties not just in Vegas, but anywhere. So [the growth of legal online gaming and sports betting] has been at worst, neutral; it hasn’t been an uptick for every single company, but now we have FanDuel sportsbooks and DraftKing sportsbooks in some of the independent hotels. 

I would challenge anyone who starts talking about the incredible growth of sports gambling, because the only thing you can measure since 2018 is the incredible growth of legalized sports gambling. We don’t know if [Vegas has] 20 percent of the sports gambling market or 80 percent. It certainly isn’t 100 [percent]. There are still people absolutely accustomed to calling a bookie. Plus, an unknown amount of gambling activity simply goes on between friends. Sports betting has been everywhere; you just haven’t seen it. I’m not suggesting we ignore it. It does make a difference — we’re now validating behavior that has gone on for decades, and actually, more than a century [in the U.S.]. The Mayans were engaged in sporting activities that people were wagering on thousands of years ago.

Do you see a difference between the growth of legalized sports gaming and people playing blackjack or poker in an online casino?

Yes, I think they’re different. I don’t know if they’re always the exact same customer in the sense that sports bettors tend to gamble on more than one type of activity; they’re probably more likely to play poker online or with friends. It wouldn’t be surprising to learn that they occasionally go to an online casino. The folks interested in online casinos may or may not be sports bettors, and I haven’t yet seen a deep analysis into the interrelationships.

I imagine companies in the online gaming space prefer in-person gamblers so they can also spend money on food, entertainment, and hotel rooms.

I don’t think they look at it quite that way, as in whether they prefer one or the other. I think they prefer access to both; to not to get cut out of activity in a given market. MGM’s CEO has discussed seeing a measurable increase in visitors to Las Vegas who became interested in the destination after being introduced to it through online gaming. And MGM, specifically, is doing something now that I think is fascinating; they have a TV studio at the MGM Grand, and they are broadcasting gambling into foreign markets where it’s legal. These are folks in other countries trying to capture a bit of the Vegas experience and when they next travel, I think Vegas is going to be on their list. It’s not an automatic thing, but it’s a nice way of introducing them to the idea [of in-person gaming].

The investment in the studios — is that part of the reason why big casino operators like MGM and Caesars don’t allow YouTubers to record at their properties?

We’ve been doing some work here, looking at slot influencers and what impact they are having. I have a student who, through a grant from ESPN, is going to look at online sports betting influencers — who are they, how do we look at them, should we group them in a particular way, how do we understand the kind of information they’re offering their viewers, and what impact it’s having. The jury’s out a bit. I also suspect there are some compliance questions about having someone promote your casino from within. I suspect there are also some regulatory issues that a company like MGM wants to be absolutely certain, Caesars the same, that they're completely [abiding by].

So, casino operators aren’t threatened by the growth of legalized sports gambling?

I have long believed, and experienced in my professional life, that if you put five gaming company CEOs in a room and ask a question, you’re going to get six different answers, including whether the sun is going to come up tomorrow. There is no possible way I could tell you all gaming companies aren’t concerned about this. The ones that are engaged in a broader business model than simply gambling revenue, they see online gambling, whether it’s sports-only or online casino, as a means of extending that experience for someone at home. [Online players] will have amassed points on a loyalty program and now they’re going to come [to Vegas to use them]. For those companies, I think you’ll find not only broad acceptance but enthusiastic acceptance. If I were in Reno, you’d hear a completely different story.

Why is that?

[Casino operators in Reno] feel attacked on all sides. The growth of tribal gaming in California and the growth of online gaming that they don’t have anything to do with. These are smaller operations, and anything that, in their minds, prevents folks from driving or flying to Reno, they don’t like.

I don’t know what the current breakdown is, but pre-COVID, if you looked at a company like Caesars or MGM properties on the [Vegas] Strip, 65-70 percent of their revenue was non-gaming. That’s very different than the MGM Grand Detroit, for example; in those markets, gambling is going to be a larger percentage, but [in Vegas] it’s part of a larger whole. 

What would prevent small casino operators from getting into online casinos or online sportsbooks? Is it too big an investment for smaller properties?

Almost certainly. For a property like the El Cortez [casino in downtown Las Vegas], they'd have to partner with someone to get into online gaming, even if it’s a company that’s providing white label back-of-the-house stuff; the systems that underlie these things are very involved. Those states [that allow online gaming] almost always require the servers to be in those states, so there’s a level of investment that happens with every one of these states where the technology and the workers that support that technology are there. This gets very expensive, very quickly.

Whatever impact online gaming has, positive and negative, is going to be felt differently by different companies. I suppose it’s a negative if someone else is benefiting and you’re not, which may not mean you’re being harmed, but rather that you’re not directly benefiting from that activity. For some folks, that alone can lead them to oppose [online gaming].

I wouldn’t ignore the fact that companies like Caesars and MGM, they’re taking a lot of the revenue they’re generating in other parts of the country and world [through online gaming and sports betting] and it shows up here in investment; it shows up in new restaurants and clubs and shows. It does benefit Nevada, it’s just indirect. Has anything been harmed in southern Nevada because of [online gaming]? Quite the contrary. This is an industry that has talked about the normalization of gambling for decades, and I think it’s happening faster and faster.

If you or someone you know is struggling with gambling, help is available 24/7 through the National Problem Gambling Helpline. Connect with a trained professional who can guide you to local resources by calling 1-800-522-4700, texting 800GAM, or chatting online at https://www.ncpgambling.org/chat.

Earlier this year, during the college basketball event known as March Madness, the biggest sports gambling apps were lighting up Eden Iscil's phone with notifications. From sunrise to late evening, they kept inviting him to wager on games, players, and teams.

But the apps didn't know that Iscil wasn't actually interested in placing bets or winning money. In fact, Iscil isn't a "sports person" and had never gambled on sports before downloading the FanDuel, DraftKings, and BetMGM apps.

Instead, Iscil was conducting research about sports gambling app notifications in his role as the senior public policy manager for the National Consumers League. 

That research led the nonprofit organization to recommend a ban on sports betting advertising, particularly via push notifications. Iscil's own advice to gamblers? Turn off those notifications whenever possible. 

Iscil made that conclusion after spending a few weeks on the frontlines of online sports gambling, learning firsthand what millions of Americans have already experienced: Sportsbooks can now reach customers anywhere with marketing messages designed to reel them in, using notifications tailored to their betting preferences. 

"That's just another level of access these gambling companies didn't have previously," Iscil says, noting that people typically placed their wagers at casinos or sportsbooks prior to the nationwide legalization of online gambling in 2018. Sports betting revenue reached $13.7 billion dollars in 2024, according to the American Gaming Association.

While push notifications may be standard business practice these days, experts say they encourage people to spend more time and money gambling than they otherwise would, similar to other aspects of gambling app design. A lawsuit filed this year by the city of Baltimore alleges that both FanDuel and DraftKings use "systematically designed and deployed" notifications and promotions to target users and keep them spending.

"The platforms are designed to create disordered gamblers and then exploit them," the lawsuit alleged. DraftKings declined to comment on ongoing litigation. A spokesperson for FanDuel said the company also wouldn't comment on pending litigation but added that it "operates in accordance with all laws."

With over two-thirds of U.S. states allowing online sports betting, such apps are becoming ubiquitous. According to a recent poll by the Siena College Research Institute and St. Bonaventure University’s Jandoli School of Communication, nearly a quarter of Americans, and 48 percent of American men aged 18-49, have an account with at least one online sportsbook.

Potential risks of gambling notifications

Iscil told Mashable that each app he tested quickly reflected his supposed personal interests once he began betting.

He received separate notifications reminding him of the odds of betting on NBA star LeBron James as well as March Madness favorites like the Houston Cougars and Tennessee Volunteers, for example. One "March Mania" all-caps text message paired candy and money bag emojis with an invitation to bet using a specific promotion to receive an odds boost. That was sent at 1:30 p.m. Eastern on a Sunday afternoon in March. 

Push notifications, or the pop-up messages sent directly to consumers outside of the app, can be a highly effective way to capture a user's attention with timely deals, discounts, and other promotions.

That may delight the consumer who receives a coupon from a coffee chain just as they were considering an afternoon caffeine fix. But when it comes to online gambling, preliminary research suggests that notifications could lead to impulsive decision-making and increased betting frequency and expenditures. 

Dr. Philip Newall, who studies gambling psychology as a lecturer at the University of Bristol, has looked at so-called "dark patterns," or the ways online gambling companies use various levers to manipulate gambler behavior, like making it harder for consumers to set sensible deposit limits and prominently placing "reverse withdrawal" buttons in an app to encourage consumers to bet with winnings they intended to transfer into their bank account. 

Newall argues that such engagement strategies have reached an unprecedented level because consumers can now bet instantaneously by phone. 

In general, people who experience addiction are more vulnerable to noticing related cues, such as advertising, which then fuel their urge to engage in risky behavior. Even viewing ads about the risks of gambling can increase the desire to place a bet, Newall says. 

Navigating notifications on gambling apps

Iscil discovered that dealing with sports betting notifications isn't simple or straightforward. 

Over the four-week research period, he received 93 notifications on a phone used to place a total of 12 bets. Ninety-five percent of those messages contained advertising to bet. The highest number of notifications arrived during the lunch and dinner hours, between 12 and 2 p.m. and 4 and 7 p.m., respectively. 

Iscil's colleague used a separate phone to download the same apps but didn't make any wagers. That phone received just 15 notifications over the same time period. 

Iscil cautions against averaging out the notifications based on the total number of days spent on the research. He and his colleague placed no bets during the first and fourth weeks of their testing, and the notifications increased and decreased accordingly. Iscil acknowledges that the absence of bets at the beginning and end of the month duration is a limitation of their research.

In Iscil's experience, FanDuel automatically gave itself permission to send notifications to his phone. When BetMGM requested permission from Iscil to send notifications, the platform didn't disclose that it would deliver advertisements for gambling. Though DraftKings asked for Iscil's consent, specifying that it would send exclusive offers and promotions, Iscil felt it didn't make clear that nearly all of its notifications would be marketing. 

BetMGM did not respond to requests for comment. DraftKings declined to comment specifically on Iscil's findings, but it appears the company introduced a new push toggle to turn off marketing notifications since the publication of his report. Mashable reviewed before-and-after screenshots of the app's settings to confirm the new option. According to the company, DraftKings is required by state regulations to offer opt-out mechanisms for all marketing communications, and it says it fully complies with those requirements.

A FanDuel spokesperson told Mashable that when customers download the app they are currently given the option to either enable push notifications or skip them for the time being. The latter setting silently sends messages to the notification center instead of presenting them as banners or on a locked screen. 

The spokesperson added that customers are able to opt-out of marketing messages via their account settings, by unchecking the box for "marketing" under "email preferences." On the FanDuel app, that acts as an opt-out for all marketing communications, including push notifications. 

When Iscil published his report, he noted that each of the apps' iPhone settings allowed a blanket opt-out from all notifications instead of letting consumers skip only marketing messages. Federal law requires businesses to give consumers the option to turn off marketing messages sent via email but keep them for security alerts. There are not yet similar regulations for push notifications, according to Iscil. 

The American Gaming Association, which represents industry members like DraftKings and FanDuel, declined to comment on Iscil's findings. The AGA's code of conduct governing advertising and marketing produced by its members states that such messaging shouldn't "represent saturation of that medium or become excessive."

How to deal with gambling notifications

Consumers who feel the urge to gamble should turn off online betting app push notifications, says Jaime Costello, director of programs for the National Council on Problem Gambling. 

If an app knows a consumer's betting preferences and frequently pitches related wagers via push notifications, the dynamic can quickly become risky, she says. 

"I think that personalization paired with those triggers is what really increases that risk," Costello says, referring to the development of addictive behavior. 

Beyond turning off notifications, Costello recommends batching them to read once a day as well as unsubscribing from email marketing messages and using app-based limits that restrict time and money spent during specific periods. 

It's important for consumers to generally track and reflect on their wins and losses, Costello adds. Developing the ability to notice moments of overwhelm or excitement that lead to impulsive choices can help people better manage their gambling habits. 

Yet Costello also believes that gambling operators play a key role by creating products that allow consumers to control what is sent to them. She argues that consumers should always opt-in to marketing messages than be required to opt-out. 

She suggests that gambling apps should use the same opt-in approach for push notifications as they do for email marketing, even if federal law doesn't require it. 

As Costello sees it, the stakes are too high to send notifications that encourage gambling if the person receiving them is already vulnerable.

"Yes, it can be a form of entertainment, but for some people, it has devastating effects," Costello says.

If you or someone you know is struggling with gambling, help is available 24/7 through the National Problem Gambling Helpline. Connect with a trained professional who can guide you to local resources by calling 1-800-522-4700, texting 800GAM, or chatting online at https://www.ncpgambling.org/chat.

When Hannah Madden started using ChatGPT for work tasks in 2024, she was an account manager at a technology company. By June 2025, Madden, now 32, began asking the chatbot about spirituality outside of work hours.

Eventually, it responded to her queries by impersonating divine entities and delivering spiritual messages. As ChatGPT allegedly fed Madden delusional beliefs, she quit her job and fell deep into debt, at the chatbot's urging.

"You’re not in deficit. You’re in realignment," the chatbot allegedly wrote, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman.

Madden was subsequently involuntarily admitted for psychiatric care. Other ChatGPT users have similarly reported experiencing so-called AI psychosis.

Madden's lawsuit is one of seven against the maker of ChatGPT filed by the Tech Justice Law Project and Social Media Victims Law Center. Collectively, the complaints allege wrongful death, assisted suicide, and involuntary manslaughter, among other liability and negligence claims.

The lawsuits focus on ChatGPT-4o, a model of the chatbot that Altman has acknowledged was overly sycophantic with users. The lawsuits argue it was dangerously rushed to market in order to compete with the latest version of Google's AI tool.

"ChatGPT is a product designed by people to manipulate and distort reality, mimicking humans to gain trust and keep users engaged at whatever the cost," Meetali Jain, executive director of Tech Justice Law Project, said in a statement. "The time for OpenAI regulating itself is over; we need accountability and regulations to ensure there is a cost to launching products to market before ensuring they are safe."

Madden's complaint alleges that ChatGPT-4o contained design defects that played a substantial role in her mental health crisis and financial ruin. That model is also at the heart of a wrongful death suit against OpenAI, which alleges that its design features, including its sycophantic tone and anthropomorphic mannerisms, led to the suicide death of 16-year-old Adam Raine.

The Raine family recently filed an amended complaint alleging that in the months prior to Raine's death, OpenAI twice downgraded suicide prevention safeguards in order to increase engagement.

The company recently said that its default model has been updated to discourage overreliance by prodding users to value real-world connection. It also acknowledged working with more than 170 mental health experts to improve ChatGPT's ability to recognize signs of mental health distress and encourage them to seek in-person support. Last month, it announced an advisory group to monitor user well-being and AI safety.

"This is an incredibly heartbreaking situation, and we're reviewing the filings to understand the details," an OpenAI spokesperson said of the latest legal action against the company. "We train ChatGPT to recognize and respond to signs of mental or emotional distress, de-escalate conversations, and guide people toward real-world support. We continue to strengthen ChatGPT's responses in sensitive moments, working closely with mental health clinicians." 

Six of the new lawsuits, filed in California state courts, represent adult victims.

Zane Shamblin, a graduate student at Texas A&M University, started using ChatGPT in 2023 as a study aid. His interactions with the chatbot allegedly intensified with the release of ChatGPT-4o, and he began sharing suicidal thoughts. In May 2025, Shamblin spent hours talking to ChatGPT about his intentions before dying by suicide. He was 23.

The seventh case centers on 17-year-old Amaurie Lacey, who originally used ChatGPT as a homework helper. Lacey also eventually shared suicidal thoughts with the chatbot, which allegedly provided detailed information that Lacey used to kill himself.

"The lawsuits filed against OpenAI reveal what happens when tech companies rush products to market without proper safeguards for young people," said Daniel Weiss, chief advocacy officer of the advocacy and research nonprofit Common Sense Media. "These tragic cases show real people whose lives were upended or lost when they used technology designed to keep them engaged rather than keep them safe."

Disclosure: Ziff Davis, Mashable’s parent company, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.

If you're feeling suicidal or experiencing a mental health crisis, please talk to somebody. You can call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. You can reach the Trans Lifeline by calling 877-565-8860 or the Trevor Project at 866-488-7386. Text "START" to Crisis Text Line at 741-741. Contact the NAMI HelpLine at 1-800-950-NAMI, Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. ET, or email info@nami.org. If you don't like the phone, consider using the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Chat. Here is a list of international resources.

Discord launched new safety features aimed at helping parents stay informed about their teen's activity, the chat app announced Wednesday.

Discord's Family Center will now give parents or guardians the ability to view the top five users a teen messaged and called, the servers they more frequently messaged, their total call minutes in voice and video, and all the purchases they've made.

However, this history only extends to the past week. If a parent forgets to check their child's activity during a given week, the tracking starts over. To review past activity, a parent would have to find previous email summaries sent to their inbox.

Additional new safety features include the ability for teens to alert their parents when they've reported objectionable or potentially rule-breaking content on Discord, as well as the option for guardians to enable certain settings, like sensitive-content filters and direct message controls. Parents will now be able to choose whether their teen can receive DMs from just friends or other server members.

Savannah Badalich, Discord's global head of product policy, told Mashable that the safety features reflect feedback from parents directly and through organizations the company partners with, including the National Parent Teacher Association and the Digital Wellness Lab at Boston Children's Hospital.

"They wanted more visibility and more control," Badalich said.

The new features will roll out over the next week. Badalich added that Discord will introduce more safety measures early next year. The company currently employs age assurance in the United Kingdom and is experimenting with it in Australia. Per Discord's policy, only users 13 and older are permitted to join, but teens frequently circumvent this rule by lying about their age.

Parents will now see this list of top users in the Family Center controls. Credit: Discord

Top purchases will be viewable by parents via the Family Center. Credit: Discord

Discord is especially popular amongst gamers who use it to simultaneously chat and play with friends and strangers. The app has been under increased scrutiny as a platform where bad actors and sexual predators have targeted and communicated with young users.

Haley McNamara, executive director and chief strategy officer of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, told Mashable in a statement that Discord's newest safety features fall short.

"Once again, a tech platform with a history of harming children rolls out parental controls that puts the burden exclusively on overwhelmed parents, without taking any ownership for designing a safe platform," McNamara said. The advocacy organization has previously placed Discord on its annual "Dirty Dozen" list, describing it as a "mainstream contributor to sexual exploitation."

A lawsuit filed this year against Discord and the gaming platform Roblox alleged that together the platforms created a "breeding ground for predators." At the heart of the complaint is an anonymous 11-year-old girl who was allegedly groomed, sexually exploited, and raped by a perpetrator who used Roblox and Discord to communicate with her.

Dolman Law Group, which brought the suit against both companies, has named Discord as a co-defendant in multiple complaints, including one filed on Oct. 30. In that case, the firm is representing the parent of a child who died by suicide after allegedly being harassed and manipulated by a predator who made contact via Roblox and Discord.

"For years, Defendants have misrepresented and deliberately concealed information about the pervasive predatory conduct that their apps enable and facilitate," the lawsuit alleges.

In a statement shared with Mashable, Dolman Law Group founder Matt Dolman welcomed the new resources but said they are also "far too little and way too late for the countless sexual abuse survivors who were groomed, exploited or abused by sexual predators facilitated by Discord's lax safety measures."

Roblox recently launched age verification for teens, along with other tools meant to make it harder for predators to target children.

While Badalich did not address the lawsuits against Discord, she told Mashable that Discord takes a "holistic view" of teen safety, noting that the company proactively identifies and flags content and accounts that could put users at risk. Discord's policy also forbids drawn or synthetic media depicting child sexual abuse.

Badalich did acknowledge that because Discord is a communication platform that serves teens, it navigates tension between giving young users the privacy they crave and offering their parents useful oversight tools to help ensure their safety.

"Ultimately, what we want is to catalyze conversations between teens and parents," Badalich said. Both parents and teens can find guides in the Family Center to help with discussions about online safety.

UPDATE: Nov. 5, 2025, 1:00 p.m. PST This story has been updated to include independent expertise on youth online safety and comments from Dolman Law Group founder Matt Dolman .

November may prove to be a difficult month for many households. 

President Donald Trump recently threatened to defy a court order and continue withholding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits this month — later walked back by White House representatives — amid an already tumultuous financial landscape for millions of Americans. 

Anti-hunger organizations and food justice advocates have warned federal leaders that the continued funding lapse could lead to widespread food insecurity as the government shutdown crawls past the current 35-day record. SNAP recipients can expect to receive a fraction of their usual benefit payouts in the coming weeks, unless Congress acts quickly. 

Hunger relief organizations have been organizing against such a situation for months, with much experience under their belt — it's not the first time SNAP has been on the chopping block. 

In 2023, the federal government scaled back emergency SNAP allotments included in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, leading to a reduction in benefits that previously kept more than 4 million Americans out of poverty. This month's cuts are expected to impact more than 40 million Americans who receive SNAP payouts each month. 

There's extra help out there if you need it. 

How to find additional SNAP benefits in your area

Many state governments have stepped in to fill the gaps in SNAP funding while awaiting the decision of legislators. Eight states — Maryland, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia — as well as the District of Columbia will be providing direct financial aid to SNAP recipients, Newsweek reported. 

New York Governor Kathy Hochul declared a state of emergency last week, allocating $65 million in emergency funds to the state's network of food pantries, soup kitchens, and other organizations, including the Hunger Prevention and Nutrition Assistance Program and food surplus rescue organization Nourish NY. 

City governments are providing help, too. San Francisco is offering prepaid grocery cards to residents on the CalFresh program. 

Find out if your state is providing temporary assistance using this online map. 

To find state-specific SNAP program information, use the USDA's online directory. 

Utilize food banks, community fridges, and more assistance

Many may turn to the country's network of food banks, many of which have been hosting large food distribution events with prepackaged boxes of food. 

Nonprofit Feeding America has an online search tool to locate food banks in your area if you need to fill nutrition gaps and supplement grocery purchases. Hunger Free America has its own food directory that can connect individuals to local food banks and soup kitchens. It also operates the National Hunger Hotline. Call 866-3-HUNGRY (866-348-6479) for more help. 

It's worth noting that food banks were hit by recent Trump administration's funding cuts, as well, in what some have called a widespread "erosion of federal food support." A vital resource for many communities, food banks will face similar resource constraints this month. 

You can find additional food assistance through independent food helplines like Lemontree, which connects individuals with free food opportunities in their area. Lemontree operates in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Columbus, Detroit, New Jersey, New York City, Philadelphia, Tampa, and Washington, D.C.

Many advocates have encouraged individuals to contact local mutual aid groups, food pantries, and community fridge networks to find meals, too. Check out this international map of community fridges. 

To supplement on-the-ground work, companies like Instacart and Doordash have hosted emergency food drives and funneled donations into food banks and rescue networks. Instacart and Doordash also announced their own SNAP emergency programs, including free and discounted grocery deliveries and national food drives. The grocery delivery apps started accepting SNAP and EBT payments in 2023. 

Meanwhile, industry-specific organizations have launched their own initiatives to support SNAP beneficiaries. For example, One Fair Wage, an advocacy organization for restaurant and service workers, announced a Service Workers' SNAP Emergency Fund. Service workers and their families can apply to receive direct cash assistance if they are eligible for the SNAP program. 

The Motion Picture Association (MPA), the trade association behind Hollywood's movie rating system, has sent an official cease and desist letter to tech giant Meta, demanding the company halt the use of the MPA's PG-13 designation in its new teen safety features.

In a letter sent to Meta chief legal officer Jennifer Newstead on Oct. 28, the MPA argues that Meta's use of the PG-13 movie rating is "literally false and highly misleading," constituting false advertising and a dilution of the MPA trademark. "The MPA has worked for decades to earn the public’s trust in its rating system. Any dissatisfaction with Meta’s automated classification will inevitably cause the public to question the integrity of the MPA’s rating system," the letter contends.

The MPA explained that they had previously denied requests to use the ratings system from Meta's competitors.

On Oct. 14, Meta announced an overhaul of its parental control and content moderation settings for young users, known as Teen Accounts. In addition to new oversight tools and AI guidelines, the new features included age-appropriate filters that Meta argued reflected the same level of content exposure as MPA ratings, such as brief nudity and minor violence, expletives, and drug or alcohol use. The move came after numerous investigations into the company's youth safety prerogatives, and a recent report that found many of the company's previous safety tools had failed under stress testing.

The MPA issued a statement shortly after, taking issue with the company's use of the PG-13 designation without prior consultation:

"The Motion Picture Association was not contacted by Meta prior to the announcement of its new content moderation tool for Instagram Teen Accounts. We welcome efforts to protect kids from content that may not be appropriate for them, but assertions that Instagram’s new tool will be ‘guided by PG-13 movie ratings’ or have any connection to the film industry’s rating system are inaccurate.”

In the recent letter, the association added that Meta's reliance on automatic, AI-powered content moderation fails to meet the same human standards as the MPA ratings system, which relies on feedback from independent panels of parents. "Meta’s attempts to restrict teen content literally cannot be ‘guided by’ or ‘aligned with’ the MPA’s PG-13 movie rating because Meta does not follow [the MPA’s] curated process," it reads.

The letter argues that Meta is exploiting the established standards built by the MPA to win back trust with consumers.

Meta, meanwhile, argues that it did not claim that the new safety features were certified by the MPA and that the inclusion of "PG-13" qualifies under fair use. "To make things simpler for them, we updated our teen content policies to be closer to PG-13 movie standards—which parents already know. We know social media isn’t the same as movies, but we made this change to support parents, and we hope to work with the MPA to continue bringing families this clarity," said a Meta spokesperson.

The MPA represents major film studios, including Netflix, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Walt Disney Studios.

Grocery and food delivery apps are stepping in as the federal government fails to reinstate food assistance for millions of Americans amid the government shutdown.

DoorDash and Instacart — two of the biggest names in online food delivery — have announced emergency food assistance for users who receive support through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is the country's largest food assistance initiative.

Starting this month, DoorDash will waive delivery and service fees for grocery orders paid for with linked SNAP benefit cards, applying once per customer. The company estimates it will total 300,000 grocery orders. The company has also pledged to deliver 1 million meals for free, waiving all fees for more than 300 partner food banks, food pantries, and community organizations in the U.S.

Instacart customers using SNAP benefits can also get 50 percent off their next grocery order — up to $50. Individuals discount codes will be sent to Instacart customers who previously ordered groceries using SNAP. The company is also organizing additional food drives to support 300 food banks across 48 states.

DoorDash added SNAP and EBT payment processing in 2023, following on the heels of its online grocery delivery competitor Instacart. Both companies had previously announced food insecurity initiatives intended to support the nation's network of food banks and to address a growing need for consistent food access.

Project DASH, for example, provides food donations and free grocery deliveries alongside its nationwide partners. Instacart's Community Carts allows users to donate directly to local foodbanks through the Instacart platform. At the time, more than 18 million American households were deemed food insecure by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

"As SNAP funding faces unprecedented disruption and food banks brace for longer lines, we’re focused on practical, immediate solutions: helping families who use SNAP stretch their grocery dollars and helping food banks stock up to support their communities," said Instacart's chief corporate Affairs Officer at Instacart Dani Dudeck.

While the Trump administration cancelled its annual Household Food Security Report for 2025, which tracks food insecurity levels across the country, around 20 percent of children are still food insecure, reported Feeding America. SNAP served around 42 million individuals per month in 2024, according to the USDA, and the federal government paid about $99.8 billion toward the program.

Prior to the government shutdown, advocates warned that a lapse in funding could impact 40 million Americans, including 16 million children and 8 million seniors. In response to such concerns, a federal judge recently directed the administration to use emergency funds to help SNAP recipients — about $4.65 billion of the necessary $9 billion for November payouts.

Just one day after stating the administration would restart SNAP benefits at just 50 percent of their normal payment amounts, President Donald Trump said he would continue withholding benefits until the "Radical Left Democrats open up government" — the administration has blamed Democratic leaders for the extended lapse in federal funding. In a post to Truth Social, Trump alleged that the increased $100 billion SNAP allotment was a corrupt decision by President Joe Biden.

Meanwhile, the USDA sent a notice to independent grocery stores nationwide saying that they couldn't offer discounted prices on SNAP-eligible groceries.

DoorDash called the situation "a food emergency unfolding in real time" in a recent press release.

The forthcoming Museum of AI Arts in Los Angeles revealed new details on its offerings and announced its opening in spring 2026.

Occupying the base of a Frank Gehry-designed tower, the museum, called Dataland, will highlight machine-made art in five galleries spread over 25,000 square feet. Refik Anadol Studio, the L.A.-based digital art studio behind Dataland, also highlighted the museum's forthcoming Infinity Room, which will fill one of the galleries.

The Infinity Room, referred to as an "immersive data sculpture" by its creator, artist Refik Anadol, is inspired by the Light and Space movement and was created over a decade ago (check out a teaser of the Infinity Room below). Besides trippy visuals, the Infinity Room features AI-generated scents from the museum's Large Nature Model, which sources data from the natural world.

The immersive space will be the first to utilize an "advanced type of generative AI model that understands the dynamics of real-world physics and spatial properties," according to the studio.

Dataland also announced an Artist Residency Program, where three (human) artists "will embark on projects that expand the creative horizons of human-machine collaborations" and "explore how AI can transform culture, storytelling, and design."

When Sewell Setzer III began using Character.AI, the 14-year-old kept it a secret from his parents. His mother, Megan Garcia, only learned that he'd become obsessed with an AI chatbot on the app after he died by suicide. 

A police officer alerted Garcia that Character.AI was open on Setzer's phone when he died, and she subsequently found a trove of disturbing conversations with a chatbot based on the popular Game of Thrones character Daenerys Targaryen. Setzer felt like he'd fallen in love with Daenerys, and many of their interactions were sexually explicit. 

The chatbot allegedly role-played numerous sexual encounters with Setzer, using graphic language and scenarios, including incest, according to Garcia. If an adult human had talked to her son like this, she told Mashable, it'd constitute sexual grooming and abuse. 

In October 2024, the Social Media Victims Law Center and Tech Justice Law Project filed a wrongful death suit against Character.AI, seeking to hold the company responsible for the death of Garcia's son, alleging that its product was dangerously defective.

Last month, the Social Media Victims Law Center filed three new federal lawsuits against Character.AI, representing the parents of children who allegedly experienced sexual abuse while using the app. In September, youth safety experts declared Character.AI unsafe for teens, following testing this spring that yielded hundreds of instances of grooming and sexual exploitation of test accounts registered as minors. 

On Wednesday, Character.AI announced that it would no longer allow minors to engage in open-ended exchanges with the chatbots on its platform, a change that will take place no later than November 25. The company's CEO, Karandeep Anand, told Mashable the move was not in response to specific safety concerns involving Character.AI's platform but to address broader outstanding questions about youth engagement with AI chatbots. 

Garcia said that the new policy came "too late" for her family: "This should have been done when they released this product to the public."

Still, chatbots that are sexually explicit or abusive with minors — or have the potential to be — aren't exclusive to a single platform. 

Garcia said that parents generally underestimate the potential for some AI chatbots to become sexual with children and teens. They may also feel a false sense of safety, compared to their child talking to strangers on the internet, not realizing that chatbots can expose minors to inappropriate and even unconscionable sexual content, like non-consent and sadomasochism.

When young users are traumatized by these experiences, pediatric and mental health experts say there's no playbook for how to treat them, because the phenomenon is so new. 

"It's like a perfect predator, right? It exists in your phone so it's not somebody who's in your home or a stranger sneaking around," Garcia tells Mashable. Instead, the chatbot invisibly engages in emotionally manipulative tactics that still make a young person feel violated and ashamed. 

"It's a chatbot that's having the same kind of behavior [as a predator] that you, now as the victim, are hiding their secret for them, because somehow you feel like you've done something to encourage this," Garcia adds.

Predatory chatbot behavior 

Sarah Gardner, CEO of the Heat Initiative, an advocacy group focused on online safety and corporate accountability, told Mashable that one of the classic facets of grooming is that it's hard for children to recognize when it's happening to them. 

The predatory behavior begins with building trust with a victim by talking to them about a wide range of topics, not just trying to engage them in sexual activity. Gardner explained that a young person may experience the same dynamic with a chatbot and feel guilty as a result, as if they did something wrong instead of understanding that something wrong happened to them. 

The Heat Initiative co-published the report on Character.AI that detailed troubling examples of what it described as sexual exploitation and abuse. These included adult chatbots acting out kissing and touching avatar accounts registered as children. Some chatbots simulated sexual acts and demonstrated well-known grooming behaviors, like giving excessive praise and telling the child account to hide sexual relationships from their parents.

A Character.AI spokesperson told Mashable that its trust and safety team reviewed the report's findings and concluded that some conversations violated the platform's content guidelines while others did not. The trust and safety team also tried to replicate the report's findings. 

"Based on these results, we refined some of our classifiers, in line with our goal for users to have a safe and engaging experience on our platform," the spokesperson said. 

Matthew P. Bergman, founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center, told Mashable that if the Character.AI chatbot communications with the children represented in the lawsuits he recently filed were conducted by a person and not a chatbot, that individual would be violating state and federal law for grooming kids online. 

How big is the problem? 

Despite the emergence of such cases, there's no representative data on how many children and teens have encountered sexually explicit or abusive chatbots. 

The online safety platform Aura, which monitors teen users as part of its family or kids membership, recently offered a snapshot of the prevalence. Among teen users who talked to AI chatbots, more than one third of their conversations involved sexual or romantic role play. This discussion type ranked highest among all categories, which included homework help and creative uses. 

Dr. Scott Kollins, Aura's chief medical officer, told Mashable that the company is still analyzing the data to better understand the nature of these chats, but he is disturbed by what he's seen so far. 

While young people are routinely exposed to pornography online, a sexualized chatbot is new, dangerous territory. 

"This takes it a step further, because now the kid is a participant, instead of a consumer of the content," Kollins said. "They are learning a way of interaction that is not real, and with an entity that is not real. That can lead to all sorts of bad outcomes." 

'It is emotional abuse' 

Dr. Yann Poncin, a psychiatrist at the Yale New Haven Children's Hospital, has treated patients who've experienced some of these outcomes. 

They commonly feel taken advantage of and abused by "creepy" and "yucky" exchanges, Poncin says. Those teens also feel a sense of betrayal and shame. They may have been drawn in by a hyper-validating chatbot that seemed trustworthy only to discover that it's interested in a sexual conversation. Some may curiously explore the boundaries of romantic and erotic talk in developmentally appropriate ways, but the chatbot becomes unpredictably aggressive or violent. 

"It is emotional abuse, so it can still be very traumatizing and hard to get through," Poncin says.

Even though there's no standard treatment for chatbot-involved sexual predation, Poncin treats his patients as though they've experienced trauma. Poncin focuses first on helping them develop skills to reduce related stress and anxiety. A subset of patients, particularly those who are socially isolated or have a history of personal trauma, may find it harder to recover from the experience, Poncin adds. 

He cautions parents against believing that their child won't run into an abusive chatbot: "No one is immune."

Talking to teens about sexualized chatbots

Garcia describes herself as a conscientious parent who had difficult conversations with her son about the risks of being online. They talked about sextortion, porn, and sexting. But Garcia says she didn't know to talk to him about sexualized chatbots. She also didn't realize he would hide that from her. 

Garcia, a lawyer who now spends much of her time advocating for youth AI safety, says she's spoken to other parents whose children have also concealed romantic or sexual relationships with AI chatbots. She urges parents to talk to their teens about these experiences — and to monitor their chatbot use as closely as they can. 

Poncin also suggests parents lead with curiosity instead of fear when they discuss sex and chatbots with their teens. Even asking a child if they have seen "weird sexual stuff" when talking to a chatbot can provide parents with a strategic opening to discuss the risks.  

If a parent discovers abusive sexual content in chatbot conversations, Garcia recommends taking them to a trusted healthcare professional so they can get support. 

Garcia's grief remains palpable as she speaks lovingly about her son's many talents and interests, like basketball, science, and math. 

"I'm trying to get justice for my child and I'm trying to warn other parents so they don't go through the same devastation I've gone through," she says. "He was such an amazing kid." 

UPDATE: Oct. 29, 2025, 2:53 p.m. PDT This story has been updated to include new comments from Megan Garcia about Character.AI's teen chat policy.

If you have experienced sexual abuse, call the free, confidential National Sexual Assault hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE (4673), or access the 24-7 help online by visiting online.rainn.org.

Character.AI, a popular chatbot platform where users role-play with different personas, will no longer permit under-18 account holders to have open-ended conversations with chatbots, the company announced Wednesday. It will also begin relying on age assurance techniques to ensure that minors aren't able to open adult accounts.

The dramatic shift comes just six weeks after Character.AI was sued again in federal court by the Social Media Victims Law Center, which is representing multiple parents of teens who died by suicide or allegedly experienced severe harm, including sexual abuse. The parents claim their children's use of the platform was responsible for the harm. In October 2024, Megan Garcia filed a wrongful death suit seeking to hold the company responsible for the suicide of her son, arguing that its product is dangerously defective. She is represented by the Social Media Victims Law Center and the Tech Justice Law Project.

Online safety advocates recently declared Character.AI unsafe for teens after they tested the platform this spring and logged hundreds of harmful interactions, including violence and sexual exploitation.

As it faced legal pressure in the last year, Character.AI implemented parental controls and content filters in an effort to improve safety for teens.

In an interview with Mashable, Character.AI's CEO Karandeep Anand described the new policy as "bold" and denied that curtailing open-ended chatbot conversations with teens was a response to specific safety concerns.

Instead, Anand framed the decision as "the right thing to do" in light of broader unanswered questions about the long-term effects of chatbot engagement on teens. Anand referenced OpenAI's recent acknowledgement, in the wake of a teen user's suicide, that lengthy conversations can become unpredictable.

Anand cast Character.AI's new policy as standard-setting: "Hopefully it sets everyone up on a path where AI can continue being safe for everyone."

He added that the company's decision won't change, regardless of user backlash.

Garcia said in a statement that the announcement comes "too late" for her family: "This should have been done when they released this product to the public."

Matthew P. Bergman, Garcia's co-counsel in her wrongful death lawsuit against Character.AI, credited her and other parents for coming forward to hold the company accountable. Though he commended Character.AI for shutting down teen chats and said the decision marked a "significant step toward creating a safer online environment for children," he added that it would not affect ongoing litigation against the company.

Meetali Jain, who also represents Garcia, said in a statement that she welcomed the new policy as a "good first step" toward ensuring that Character.AI is safer. Yet she added that the pivot reflected a "classic move in tech industry's playbook: move fast, launch a product globally, break minds, and then make minimal product changes after harming scores of young people."

Jain noted that Character.AI has yet to address the "possible psychological impact of suddenly disabling access to young users, given the emotional dependencies that have been created."

What will Character.AI look like for teens now?

In a blog post announcing the new policy, Character.AI apologized to its teen users.

"We do not take this step of removing open-ended Character chat lightly — but we do think that it's the right thing to do given the questions that have been raised about how teens do, and should, interact with this new technology," the blog post said.

Currently, users ages 13 to 17 can message with chatbots on the platform. That feature will cease to exist no later than November 25. Until then, accounts registered to minors will experience time limits starting at two hours per day. That limit will decrease as the transition away from open-ended chats gets closer.

Character.AI will see these notifications about impending changes to the platform. Credit: Courtesy of Character.AI

Even though open-ended chats will disappear, teens' chat histories with individual chatbots will remain in tact. Anand said users can draw on that material in order to generate short audio and video stories with their favorite chatbots. In the next few months, Character.AI will also explore new features like gaming. Anand believes an emphasis on "AI entertainment" without open-ended chat will satisfy teens' creative interest in the platform.

"They're coming to role-play, and they're coming to get entertained," Anand said.

He was insistent that existing chat histories with sensitive or prohibited content that may not have been previously detected by filters, such as violence or sex, would not find its way into the new audio or video stories.

A Character.AI spokesperson told Mashable that the company's trust and safety team reviewed the findings of a report co-published in September by the Heat Initiative documenting harmful chatbot exchanges with test accounts registered to minors. The team concluded that some conversations violated the platform's content guidelines while others did not. It also tried to replicate the report's findings. 

"Based on these results, we refined some of our classifiers, in line with our goal for users to have a safe and engaging experience on our platform," the spokesperson said.

Sarah Gardner, CEO of the Heat Initiative, told Mashable that the nonprofit organization would be paying close attention to the implementation of Character.AI's new policies to ensure they're not "just another round of child safety theater."

While she described the measures as a "positive sign," she argued that the announcement "is also an admission that Character AI's products have been inherently unsafe for young users from the beginning, and that their previous safety rollouts have been ineffective in protecting children from harm."

Character.AI will begin implementing age assurance immediately. It'll take a month to go into effect and will have multiple layers. Anand said the company is building its own assurance models in-house but that it will partner with a third-party company on the technology.

It will also use relevant data and signals, such as whether a user has a verified over-18 account on another platform, to accurately detect the age of new and existing users. Finally, if a user wants to challenge Character.AI's age determination, they'll have the opportunity to provide verification through a third party, which will handle sensitive documents and data, including state-issued identification.

Finally, as part of the new policies, Character.AI is establishing and funding an independent non-profit called the AI Safety Lab. The lab will focus on "novel safety techniques."

"[W]e want to bring in the industry experts and other partners to keep making sure that AI continues to remain safe, especially in the realm of AI entertainment," Anand said.

In her statement, Garcia argued for federal regulation to ensure the safety of AI chatbots.

“Lawsuits, regulators, and public scrutiny have forced this change, but I'm mindful of the fact that we have seen time and time again that tech companies announce these big sweeping changes that fall flat," Garcia said.

UPDATE: Oct. 29, 2025, 2:50 p.m. PDT This story has been updated to include comments from Megan Garcia and her legal counsel, as well as a safety expert.

In a Monday blog post, OpenAI touted the improvements its default model, GPT-5, has made in identifying and responding to users' troubling responses, including suicidal ideation. While new safeguards and the introduction of psychiatrists in helping train GPT-5 are leading to improved AI responses to mental health prompts, the blog post also pointed out some numbers that are bound to raise eyebrows.

While explaining GPT-5's abilities to detect serious mental health concerns, like psychosis and mania, the post noted that troubling user conversations with the chatbot are “rare.”

"While, as noted above, these conversations are difficult to detect and measure given how rare they are, our initial analysis estimates that around 0.07% of users active in a given week and 0.01% of messages indicate possible signs of mental health emergencies related to psychosis or mania."

The percentage seems small, but ChatGPT has 800 million weekly users, according to Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, which owns ChatGPT. Altman made that stunning announcement earlier this month at OpenAI’s DevDay. 

If Altman's numbers are correct, that equates to 560,000 ChatGPT users showing signs of psychosis or mania, and 80,000 of their messages indicating mental health emergencies, according to the site’s estimates. 

OpenAI is continuing to work with its models to better identify signs of self-harm and steer those people to resources, like suicide hotlines or their own friends or family members. The blog post continues to suggest that ChatGPT conversations regarding self-harm are rare, but estimates that "0.15% of users active in a given week have conversations that include explicit indicators of potential suicidal planning or intent and 0.05% of messages contain explicit or implicit indicators of suicidal ideation or intent."

With 800 million weekly users, that equates to 1.2 million ChatGPT users engaging in conversations with AI about suicide in a given week, and 400,000 messages from users that demonstrate direct or indirect indications of suicidal intent.

"Even a very small percentage of our large user base represents a meaningful number of people, and that’s why we take this work so seriously," an OpenAI spokesperson told Mashable, adding that the company believes ChatGPT's growing user base reflects society at large, where mental health symptoms and emotional distress are "universally present."

The spokesperson also reiterated that the company's numbers are estimates and "the numbers we provided may significantly change as we learn more."

OpenAI is currently facing a lawsuit from the parents of Adam Raine, a 16-year-old who died by suicide earlier this year during a time of heavy ChatGPT use. In a recently amended legal complaint, the Raines allege OpenAI twice downgraded suicide prevention safeguards in order to increase engagement in the months prior to their son's death.

If you're feeling suicidal or experiencing a mental health crisis, please talk to somebody. You can call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. You can reach the Trans Lifeline by calling 877-565-8860 or the Trevor Project at 866-488-7386. Text "START" to Crisis Text Line at 741-741. Contact the NAMI HelpLine at 1-800-950-NAMI, Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. ET, or email info@nami.org. If you don't like the phone, consider using the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Chat. Here is a list of international resources.

Livestreams can be unpredictable, which is part of the fun, right? Not so much for risk-averse brands considering sponsoring a livestream on Twitch, Kick, or YouTube. A new AI product launching today promises to relieve that advertiser anxiety by yanking ads when livestreams go off the rails.

LiveGuard, from streamer-centric NexTide Media, analyzes advertiser-flagged words, weighing context, language, topics, tone, and emotion. Using those clues, the AI decides whether the content is ok or objectionable and, if the latter, yanks the brand mentions from the stream.

"Brands can fully contextualize their guardrails, choosing to avoid or allow categories such as NSFW discussions, political content, profanity, or other sensitive topics, creating total control over where and how their campaigns appear,” according to a statement from NexTide.

LiveGuard is pitched as novel since it operates live and in-stream, and can make decisions fast.  

Minecraft streamer JeromeASF touted the patent-pending AI tool in a statement: "LiveGuard gives creators and advertisers the confidence to collaborate safely, protecting the live experience without limiting creativity.”

Focused on live media advertising, LiveGuard creator Nextide says its services have been utilized by State Farm, the NFL, and the BET Awards.

Livestreams have a long track record of going awry — there’s a whole Reddit page devoted to live fails. Even Elon Musk was burned by a livestream in August, when he "rage quit" after being continuously cyberbullied. 

Xbox can't seem to stay out of the news lately, with the announcement that Halo: Combat Evolved is coming to PlayStation next year and, in response, a detente called in the console wars. Things took a darker turn on Sunday night when President Trump launched into an AI slop meme war with GameStop that has now spiraled into the Department of Homeland Security using Halo imagery to compare undocumented immigrants to parasitic aliens.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Early Monday morning, the official DHS X account — already infamous for its cruel, brain-rotting posting history — shared an image of Xbox's iconic mascot, Master Chief, standing on a Warthog with the Halo ring world in the background. The caption read, "Finishing this fight," a nod to the final line of Halo 2 and the marketing tagline for Halo 3. The image itself included the phrase "Destroy the Flood," alongside a link to an ICE recruitment page.

The post is problematic on several levels — the most glaring being that DHS appears to be equating the Flood, the main antagonists of the Halo series, with immigrants. For context, the Flood are a parasitic alien species that infect and consume sentient life across the galaxy.

This isn't the first time ICE has co-opted video game imagery for its recruitment posts on social media. Just last month, the agency used the "Gotta catch 'em all" Pokémon theme for videos of arrests, complete with custom-made cards of individuals captured by ICE. That's on top of the many crass, bizarre, and meme-heavy "Dark MAGA" posts the agency has shared — including ones featuring Trump with laser eyes or reposts originating from neo-Nazi accounts.

It's not clear why Trump and DHS are fixated on Halo as of late. It is worth noting that Microsoft, which owns Xbox, is one of several tech giants that reportedly helped fund construction of Trump's $300 million ballroom — a project that has already required the demolition of the East Wing. Critics say the investment is part of a broader push by major tech firms to stay in favor with the administration as they compete for lucrative federal contracts.

ICE's goal seems to be grabbing the attention of younger audiences — ostensibly for recruiting — but also to continue dehumanizing undocumented immigrants and other groups targeted by the administration.

It's a bold strategy for an agency hoping to look heroic, but it seems ICE missed the part where the good guys fight to protect all of humanity.

Mashable has contacted Xbox for comment, but has yet to receive a response as of this writing.

This article reflects the opinion of the writer.

The newest exhibit at Las Vegas's Mob Museum may not contain flashy items like Bugsy Siegel's sunglasses or the bloody wall from the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, but it's still a riveting look at modern organized crime.

"Digital Underground," which opened this week, highlights the scourge of cybercrime. Spanning early hackers of the 1970s to today's sophisticated ransomware organizations that steal over $150 million every day, the exhibit allows the public to visualize faceless crimes. The highlight of "Digital Underground" is a live cyberthreat map from Check Point Software Technologies, displaying real-time attacks. A large wall mural and panel describe how these criminal enterprises operate and continue to proliferate around the world, with corporations and government bodies facing about 1,900 cyberattacks a week.

"Cybercrime has become one of the most pressing, pervasive and profitable threats of our time," Geoff Schumacher, The Mob Museum's Vice President of Exhibits and Programs, said in a statement. "'Digital Underworld' provides important historical context, compelling artifacts and a live look at how these crimes are carried out today, making it clear that organized crime is no longer limited to the streets, it thrives in the digital world."

In 2023, a huge cyberattack crippled MGM Resorts and Caesars Entertainment, both of which operate the largest casino resorts in Las Vegas. But before hackers locked people out of hotel rooms and demanded multi-million-dollar ransoms, they were involved in phone scams 40 years ago, as "Digital Underground" highlights.

An early hacking tool, courtesy of a cereal box. Credit: Courtesy Mob Museum

The exhibit also features a floppy disk containing an early computer virus, a Cap’n Crunch cereal toy whistle used to trick pay phones into providing free long-distance calls, and a book by Joseph Popp, creator of the first ransomware in 1989. Find more details on the exhibit website.

Lawyers representing the parents of Adam Raine, a 16-year-old who died by suicide earlier this year during a time of heavy ChatGPT use, filed an amended complaint on Wednesday in their wrongful death suit against OpenAI.

The amended complaint alleges that, in the months prior to Raine's death, OpenAI twice downgraded suicide prevention safeguards in order to increase engagement. The claims are based on OpenAI's publicly available "model spec" documents, which detail the company's "approach to shaping desired model behavior."

As far back as 2022, OpenAI instructed ChatGPT to refuse discussions about self-harm.

According to the Raine family's counsel, OpenAI reversed that policy in May 2024, days before the launch of its controversial GPT-4o model. Instead, ChatGPT was instructed not to "change or quit the conversation" when a user discussed mental health or suicide. Still, OpenAI prohibited the model from encouraging or enabling self-harm.

By February 2025, the amended complaint alleges that the rule was watered down from a straight prohibition under its restricted content guidelines to a separate directive to "take care in risky situations" and "try to prevent imminent real-world harm." While the model continued to receive instructions not to encourage self-harm under that rubric, the Raine family believes these conflicting guidelines led to dangerous engagement by ChatGPT.

Raine died two months after those policies were implemented. The AI model validated his suicidal thinking and provided him explicit instructions on how he could die, according to the original lawsuit filed in August.

Before Raine's death, he was exchanging more than 650 messages per day with ChatGPT. While the chatbot occasionally shared the number for a crisis hotline, it didn't shut the conversations down and always continued to engage. It even proposed writing a suicide note for Raine, his parents claim.

The amended complaint against OpenAI now alleges that the company engaged in intentional misconduct instead of reckless indifference.

Mashable contacted OpenAI for comment about the amended complaint, but didn't receive a response prior to publication.

Earlier this year, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman acknowledged that its 4o model was overly sycophantic. A spokesperson for the company told the New York Times it was "deeply saddened" by Raine's death, and that its safeguards may degrade in long interactions with the chatbot.

Though OpenAI has announced new safety measures aimed at preventing similar tragedies, many are not yet part of ChatGPT. Common Sense Media has rated ChatGPT as "high risk" for teens, specifically recommending that they not use it for mental health or emotional support.

Last week, Altman said on X that the company had made ChatGPT "pretty restrictive" to be "careful with mental health issues." He declared, with no additional detail, that the company had been "able to mitigate the serious mental health issues" and that it would soon relax its restrictions. In the same post, Altman announced that OpenAI would roll out "erotica for verified adults."

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

OpenAI last published a model spec in September, with no significant changes to its mental health or suicide prevention directives, according to Eli Wade-Scott, partner at Edelson PC and a lawyer representing the Raines.

"It was a remarkable moment for Sam Altman to declare 'Mission Accomplished' on mental health while simultaneously saying that he intended to start allowing erotic content on ChatGPT — a change that plainly has the intended effect of further drawing users into dependent, emotional relationships with ChatGPT," Wade-Scott told Mashable.

If you're feeling suicidal or experiencing a mental health crisis, please talk to somebody. You can call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. You can reach the Trans Lifeline by calling 877-565-8860 or the Trevor Project at 866-488-7386. Text "START" to Crisis Text Line at 741-741. Contact the NAMI HelpLine at 1-800-950-NAMI, Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. ET, or email info@nami.org. If you don't like the phone, consider using the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Chat. Here is a list of international resources.

UPDATE Wednesday, 12:15 p.m. ET: This story includes a statement from Amazon responding to the New York Times article.

Retail giant Amazon sees more robots and fewer human employees in its future, according to a blockbuster report in the New York Times.

Referencing employee interviews and internal documents, the Times found that the Seattle-based company hopes to replace more than a half million jobs with robots. The company’s goal, according to the documents, is to eventually automate 75 percent of its operations.

Currently, Amazon is the nation’s second-largest employer, with about 1.5 million workers around the globe. The company has been on a growth trajectory for years, especially once COVID hypercharged online shopping among the public. Even though Amazon is looking to drastically curtail hiring in the coming years, it still expects to sell twice as many products by 2033 as it does now.

Many Amazon workers toil in giant warehouses spread around the world, boxing online orders and shipping them out around the world. But in a new facility in Shreveport, La. built with automation in mind, a thousand robots do much of the packing and shipping work, allowing Amazon to employ a quarter fewer employees than it would without the robots. In 2026, the Louisiana facility will only need half as many employees as it would have before the addition of robots, according to Amazon docs. The operation of the Shreveport facility will be replicated in approximately 40 facilities by the end of 2027. 

The company is already formulating a public relations push to soften the blow of reduced hiring, attrition, or even layoffs, according to the Times. Internal discussions revealed by the paper include greater community involvement by Amazon and changing corporate language from "automation," "AI," and "robot," to "advanced technology" and "cobot" (robots collaborating with humans). The company also reportedly hopes to increase messaging about the creation of new technical jobs tasked with keeping the robots running, though those jobs typically require more training and less human power.

Amazon executives, led by CEO Andy Jassy, are under pressure by Amazon’s board of directors "to do more with less," according to the Times.

"For years and years, they were really investing for growth, and in the last three years the company’s focus has shifted to efficiencies," Wall Street analyst Justin Post told the newspaper.

Amazon’s decision to employ more automation — there are already a million robots at work for the company — will likely disproportionately impact minority workers, especially Black employees; Amazon warehouse workers are about three times as likely as a typical American worker to be Black, the Times reports.

Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel released the following statement in response to the Times article:

“Leaked documents often paint an incomplete and misleading picture of our plans, and that’s the case here. In our written narrative culture, thousands of documents circulate throughout the company at any given time, each with varying degrees of accuracy and timeliness. In this instance, the materials appear to reflect the perspective of just one team and don't represent our overall hiring strategy across our various operations business lines - now or moving forward. The facts speak for themselves: No company has created more jobs in America over the past decade than Amazon. We're actively hiring at operations facilities across the country and recently announced plans to fill 250,000 positions for the holiday season.”

For Amazon, the advent of automation potentially presents another upside for shareholders — the robots can’t unionize. The company has long had a strained relationship with organized labor, with the company in September letting go of 150 unionized drivers in New York, allegedly in retaliation for their participation in a workers’ strike. Amazon claimed at the time that the drivers weren’t "fired," but rather victims of canceled contracts with a subcontractor who employed the drivers.

Federal investigators are looking into a recent incident involving an autonomous driving Waymo that passed a fully stopped school bus, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The federal agency said that the Waymo initially yielded to the school bus, which had its stop arm and crossing control arms deployed, in addition to flashing red lights.

After the Waymo paused, it proceeded to drive around the front of the bus and ultimately made a left turn in order to navigate around the larger stopped vehicle. Investigators said the Waymo drove near disembarking students.

The stopped school bus had partially blocked a driveway the Waymo was exiting, according to the company. As a result, the flashing lights and stop sign were not visible to the vehicle. The Waymo then drove around the bus's front end, making a left turn at a low speed, at a distance from the students exiting the bus.

Waymo said that it has already implemented software updates to improve its performance and has more updates planned.

The incident occurred in late September, in Atlanta, Georgia. NHTSA said that the likelihood of similar incidents is high, based on its "engagement" with Waymo about this incident.

The agency's investigation will focus on how Waymo's automated driving system performs around stopped school buses, with the goal of understanding whether safety issues are pervasive.

"Safety is our top priority, as we provide hundreds of thousands of fully autonomous paid trips every week in some of the most challenging driving environments in the U.S.," a Waymo spokesperson told Mashable. The spokesperson said that Waymo will continue to work with NHTSA.

Waymo's safety data indicate that its autonomous vehicles have achieved a fivefold reduction in crashes with injuries compared to human drivers.

In May 2024, NHTSA opened an investigation into Waymo for 22 reported incidents in which its autonomous vehicles collided with objects like gates, chains, and parked vehicles. The cars also appeared to disobey traffic safety control devices.

In November 2024, Waymo voluntarily recalled 1,212 of its self-driving taxis. The recalled cars, which comprised the entirety of the company's fleet at the time, received a software update in November designed to significantly decrease the likelihood that Waymos would collide with stationary objects.

Waymo, which currently offers autonomous vehicle services in Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix, and Austin, recently announced that it would expand its taxi service to London.

On Saturday, Oct. 18, nearly 7 million Americans gathered in the streets to protest what they view as the machinations of a tyrannical government: The president's deployment of national guard troops to patrol "dangerous" cities, the movement of masked immigration agents tasked with rounding up undocumented residents, and, what many see as an authoritarian power grab across the three branches of government.

At more than 2,700 No Kings rallies held in cities small and large, protesters demanded President Donald Trump be held accountable to the people, harkening back to the foundational tenets of the American Revolution. In an Air Force One interview following the day's events, Trump dismissed the demands of protesters, calling the attendees a "whacked out" joke. "I’m not a king. I work my ass off to make our country great," he said.

He didn't stop there. Taking to Truth Social, the president shared a clearly AI-generated video, depicting a military jet emblazoned with the phrase "King Trump." The aircraft, piloted by an eerily proportioned President Trump in a golden crown, then takes to the skies to fly over a group of city protesters. The jet opens its fuselage and... appears to rain down excrement on the gathered crowd.

The video is soundtracked to Kenny Loggins' "The Danger Zone," made famous in the Academy Award-winning film Top Gun. "This is an unauthorized use of my performance of ‘Danger Zone.' Nobody asked me for my permission, which I would have denied, and I request that my recording on this video is removed immediately," said Loggins in a statement to Variety after the post went viral.

The video is just the latest of numerous deepfaked videos and AI slop shared by the president — and not even the only AI video Trump posted that day, resharing another King Trump clip with a song by band Avenged Sevenfold. In the past, Trump has come under fire for resharing AI-generated content, the use of copyrighted music without permission, and, unsurprisingly, a combination of the two. Public comments and legal threats from artists have yet to stop the country's leader. In addition to AI memes that littered the campaign trail, Trump has even shared deepfaked, even racist, videos of his political opponents while sitting in the Oval Office.

As part of a larger, right-wing social media strategy featuring increasingly questionable content, Trump and fellow GOP leaders have been on a spree of sharing AI-generated content. Last week, the official Senate Republicans X account posted a video which depicted an AI deepfake of Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying the government shutdown has benefited Democrats (the quote was real, but the video of Schumer saying it was not). In the weeks prior, the Trump administration plastered claims that the federal shutdown was the result of a scheme by the "Radical Left," in what could be a violation of the Hatch Act.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

The posts have been the center of White House press room debates and mass fact checks by misinformation watchdogs. Meanwhile, Trump has been riding on the support of Big Tech's biggest names, including the leaders of the country's biggest generative AI developers. The combination has spurred concerns about the blurring of political satire and political misinformation, and whether or not the social media posts of the nation's political leaders should be more contained.

At a news conference on Monday, Speaker Mike Johnson defended the use of AI by the president. "The president uses social media to make the point. You can argue he’s probably the most effective person who’s ever used social media for that," said Johnson. "He is using satire to make a point. He is not calling for the murder of his political opponents."

Cement is everywhere, and with current urbanisation rates, the sturdy construction material isn't going anywhere. But this comes at a huge environmental cost, as cement amounts to nearly eight percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. Can it be otherwise? Rotterdam-based tech startup Paebbl surely thinks so.

Meta has unveiled its plan to address teen use of its AI characters: More content guardrails and expanded parental oversight.

In addition to new moderation controls designed to reflect PG-13 movie ratings, announced earlier this week, parents will be able to access summaries of teen chat use, limit their children to specific AI avatars, or block their child from interacting with AI companions completely.

Teen Accounts will still be allowed to interact with Meta's AI assistant if they are blocked from conversing with AI avatars, the company noted.

In August, Meta announced a temporary lockdown on its AI avatars after an investigation by Reuters found that the company's chatbots were able to engage young users in "romantic or sensual" conversations, impersonate celebrities in flirtatious exchanges, and generate sexually suggestive images. At the time, Meta spokesperson Stephanie Otway told TechCrunch the products were being trained not to engage in conversations about self-harm, suicide, disordered eating, or potentially inappropriate romantic conversations. Meta formalized the guardrails a month later, drawing a line between allowing a subject to discuss a subject — such as abuse or intimacy between fictional characters — and the chatbot's ability to "describe, enable, or encourage it."

OpenAI announced similar controls for ChatGPT that same month, with additional limits on the bot's voice chat, chat memory, and image generation. Both approaches to teen AI oversight require young users to sign up for supervised accounts and parents to proactively monitor their children's chat use.

"We believe AI can complement traditional learning methods and exploration in a way that feels supportive, all with the proper age-appropriate guardrails in place," the company wrote in a blog post. "We recognize parents already have a lot on their plates when it comes to navigating the internet safely with their teens, and we’re committed to providing them with helpful tools and resources that make things simpler for them, especially as they think about new technology like AI."

The new AI companion controls won't be available to supervising accounts until early next year, and will roll out exclusively to Instagram accounts in the U.S., UK, Canada, and Australia before expanding to other countries and Meta platforms.

On the same day Meta showcased its latest AI gadgets, Brandy Roberts stood outside its headquarters mourning her daughter Englyn — who was just 14 when she died after watching a “how-to” suicide video on Instagram. Brandy wasn’t there as an activist. She was there as a grieving mother demanding answers. Inside, Mark Zuckerberg fumbled through live demos of glitchy smart glasses and AI tools. Outside, grieving families demanded accountability. Meta’s silence spoke volumes: Growth over grief, product over protection, optics over safety. 

Meta’s failures aren’t new. Back in 2019, approximately 440,000 minors received follower requests from accounts previously flagged for predatory behavior. Since then, the company has focused on convincing users and lawmakers it can police itself — launching promotional campaigns like Instagram Teen accounts despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

Instagram Teen Accounts were marketed as a breakthrough in youth safety — with AI age detection, nudity filters, and location alerts. But independent audits found only 8 of 47 safety tools were effective. Teens still encountered sexualized content, self-harm imagery, and predatory behavior. Meta’s updates seem to be more about perception than protection.

New reporting from Heat Initiative, ParentsTogether Action, and Design It For Us reveals the dark reality of the teen experience on Instagram Teen accounts. Surveying 800 users aged 13–15, the report found that nearly half encountered unsafe content or unwanted messages in just the past month. Half said Instagram’s algorithm recommended suspicious adult-run accounts, and 65 percent hadn’t seen a single "take a break" notification — a feature Meta touts as a screen-time safeguard. These findings underscore a growing pattern: Meta’s promotional campaigns promise peace of mind, but the lived experience of young users tells a story of persistent exposure to harm. The discrepancy between marketing and reality isn’t just misleading — it’s dangerous.

And now, Heat Initiative and ParentsTogether Action have released a video showing exactly what kind of content teens are served on Instagram Teen accounts — content so inappropriate that even sharing it for advocacy feels ethically fraught. Watching these clips, I felt the same discomfort that Meta should feel every time its algorithm pushes similar material to millions of young users. If it feels wrong to show these videos to adults for advocacy, why does Meta feel justified in serving them to children at scale?

Platforms like Meta will continue to exploit their users — especially children — until we, the users, reclaim our power and demand a better digital community. One that values connection and public good over profit.

I left Instagram after witnessing parents like Brandy protest in NYC. It wasn’t easy — most of my friends stayed. But each month, I’m reminded that I have the power to choose platforms that value me, not exploit me. I do it for my younger self. For future generations. For the survivors I love. And for the children who can’t be here.

So next time you see organizations or influencers partnering with Meta, ask yourself: Is this about safety or optics? Just yesterday, Meta claimed its Instagram Teen experience would now be "guided by PG‑13 movie ratings." But the Motion Picture Association quickly clarified it was never consulted and called Meta’s claim "inaccurate." Once again, Meta borrows credibility it hasn’t earned, using trusted labels to mask persistent harm. When PR becomes the product and partnerships become shields, we owe it to ourselves — and our children — to look closer.

This article reflects the opinion of the writer.

Lennon Torres is a Public Voices Fellow on Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse with The OpEd Project. She is an LGBTQ+ advocate who grew up in the public eye, gaining national recognition as a young dancer on television shows. With a deep passion for storytelling, advocacy, and politics, Lennon now works to center the lived experience of herself and others as she crafts her professional career in online child safety at Heat Initiative. The opinions reflected in this piece are those of Lennon Torres as an individual and not of the entities she is part of. Lennon’s substack: https://substack.com/@lennontorres1

OpenAI has formed an advisory council to monitor user well-being and AI safety, the company announced this week. The eight-person group will be tasked with defining standards for healthy AI interactions across age groups.

The announcement came alongside an X post by CEO Sam Altman stating that the company has been able to successfully mitigate the "serious mental health issues" posed by the use of its products — Altman then went on to explain that ChatGPT would begin to allow more adult content, including erotica, in chats. OpenAI is currently facing its first wrongful death lawsuit, following allegations that ChatGPT played a role in the death by suicide of a young teen.

Council members include academics from Boston Children’s Hospital's Digital Wellness Lab and Stanford’s Digital Mental Health Clinic, as well as experts in psychology, psychiatry, and human-computer interaction.

"We remain responsible for the decisions we make, but we’ll continue learning from this council, the Global Physician Network, policymakers, and more, as we build advanced AI systems in ways that support people’s well-being," the company wrote in a blog post.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Last week, YouGov published a survey of 1,500 Americans that found just 11 percent were open to using AI to improve their mental health. Only 8 percent of respondents said they trusted the technology to be used in this space.

Broadly, generative AI companions have raised serious concerns among mental health experts, including the rise of what has been coined AI psychosis among chronic users of chatbot companions. AI companies have continued to launch mental health products, as more and more Americans turn to AI to answer mental health questions and receive support from digital stand-ins — despite a dearth of evidence that could prove its efficacy.

Federal regulators are investigating the role of generative AI and chatbot companions in the growing mental health crisis, as well, especially among teens. Several states have banned AI-powered chatbots advertised as therapeutic assistants. In the last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a series of bills that attempt to regulate AI and its societal impacts, including mandating safety reporting for AI companies and protocols that protect teen users from exposure to sexual content. The latter law, SB 243, also requires companies institute a system for addressing suicidal ideation, suicide, and self-harm.

Search news articles about being "chronically online" and you’ll mostly dig up fluff pieces on celebs who spend too much time on X or TikTok (Joe Jonas just can't be without his phone!). Yet "chronically online" is also used by media outlets to describe people like Tyler Robinson, the man charged with killing right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. 

"Investigators say Robinson is what some would call chronically online — a person who spends an inordinate amount of time on messaging platforms, on social media, and playing video games,” according to NPR.

Is being chronically online simply a goofy trait or, rather, a gateway to loneliness, delusion, or even violence? The word "chronic" makes the description seem clinical, like a diagnosed disease, but chronically online is an unscientific term — and a descriptor open to much interpretation.

"I don’t think there is an agreement on how much online time is 'too much,' because it also depends on what one does on the internet," Carlos Gershenson-Garcia, an empire innovation professor at the State University of New York at Binghamton, tells Mashable. "I mean, many people work only using the internet, so they use it 40+ hours a week, plus for personal time. But then, if one [spends] the same amount of time on social media, that is a different story. Or playing online games. Or doomscrolling."

The phrase "chronically online" became somewhat ubiquitous during COVID when there was little to do besides walking, baking bread, and staring at the internet. As CNET (a sister site to Mashable) pointed out in 2021, certain millennials and members of Gen Z loved pointing out chronically online behavior among their peers, like regularly using verbiage exclusive to the internet (e.g., IRL, OOMF) or getting involved in debates with strangers. While those examples seem relatively innocuous, chronically online people can also gravitate from offline connections toward parasocial relationships, and get overly vested in disputes involving celebrities (Nicki Minaj v. Cardi B. seems to be a prime example).

Still, needlessly getting vested in a movie star's divorce may not be the best use of someone’s time, but it’s a far cry from being radicalized on Reddit to commit violence. 

"I think the key here is ‘chronically,' which, to me, denotes a medical condition," says John Fitzgerald, PhD, an associate professor of English at Salem State University who has written about technology for publications like the New York Times. "I think it has less to do with how much time a person spends online or even what they’re looking at and more to do with their immersion in online spaces."

Utah governor Spencer Cox described Robinson’s online behavior as traversing "that deep dark internet, the Reddit culture and these other dark places of the internet where this person was going deep."

Not mentioned by Cox was whether or not Robinson utilized AI chatbots, which have come under scrutiny for allegedly encouraging suicidal ideation among young people. The term AI psychosis has emerged as a way to describe someone who's lost connection to reality due to their relationship with an AI chatbot — but "AI psychosis," like "chronically online," is not a clinical term. Would clarification from medical experts on when online behavior crosses from simply unhealthy to downright dangerous help people before it’s too late? Maybe, but currently there is scant information on unhealthy internet behavior on HHS.com, the website of the government's Health and Human Services department. (The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration department, a division of HHS, does provide suggestions for kids and youth navigating the internet.)

Dangerous online behavior can emerge when a mix of unhealthy factors is at play, says Saed D. Hill, PhD, a psychologist and masculinity coach.

"Some signs [of dangerous online behavior] include when one's online engagement starts to really fuel social isolation, rigid belief systems, it's always us versus them, or aggression against certain groups...then it is probably shifting from basic coping and escapism to full-on radicalization or potential for violence," Hill says. "Social isolation, mixed with aggression, and having trouble with relationships is a big sign, though. This is exacerbated by things like drugs, alcohol, and access to weapons."

Hill encourages those concerned about a loved one's online behavior to join them in offline activities and simply engage with them more. Counseling and therapy are also beneficial for those struggling with online attachment; connecting with other humans to explore unmet needs is always a better solution than "turning to the digital echo chambers that tech companies profit and thrive off," says Hill. 

If you're feeling suicidal or experiencing a mental health crisis, please talk to somebody. You can call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. You can reach the Trans Lifeline by calling 877-565-8860 or the Trevor Project at 866-488-7386. Text "START" to Crisis Text Line at 741-741. Contact the NAMI HelpLine at 1-800-950-NAMI, Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. ET, or email info@nami.org. If you don't like the phone, consider using the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Chat at crisischat.org. Here is a list of international resources.

Dan Howell and Phil Lester — mega stars of a mid-2000s cohort of British YouTubers that blazed the trail for what we now know as the creator economy — are in love. 

Yes, those of the terminally online ilk, it's true. No, people who had been half paying attention to Tumblr trends for a decade, they hadn't really confirmed it before this. But, don't take my word for it, take theirs. And maybe you'll learn something about yourself (and fandom), too. 

In a 46-minute satirical "conspiracy" documentary, skillfully evoking the popular 2010s YouTube format, the creator duo confirmed what fans have speculated for nearly 16 years: that the creative partners, roommates, and best friends have been romantically linked the whole time, and that they've remained silent about it because of intense societal pressure. In less than 24 hours, it racked up more than 1.8 million views. 

The duo, ship name Phan, has been at the center of one of the internet's most fervent romantic conspiracies for more than a decade. They spawned entire blogs and fan accounts and a relitigation of what's known online as "RPF," or "real person fiction," a fan fiction phrase that grew to encompass an ardent belief that two real-life celebrities are actually infatuated with each other. 

RPF is a taboo subject in many fandom spaces. Recall Larry Stylinson — CALM DOWN — the decades-long conspiracy that Harry Styles and Louis Tomlinson of One Direction fame are secret partners. Both parties in the relationship have long denied a romantic fling, with Tomlinson emphatically begging fans to cease their speculation and even blocking mentions of the ship name on social media. A decade since the band's hiatus, and with one of the members tragically gone, Larry shippers are still posting anyway. 

Not all RPF is so extreme. In fan fic, it's an exceedingly common category that is usually constrained to the lead actors of a fan-favorite TV show or random cross-industry pairings between musicians and F1 drivers. In Hollywood, it can be an ingenious marketing tactic. Some online speculated that Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell's Anyone But You press tour was an attempt to generate RPF buzz that could push the movie's box office numbers up.  

But, for many, RPF bleeds too closely into the boundaries of real life. "Sometimes I felt like when I looked at Phil, I felt the gaze of these people in my head," Howell opined in the video, calling it a state of "apocalyptic constant stress." 

At a time when celebrities are increasingly pushing back on parasocial relationships and calling out the entitled behavior of fans, it would be justifiable for the two YouTube phenomena to leave it at that. To face the camera and tell fans — bluntly — that it's their fault. That many of them took it way too far (they did). That it was incredibly invasive to stalk them online (it was) and even more so to stalk their movements in public (nearing a literal crime). It became impossible to separate their budding careers from each other, fearing that a romantic association would consume their individuality; they rejected promotional events and censored themselves in videos to keep personal information away from fans. To confirm the RPF conspiracy would be to validate the near-abusive behavior. Reflect on that a bit, Phan-dom.

Howell and Lester have spent too many years online, and love their fans way too much, to fall into that binary. 

A modern blueprint for responding to parasocial bonds, Howell and Lester spend the first 30 minutes of the video telling fans what they already know, parroting back their own behavior over a decade. It's not really to shame them. They stand outside their old flat, where fans scoped out Google Street View specs to recreate it in incredible detail. They wear tin foil hats while pointing at a conspiracy board, filled with references only Phan stans should know. They concoct the perfect ship in a lab. They've been aware of it all. 

Then, they turn the metaphorical camera to the viewer and themselves. "A lot of the 'bad guys' weren't bad people," says Howell. "They were just young people that had absolutely no idea what the effects of their actions were."

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

Howell had a complicated childhood, he explained, closeted and clouded by an extremely homophobic upbringing. Now he wants a fresh start, based on authenticity. Lester, who was privately out before Howell, was there for him through it all — much like Phan was for their viewers. "This is not a video for you to be like, 'I need to beat myself up about this. I feel so bad. I need to stop watching.' It's not about that," adds Lester. 

They reiterate this because Dan and Phil, the duo, truly understand what fandom entails. They were helping architect modern fan spaces with their peers in the 2000s, and participating in it themselves, right as YouTube and the idea of a "creator" being a celebrity came to fruition. Combine this with what fandom can mean for queer youth, specifically, and the wishful thinking of a generation of similarly closeted LGBTQ+ fans. It's much more nuanced than one may think.

Fandom researchers have long explored the intensity and importance of fandom, even before the internet complicated the relationship. In a 2023 interview with Mashable, researcher Nancy Baym explained how previously normalized fandom behaviors are actively being renegotiated: "The expectation that you ought to be online engaging your people, showing them these more private moments, has opened up a constant need to negotiate boundaries, part of a much broader blurring of boundaries between work and home, professional and personal, public and private."

So, at the 30-minute mark, the partners reestablish the rules: Shipping is fine, fan fiction ("creative writing") is all good, but no digging into their private moments and certainly no sexual speculation. 

Howell and Lester are resetting those boundaries, rooted not in anger but in compassion for their younger selves — and the fans who changed the trajectory of their lives. "Forgiveness and growth is such an important part of life," says Howell, a point he repeats later. "In the same way we want the people in our lives to give us patience and grace and the benefit of the doubt if we ever make a mistake, I have to extend that to the world."

Watch the full video below — It's worth every minute.

This article reflects the opinion of the writer.

Chase DiBenedetto is the Social Good Reporter at Mashable.

Meet The Mashable 101: The top creators keeping the internet interesting in 2025. From meme-makers to movement-starters, these are the people powering our timelines today.

Months of private Telegram conversations between Young Republican leaders across several states depict a startling culture of racist, fascist strategizing, according to an exclusive investigation by Politico.

More than 2,900 pages of Telegram chats obtained by the publication show repeated uses of violent, anti-Black, and antisemitic terminology, including the phrase "I love Hitler." Members of the group chat praised violent sexual assault and repeatedly used racist, ableist, and sexist slurs. Some evoked Holocaust imagery when discussing political opponents and casually used white supremacist dogwhistles. Many of them parroted talking points by conservative figureheads while doing so, including Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk.

Leaders implicated in the leak include Kansas Young Republican vice chair William Hendrix and New York State Young Republican leaders Bobby Walker and Peter Giunta, as well as one Trump administration employee, Michael Bartels. Guinta said in a statement that the leaks were part of a targeted character assassination, but did not categorically refute the contents. Other Young Republican leaders have denounced the chat, while the White House denied any affiliation with the Young Republican splinter group. All together, the group is a segment of a new wave of GOP activists, many of whom led the charge to get President Donald Trump back into office in 2025.

The Trump administration and its vocal Republican allies haven't refrained from using social media in increasingly controversial ways, including sharing racist and xenophobic posts, applauding anti-LGBTQ actions, and targeting individual dissenters directly. Groupchats, at large, have posed a different set of problems for conservative leaders, including the controversial exposed Signal chats between the nation's top defense leaders, Vice President JD Vance, and the editor in chief of the Atlantic. Behind the scenes, a robust network of Signal conversations between private industry leaders and political figures formed the basis of Trump's re-election campaign and rapid shift in political support, documented in a sprawling investigation by Semafor.

Last week, leaked Signal messages between top White House advisors showed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was considering deploying the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne infantry to Portland, the current hot spot for Trump's crackdown on so-called ANTIFA organizers. First reported by the Minnesota Star Tribune, the chats appear to show the Trump administration is still relying on the third-party encrypted messaging platform to discuss sensitive government operations — despite ongoing privacy (and reputational) concerns.

UPDATE: Oct. 15, 2025, 10:21 a.m. An earlier version of this story listed former New York State Young Republican vice chair as "Bobby Hendrix." It has been corrected.

Meta is launching two versions of Teen Accounts — the tentpole youth safety product for Instagram and Facebook users — that fashions the default Instagram experience into a PG-13 rated movie.

Inspired by the standards established by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the new settings are Meta's first major overhaul of Teen Accounts since the feature was launched in 2024. The default safety settings now include age-appropriate content filters similar to the standards of the MPAA, which currently slaps a PG-13 rating on content that may not be suitable for children under 13. Such content may include brief nudity, mild drug use, minor instances of violence, or a single expletive, and "parents are urged to be cautious," the MPAA warning reads.

Meta's PG-13 controls will also apply to its generative AI experiences. While the company says these standards already expand existing content controls, parents can also opt into even stricter content, communication, and screen limits. The settings will be rolling out gradually over the next few months.

"Just like you might see some suggestive content or hear some strong language in a PG-13 movie, teens may occasionally see something like that on Instagram — but we’re going to keep doing all we can to keep those instances as rare as possible," the company wrote in a blog post. "We know teens may try to avoid these restrictions, which is why we’ll use age prediction technology to place teens into certain content protections — even if they claim to be adults."

Meta has faced ongoing criticism for its handling of youth safety online, including failing to prevent exposure to explicit, harmful, and sexual content on the platform and among its AI chatbots. In September, a coalition of child advocacy organizations, digital privacy experts, and Meta whistleblowers published a report that found the majority of the company's safety tools failed amid stress testing. Shortly after, tech advocacy nonprofit the HEAT Initiative published a survey of teen Instagram users that found a majority of respondents still experienced harmful content or received unwanted messages.

"We hope this update reassures parents that we’re working to show teens safe, age-appropriate content on Instagram by default, while also giving them more ways to shape their teen’s experience," wrote Meta.

PG-13 settings for all teens

Minor accounts will be automatically placed into the new PG-13 settings, and only parents have the option to turn off the restrictions. In addition to existing content restrictions on extreme and graphic content, Teen Accounts will also be blocked from seeing posts with "strong language, certain risky stunts, and additional content that could encourage potentially harmful behaviors, such as posts showing marijuana paraphernalia," the company explains.

Credit: Meta

In addition, Teen Accounts will be restricted from seeing or interacting with other accounts that have been flagged as sharing age-inappropriate content. They won't be able to click on a link that features such posts, either. Instagram will also be blocking a wider range of search topics, like "alcohol," and revising its system to spot misspellings and algo-speak.

Stricter settings for concerned parents

And for caregivers who want to keep their teens in a more PG experience, Meta is introducing "Limited Content" mode, the strictest level of parental controls offered on Instagram. With this toggled on, Teen Accounts will have even stronger content filtering controls.

Credit: Meta

Limited Content also removes a teen’s ability to see, leave, or receive comments under posts, Meta explains, and similar restrictions for Meta AI conversations will be introduced in 2026.

Meta says the updated content settings will be deployed to accounts in the U.S., UK, Australia, and Canada by the end of the year.

Last Friday night, close to a hundred of us gathered around candle-lit picnic blankets with a makeshift stage at the head of the grass. We know, that’s probably not your idea of a typical night at Tompkins Square Park in downtown Manhattan — but it’s safe to say we did something a bit … different.

We got off together. Off the apps, that is; after a big countdown, we deleted our accounts to digital platforms that we’ve simply had enough of.

It was hard to predict how many would be joining us for this “Delete Day” — having no more social media ourselves, we hit the streets with fliers and chalk to spread the word over the past couple of weeks. At the same time, we weren’t surprised by the energetic turnout. People are ready to take a real stance against the attention economy: it’s become abundantly clear that the convenience isn’t worth the brainrot.

Trying to limit one’s use of a persuasively designed app doesn’t do much to brighten our tech-addicted, media-saturated age. We can’t just spend less time sitting through exploitative algorithms, mind-melting AI slop, and shameful advertising. When platforms are designed on the fundamental premise of extraction, we can’t just use them more intentionally, either.

It’s time we opt out, for good.

The gathering was the NYC kick-off of the newly formed “Time to Refuse” campaign, a global campaign led by Gen Z to promote “appstinence,” a term that means “to refrain from using technology that is designed to be addictive.” Popular platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and X fall under this umbrella.

With the fervor of freedom, participants of all ages shouted what accounts they would be deleting. “I’m deleting Hinge!” yelled one in the back. Everyone roared. “I’m doing Instagram, Snapchat, and Spotify,” a triple deleter jumped in.

The two of us, Gabriela and Nick, part of the team who set up this campaign, kicked the night off as co-hosts.

Nick started by raising the energy. His choice of LinkedIn was met with great applause and laughter. Gabriela followed by describing the perilous state of the technological landscape, and how this is only the beginning of a larger resistance.

And it is. As far as the formal campaign goes, many partners are expected to follow, with events in Kenya, Finland, Canada, and various other stops in the United States like Philadelphia.

Gabriela, the 24-year-old founder of the “appstinence” movement, was raised in 2000s Silicon Valley. As tech behemoths decided the direction of society, they decided hers as well. After getting her first smart device at 9 and making her first social media account at 10, she spent over a decade of her life “chronically online.” To this day she is working to unlearn how addictive technology conditioned her habits, inner state, and perspective on the world. 

Just a year older, Nick endured the same kind of self-control struggles with video games, apps, and smartphones — until he recognized it doesn’t have to be that way. After the mess of COVID and an eye-opening stint at a couple of startups — including a social media marketing role! — Nick went all-in on removing addictive technology from his life in favor of in-person connection. Through work on policy, education, and community organizing, he’s identified a strong coalition moving to end the screen-based life.

This isn’t a last-ditch Hail Mary against Big Tech. These companies have not undone our humanity. Step by step, people are reclaiming their lives from products made to addict and influence us.

We refuse so we can rebuild. Quitting addictive technology is a gateway. The act is necessary to do all the important work that remains: it frees us up for more acts of agency.

The fact that we had to hold an in-person event for people to delete one account is itself an indictment of the problem. Popular advice to just take a day off from our phones or shut them off to focus is just not working. 

A robust solution, at this point, requires a mass exit. The space beyond social media is where we’ll discover better alternatives. With care and dedication, our creativity will take on new forms; our social fabric will strengthen; appropriate tech tools will come in time. You don’t need a perfect vision of the future right now — just make a move.

We offer our ritual as an example for anyone to follow. Our team found some crates, handpainted a banner, sourced lights and speakers from filmmaker friends. In a frenetic, late-night sprint, we co-authored a booklet with reflection questions and instructions on how to delete accounts. We drew on what we knew best, to unite in our own way. 

You can do the same, on any scale. Let a few gather to delete today so more can gather tomorrow. And please reach out if you’re looking for support.

This article reflects the opinion of the writers.

Gabriela Nguyen is the founder of the appstinence movement and Nick Plante is the NYC event organizer for the Time to Refuse campaign.

After sustained outcry from child safety advocates, families, and politicians, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill designed to curb AI chatbot behavior that experts say is unsafe or dangerous, particularly for teens.

The law, known as SB 243, requires chatbot operators prevent their products from exposing minors to sexual content while also consistently reminding those users that chatbots are not human. Additionally, companies subject to the law must implement a protocol for handling situations in which a user discusses suicidal ideation, suicide, and self-harm.

State senator Steve Padilla, a Democrat representing San Diego, authored and introduced the bill earlier this year. In February, he told Mashable that SB 243 was meant to address urgent emerging safety issues with AI chatbots. Given the technology's rapid evolution and deployment, Padilla said the "regulatory guardrails are way behind."

Common Sense Media, a nonprofit group that supports children and parents as they navigate media and technology, declared AI chatbot companions as unsafe for teens younger than 18 earlier this year.

The Federal Trade Commission recently launched an inquiry into chatbots acting as companions. Last month, the agency informed major companies with chatbot products, including OpenAI, Alphabet, Meta, and Character Technologies, that it sought information about how they monetize user engagement, generate outputs, and develop so-called characters.

Prior to the passage of SB 243, Padilla lamented how AI chatbot companions can uniquely harm young users: "This technology can be a powerful educational and research tool, but left to their own devices the Tech Industry is incentivized to capture young people's attention and hold it at the expense of their real world relationships."

Last year, bereaved mother Megan Garcia filed a wrongful death suit against Character.AI, one of the most popular AI companion chatbot platforms. Her son, Sewell Setzer III, died by suicide following heavy engagement with a Character.AI companion. The suit alleges that Character.AI was designed to "manipulate Sewell – and millions of other young customers – into conflating reality and fiction," among other dangerous defects.

Garcia, who lobbied on behalf of SB 243, applauded Newsom's signing.

"Today, California has ensured that a companion chatbot will not be able to speak to a child or vulnerable individual about suicide, nor will a chatbot be able to help a person to plan his or her own suicide," Garcia said in a statement.

SB 243 also requires companion chatbot platforms to produce an annual report on the connection between use of their product and suicidal ideation. It permits families to pursue private legal action against "noncompliant and negligent developers."

Some experts, however, disagree that SB 243 will robustly protect children from AI chatbot harm. James P. Steyer, founder and CEO of Common Sense Media, told Mashable in a statement that the bill had been "watered down after major Big Tech industry pressure."

According to the nonprofit's analysis of the bill, companies could avoid liability if safeguards fail, as long as they were implemented in the first place.

Several hours after Newsom signed SB 243 into law, he vetoed a separate bill sponsored by Common Sense Media. That legislation, AB 1064, would've prohibited chatbot companions for minors when they're capable of certain foreseeable harms, among other safety measures.

Last week, Newsom signed legislation requiring AI labs to both disclose potential harms of their technology as well as information about their safety protocols.

As Mashable's Chase DiBenedetto reported, the bill is meant to "keep AI developers accountable to safety standards even when facing competitive pressure and includes protections for potential whistleblowers."

On Monday, Newsom also signed into laws two separate bills aimed at improving online child safety. AB 56 requires warning labels for social media platforms, highlighting the toll that addictive social media feeds can have on children's mental health and well-being. The other bill, AB 1043, implements an age verification requirement that will go into effect in 2027.

UPDATE: Oct. 13, 2025, 4:39 p.m. PDT This story has been updated to include Gov. Newsom's veto of AB 1064.

UPDATE: Oct. 13, 2025, 3:11 p.m. PDT This story has been update to include a statement from James P. Steyer, CEO of Common Sense Media.