{"id":17717,"date":"2026-05-20T04:57:41","date_gmt":"2026-05-20T04:57:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/2026\/05\/20\/gen-z-begs-legislators-make-social-media-social-again-the-fulcrum\/"},"modified":"2026-05-20T04:57:41","modified_gmt":"2026-05-20T04:57:41","slug":"gen-z-begs-legislators-make-social-media-social-again-the-fulcrum","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/2026\/05\/20\/gen-z-begs-legislators-make-social-media-social-again-the-fulcrum\/","title":{"rendered":"Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again – The Fulcrum"},"content":{"rendered":"

Opinion
Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.
Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I\u2019m met with a page that reads, \u201cThis account doesn\u2019t exist anymore.\u201d
Many Gen-Z\u2019ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.
This is understandable. While designed to be a public space spurring connection, many of these platforms now do the opposite: They are driving young people apart and making us more isolated.
The solution, however, should not be quiet quitting: Instead, young people need our legislators to hold Big Tech accountable for making these platforms usable and sustainable, instead of yet another tool to exploit our vulnerabilities. We need legislation that makes social media social again.
Ironically, although up to 95% <\/a>of teens use social media daily, young people feel more isolated than ever. Over 60% have reported feeling no real sense of identity<\/a>. And those who reported higher use of these \u201csocial\u201d platforms were substantially more<\/a> likely to experience depression, anxiety, and other negative mental health impacts.
This is not a coincidence. It is by design. While many platforms originated out of a desire to connect people, their business models have largely shifted to prioritize profit over their consumers. Their product design reflects this.
For example, in 2016, Instagram, Meta, and Twitter removed chronological feeds, which listed posts from people you follow in the order they were posted. Instead, they introduced algorithmic feeds, collecting user data in order to push trending or \u201crelevant\u201d content. Research has found that these algorithmic feeds rely heavily on sensationalist <\/a>content <\/a>that garners<\/span> intense emotion to keep users engaged for longer. This longer engagement prompts the algorithm to show similar types of content, starting a negative feedback loop. For example, a study from the Center for Countering Digital Hate<\/a> found that YouTube users who express interest in fitness or dieting are often then pushed content that worsens body image.
Similarly, the introduction of short-form video platforms like TikTok and Instagram brought with it the infinite scroll. Long gone are the days when you could scroll to the bottom of the page and be told that \u201cyou\u2019re all caught up.\u201d Instead, these platforms offer a never-ending feed of content. When paired with predatory algorithmic feeds, this infinite feed creates an addictive dopamine loop, which can disrupt sleep patterns and trigger anxiousness around \u201cmissing out.\u201d<\/a> Research has found that infinite scrolls are particularly dangerous to young people, who have not yet fully developed impulse control<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Frustrated parents and teachers often argue that young people should just put down their phones or delete their social media. Some young people can do this. But for others, social media is the only landscape they know. It\u2019s their primary means to connect with their friends and family.
Moreover, some young people literally cannot put down the phone: Internal documents from Meta and YouTube showed these platforms knew the features they implemented were addictive, yet still released them. In March, these companies lost a landmark social media case<\/a>, finding them liable for creating addictive platforms.
As the name would imply, social media platforms were meant to be social\u2013not money grabs. My generation, and those behind us, need that to be true again. As the recent Meta case showed, we cannot depend on tech companies to voluntarily change their predatory practices. Instead, we need regulations to call them to account.
We are starting to see efforts across the country to do so. On April 29th, Michigan\u2019s state senate passed SB 757<\/a>, as part of the \u201cKids Over Clicks\u201d legislative package, which would prohibit minors from addictive, data-driven algorithms. Also in April, Massachusetts\u2019 governor called for the disabling of infinite scroll and autoplay<\/a> for users who are determined to be under 18. These policy efforts are a great first step, but they are not enough. We must continue this momentum across the state and federal levels.
Young people across the country have been calling for design-based regulation, like allowing the disabling of infinite scroll and algorithmic feeds, as well as better labeling of sensitive content. If legislators heed the call by making social media companies accountable, they can once again become a place where young people can talk, exchange ideas, and build a long-term culture that gives us a real sense of purpose. Putting the social back in social media is necessary to uphold the social fabric of my generation.
Sparkle Rainey<\/strong> is a youth activist and communications director at Young People\u2019s Alliance. She is a Public Voices Fellow on Youth Well-Being and Power with The OpEd Project and Hopelab.<\/em>
Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I\u2019m met with a page that reads, \u201cThis account doesn\u2019t exist anymore.\u201d
Many Gen-Z\u2019ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.
This is understandable. While designed to be a public space spurring connection, many of these platforms now do the opposite: They are driving young people apart and making us more isolated.
The solution, however, should not be quiet quitting: Instead, young people need our legislators to hold Big Tech accountable for making these platforms usable and sustainable, instead of yet another tool to exploit our vulnerabilities. We need legislation that makes social media social again.
Ironically, although up to 95% <\/a>of teens use social media daily, young people feel more isolated than ever. Over 60% have reported feeling no real sense of identity<\/a>. And those who reported higher use of these \u201csocial\u201d platforms were substantially more<\/a> likely to experience depression, anxiety, and other negative mental health impacts.
This is not a coincidence. It is by design. While many platforms originated out of a desire to connect people, their business models have largely shifted to prioritize profit over their consumers. Their product design reflects this.
For example, in 2016, Instagram, Meta, and Twitter removed chronological feeds, which listed posts from people you follow in the order they were posted. Instead, they introduced algorithmic feeds, collecting user data in order to push trending or \u201crelevant\u201d content. Research has found that these algorithmic feeds rely heavily on sensationalist <\/a>content <\/a>that garners<\/span> intense emotion to keep users engaged for longer. This longer engagement prompts the algorithm to show similar types of content, starting a negative feedback loop. For example, a study from the Center for Countering Digital Hate<\/a> found that YouTube users who express interest in fitness or dieting are often then pushed content that worsens body image.
Similarly, the introduction of short-form video platforms like TikTok and Instagram brought with it the infinite scroll. Long gone are the days when you could scroll to the bottom of the page and be told that \u201cyou\u2019re all caught up.\u201d Instead, these platforms offer a never-ending feed of content. When paired with predatory algorithmic feeds, this infinite feed creates an addictive dopamine loop, which can disrupt sleep patterns and trigger anxiousness around \u201cmissing out.\u201d<\/a> Research has found that infinite scrolls are particularly dangerous to young people, who have not yet fully developed impulse control<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Frustrated parents and teachers often argue that young people should just put down their phones or delete their social media. Some young people can do this. But for others, social media is the only landscape they know. It\u2019s their primary means to connect with their friends and family.
Moreover, some young people literally cannot put down the phone: Internal documents from Meta and YouTube showed these platforms knew the features they implemented were addictive, yet still released them. In March, these companies lost a landmark social media case<\/a>, finding them liable for creating addictive platforms.
As the name would imply, social media platforms were meant to be social\u2013not money grabs. My generation, and those behind us, need that to be true again. As the recent Meta case showed, we cannot depend on tech companies to voluntarily change their predatory practices. Instead, we need regulations to call them to account.
We are starting to see efforts across the country to do so. On April 29th, Michigan\u2019s state senate passed SB 757<\/a>, as part of the \u201cKids Over Clicks\u201d legislative package, which would prohibit minors from addictive, data-driven algorithms. Also in April, Massachusetts\u2019 governor called for the disabling of infinite scroll and autoplay<\/a> for users who are determined to be under 18. These policy efforts are a great first step, but they are not enough. We must continue this momentum across the state and federal levels.
Young people across the country have been calling for design-based regulation, like allowing the disabling of infinite scroll and algorithmic feeds, as well as better labeling of sensitive content. If legislators heed the call by making social media companies accountable, they can once again become a place where young people can talk, exchange ideas, and build a long-term culture that gives us a real sense of purpose. Putting the social back in social media is necessary to uphold the social fabric of my generation.
Sparkle Rainey<\/strong> is a youth activist and communications director at Young People\u2019s Alliance. She is a Public Voices Fellow on Youth Well-Being and Power with The OpEd Project and Hopelab.<\/em>
People gather at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum on September 8, 2025, in New York City.
After the smoke cleared from the September 11, 2001, attacks, New York City faced the immense task of rebuilding.
Why is this story relevant today?<\/strong>
The question New Yorkers faced after 9\/11\u2014who determines our collective future\u2014remains central to the challenges confronting America today.
In the months following the attacks, after the debris was cleared and the initial shock subsided, New Yorkers faced a fundamental dilemma: What should be built at Ground Zero, and who should decide? Some advocated for rebuilding the Twin Towers, while others insisted the site remain a memorial. The conflict was intense, emotional, and appeared irreconcilable.
In response, \u201cTHE LOWER MAHATTEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION\u201d undertook an unprecedented initiative. It convened 5,000 representative New Yorkers<\/strong> for the largest town hall in American history. Expectations were low, with many anticipating discord and disorder.
Instead, a genuine democratic process unfolded.<\/strong>
Despite profound disagreements, New Yorkers listened, deliberated, and ultimately reached consensus on a plan that commemorated the deceased, honored survivors, and reflected the community\u2019s collective will.
This outcome hinged on a single catalytic event: a gathering that united individuals in an unexpected and transformative manner.<\/strong>
The result was both constructive and deeply meaningful. This experience offers a lesson for a nation grappling with division: meaningful democratic outcomes depend on robust democratic processes.
Carolyn Lukensmeyer played a central role in this process as the architect of Listening to the City<\/em><\/em>, the 2002 public forum that empowered thousands of New Yorkers to influence the future of Ground Zero. The event led to significant changes: participant feedback shaped the final design to include both the Memorial and the Museum, guided the integration of green space, and ensured that victims\u2019 families and the broader community were honored throughout the rebuilding process. This initiative not only transformed the physical site but also established a benchmark for public decision-making in cities nationwide. As a nationally recognized leader in democratic innovation and founder of AmericaSpeaks, Carolyn has advised cities, states, federal agencies, and international institutions on effective public engagement.
View the official trailer and consider the following:
What might be possible if towns, cities, and states across America adopted this approach to constructive dialogue in addressing their most challenging issues? For community leaders or individuals seeking to foster collaboration, the following steps are recommended: invite a small, diverse group of community members for an initial discussion; identify a pressing local issue; establish ground rules that promote respectful listening; and seek assistance from a trained facilitator or an organization experienced in open dialogue. The initial step is to gather and listen. Subsequently, partners can be enlisted, a neutral venue secured, and a broader range of participants invited. Even a straightforward, honest conversation can initiate meaningful progress.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

https:\/\/youtu.be\/af64TMcGJLI<\/u><\/a>
On May 21<\/strong> in Cape May, New Jersey, the Cape May Point Arts and Science Center will present \u201c9\/11: Reclaiming Ground Zero.\u201d<\/strong> The event will include a full one-hour screening of the documentary, followed by a discussion with the filmmakers and leaders in democratic innovation, an audience Q&A session, and a closing reception.<\/p>\n

David Nevins<\/strong><\/em> is the publisher of <\/em>The Fulcrum<\/em><\/u><\/em><\/a> and co-founder and board chairman of the <\/em>Bridge Alliance<\/em><\/u><\/em><\/a> Education Fund.<\/em>
When the World goes Mad, one must accept Madness as Sanity, since Sanity is, in the last analysis, nothing but the Madness on which the Whole World happens to agree. (George Bernard Shaw)
Among the most prolific and famous playwrights of the 20th century, Shaw wrote \u201cPygmalion,\u201d the play upon which \u201cMy Fair Lady\u201d was based. Pygmalion was a Greek mythological figure, a sculptor from Cyprus, who fell in love with the statue he created. Aphrodite turned his sculpture into a real woman, promoting the idea that the \u201ccreated\u201d is greater than the \u201ccreator.\u201d
There is a positive benefit to high expectations about belief in creation, one that wise parents frequently employ: the \u201cPygmalion effect.\u201d Basically, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy: Tell your child he can,<\/u> and the chances greatly increase that he will.<\/u>
Yet, there is a negative connotation as well, a dangerous assumption, whether we\u2019re talking politics, religion, or new innovations.
That is: what we believe to be true becomes true.
We cannot turn on a television, open a computer, pick up a newspaper, or magazine without encountering a new development in Artificial Intelligence (AI<\/a>) and its ever-increasing grip on the world.
With fear and trepidation, many of us believe we are, or soon will be, at the mercy of AI. We see AI as a modern-day King Kong, unleashed and ruthlessly ravaging our society, embodying all the gorilla-monster\u2019s savage single-mindedness.
We then essentially assume the role of Fay Wray, also known as the \u201cScream Queen,\u201d who played the \u201cdamsel-in-distress\u201d in the 1933 King Kong movie. There is no place to hide from this ferocious giant; we have no recourse. Our only hope is to be somehow rescued.
But how will our hoped-for \u201crescue\u201d from total domination by the cold, virtual \u201cmachine\u201d dubbed AI happen? How will we and our society survive if \u201cHal\u201d is running the show? Meanwhile, the Titans of the AI industry, Elon Musk<\/a> and Sam Altman, duke it out in court as to who will \u201crule the empire.\u201d
Are we really so helpless in the wake of this \u201cinvasion?\u201d Have we succumbed to the usual societal symptom of throwing ourselves at the mercy of the latest technological advances?
We use them excessively because we can.
But, if we do not employ discernment, aren\u2019t we just guzzling the latest flavor of the Kool-Aid?
AI\u2019s promotion and promises are meaningless unless they make a real connection to society\u2019s betterment or to our personal benefit. The length of its leash is only as long as we unravel it. <\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

AI\u2019s potential is amazing, astounding, and astronomical. With our \u201ccombined knowledge,\u201d we can cut processing, compare statistics, weigh possible outcomes, and summarize mountains of paperwork. Medically AI shows itself to be more phenomenal with each passing week.
New on the horizon is a Character AI called Pygmalion, which allows us to define character parameters without filters. Do we really believe it can empathize, can fulfill us? Or are we allocating our precious humanness to the diamond brilliance of perfection, forgetting the only \u201cperfect diamond\u201d is a fake diamond and not a diamond at all?
Society is\u2014finally\u2014recognizing the dangers of our social media obsession. We are not laboratory rats; we are not lemmings. \u201cInfluencers\u201d can only influence us if we let them. We do not have to buy into it, and there is a movement towards authenticity.
Time for a similar reaction to the A-I phenomena, and the grim predictions concerning it.
Who is not tired of \u201canswers\u201d to all the \u201cquestions,\u201d without discussion, sick of going to dinner when the diners talk more to Siri or Chat GPT than to each other? Are we all suffering from short-term memory loss and cannot remember the dislocation and isolation of the Co-Vid epidemic, how we longed for \u201creal\u201d connection?
AI, in condensed form, is a sum of our human knowledge, but without the humanity. It has already proven itself a valuable tool in our \u201ctoolbox.\u201d Nonetheless, it is a tool.
It is more essential than ever to be able to tell the real from the fake. We must know where the decimal point goes, what is genuine, and what is virtual. Machines have helped us for centuries with menial tasks, and AI can help us with mental ones. But we must <\/u>be able to discern.
The only path to developing this discernment is education. A popular belief of those growing up in the \u201celectronic age\u201d is that they can delegate their work to AI, that it is no longer necessary to have fundamental knowledge of the humanities, sciences, etc. This theory, if carried forward, will put future generations at the \u201cmercy \u201cof A-I.
We must understand the context. The truest value remains the human connection; the true connection is human values.
Throughout history, our innovations have changed the world: the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the Industrial Age, the Information Age, and now, on the brink of yet another breakthrough.
Let us decide what course we will pursue with AI, and how we can better our world with it. In this latest innovation of the information age, moral courage is required, and discernment is essential.
Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of our own minds. (Emerson)
Amy Lockard<\/strong> is an Iowa<\/a> resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen\u2019s \u201cPride and Prejudice.”<\/em>
In March, First Lady Melania Trump hosted an AI-powered humanoid robot at the White House<\/u><\/a> during the Fostering the Future Together Global Coalition Summit, and introduced Plato, a humanoid educator marketed as a replacement for teachers that could homeschool children. A humanoid educator that speaks multiple languages, is always available, and draws on a vast store of information could expand access in meaningful ways. But the evidence suggests that the risks outweigh the benefits, that adoption will be uneven, and that the families most likely to adopt Plato will bear those risks disproportionately.
Research on excessive technology use in childhood has found consistent results. Young children and teenagers who spend too much time with screens are more likely to experience reduced physical activity, lower attention spans<\/u><\/a>, depression<\/u><\/a>, and social anxiety<\/u><\/a>. On the same day that Melania Trump introduced Plato, a California jury ruled<\/u><\/a> that Meta and YouTube contributed to anxiety and depression in a woman who began using social media at age 6, a reminder that the consequences of under-tested technology on children can be severe and long-lasting.
The concern with technology use goes beyond screen time. A 2024 study<\/u><\/a> by researchers at MIT’s Media Lab found that reliance on generative AI<\/a> chatbots reduces learning retention and critical thinking, the very outcomes Melania Trump claimed Plato would foster. Child development research has shown that for children to develop resilience and independent reasoning, they need to experience difficulty, struggle, and sometimes fail<\/u><\/a>. A robot that is, by design, always patient and always available interrupts this learning process. Far from producing “deep critical thinking,” an educator who never challenges a child to sit with confusion is likely to produce the opposite.
Traditional schooling provides something no information-rich robot can replicate. It offers structured opportunities to practice teamwork, communication, and conflict resolution alongside peers and imperfect adults\u2014skills that are crucial to becoming a productive adult.
The broader impact of introducing humanoid educators is even more alarming. A shift to humanoid teachers will reorganize existing educational inequalities in the U.S. The exploding costs of childcare <\/u><\/a>and K-12 education already strain families across the country. For middle- and low-income families searching for solutions, a humanoid educator backed by the First Lady may seem like a viable path forward. In reality, these families and their children would unknowingly become unpaid beta testers for an unproven product, one that the developers themselves may not use on their own kids. Several tech company CEOs, including Mark Zuckerberg<\/u><\/a>, Bill Gates<\/u><\/a>, Steve Jobs<\/u><\/a>, and Evan Spiegel<\/u><\/a>, have spoken openly about limiting their children\u2019s screen time. Even Elon Musk<\/u><\/a>, who admitted he set no such limits, has since said he regrets it, noting that algorithms had reshaped how his children think. <\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The resulting landscape would look like this: a competent human teacher becomes a luxury service accessible only to the ultra-rich; middle-class families turn to humanoid robots for some semblance of pedagogy; and low-income families continue to face the compounding disadvantages of under-resourced schools. The gap widens, and it just wears a new face.
Supporters of humanoid educators may argue that they are tackling a shortage of qualified teachers. But this framing misses the actual problem. The United States does not have a shortage of qualified teachers; it has a shortage of funding for them. Redirecting resources toward humanoid robots does not solve that problem; it deepens it. Every dollar invested in Plato is a dollar not spent on teacher salaries, classroom resources, or the school infrastructure that students in under-resourced communities desperately need. Framing a funding failure as a supply problem and then selling a technology product as the fix masks who benefits and who pays the price.
There is also a safety dimension that cannot be glossed over. There have been documented instances of generative AI chatbots encouraging teenagers to self-harm. Deploying an untested humanoid robot, one that does not understand ethics, context, or the emotional vulnerability of a child, as a primary educator introduces serious and poorly understood risks. Before Plato or any similar product is rolled out at scale, those risks need to be studied rigorously, not discovered after the fact. Children deserve better than to be the experiment.
Congress should mandate multi-stakeholder research into humanoid educators, funded by the AI companies developing these products and conducted in genuine collaboration with K-12 educators, higher education researchers, child development specialists, and the families who would be most affected. The research should assess impacts on learning retention, critical thinking, social development, and child safety, with findings made public before any large-scale deployment.
Dr. Erezi Ogbo-Gebhardt <\/strong>is an assistant professor of information science at North Carolina Central University\u2019s School of Library and Information Sciences, and a Public Voices Fellow on technology in the public interest with <\/em><\/em>The OpEd Project<\/em><\/u><\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/em>
The future of AI should be measured by its impact on ordinary Americans\u2014not just tech executives and investors. Exploring AI inequality, labor concerns, and responsible innovation.
We\u2019re failing the Kayla Test and running out of time to pass it. Whether AI<\/a> goes \u201cwell\u201d for the country is not a question anyone in SF or DC can answer. To assess whether AI is truly advancing the interests of Americans, AI stakeholders must engage with more than power users, tokenmaxxers, and Fortune 500 CEOs. A better evaluation is to talk to folks like Kayla, my Lyft driver in Morgantown, WV, and find out what they think about AI. It’s a test I stumbled upon while traveling from an AI event at the West Virginia University College of Law to one at Stanford Law.
Kayla asked me what I do for a living. I told her that I\u2019m a law professor focused on AI policy. Those were the last words I said for the remainder of the ride to the airport.
She methodically walked through a long list of reasons why AI was causing her and her loved ones far more trouble than it seemed worth. She talked about data centers and another era of extractive capitalism. She railed against the algorithms that seemed to force her to work longer and harder for a little extra pay. She shared her concerns that her kids lacked teachers with a strong understanding of the latest tech. On the whole, she was anything but positive about AI. Having delivered AI talks in Montana, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Nebraska, Virginia, Alaska<\/a>, Ohio, Nevada, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Texas, and several other states, I know others would likely respond with a similarly lengthy set of AI grievances.
Her lack of enthusiasm is unsurprising. Rather than causing all tides to rise, it feels to many Americans a lot more like AI is poking holes in lifeboats. That sinking feeling will continue until policymakers and AI companies start asking and answering the questions that are top of mind for Americans trying to stay afloat.
AI policy conversations often revolve around questions disconnected from how everyday Americans experience this technological wave. On X, you’ll find debates about how to define AGI, how to assess if it’s been achieved, and how to address the national security risks that may follow. On the Hill, you’ll find a few conversations and hearings on the economic and societal instability many Americans already associate with AI. Yet, those efforts rarely result in action\u2014let alone action on the scale and scope that aligns with the urgency demanded by Americans watching their savings sink and the horizon blur.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Our country has a tired habit of asking middle and working-class Americans to bear the burden of technological progress that is always a few years away. In the interim, their economic security is threatened, their local resources are exploited, and their ability to live a good life and build an even better one for their children feels harder and harder. You can disagree with the empirical validity of those feelings, but ultimately, it’s how many Americans understandably think about yet another tech boom era. They don\u2019t have the time to read up on how AI carries tremendous promise for healthcare, science, education, and entrepreneurialism. Their on-the-ground experience is that AI is very highly correlated with a more precarious status quo.
So here’s the test: ask someone in a low- to middle-income community outside of the Bay Area and the Beltway what they think about AI. Note that this must be an actual, in-person conversation\u2014not some poll or text exchange. If they have anything positive to say about how AI is directly improving their lives or the well-being of their loved ones and neighbors, then we’re headed in the right direction. If, as is the case today, they feel like they’re on the wrong end of another lopsided deal, then all those involved in trying to make sure AI goes “well” have a lot of work to do.
I\u2019m one of those people who feels a personal obligation to ensure AI is something other than a boon to VCs and folks who happened to invest in Nvidia on a hunch a few years back. My start in tech policy was working to close the Digital Divide\u2014a divide that\u2019s still prevalent in communities across the nation. We\u2019re at a severe risk of once again seeing technology become a tool of division, a cause of inequality, and a source of political strife. That\u2019s why I\u2019m dedicated to taking the Kayla Test seriously\u2014talking more with the folks who aren\u2019t reading this post, who don\u2019t read Arxiv in their spare time, and who feel like they\u2019ve serially been asked to support the American Dreams of others.
Passing the Kayla Test isn’t complicated. Get out of the hearing rooms. Leave the Signal chats. Drive through towns where the nearest data center is the biggest employer and the nearest AI researcher is a thousand miles away. Listen. Then build policy around their answers, not around the ones that play well in a Senate hearing or a venture pitch. The Kaylas of this country are not asking for much. They want honest work, good schools for their kids, and some say in what gets built around them. If AI can’t deliver that, it doesn’t matter how impressive the benchmarks get. We will have failed an essential test.
Kevin Frazier<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/em> is a Senior Fellow at the Abundance Institute, directs the AI Innovation and Law Program at the University of Texas School of Law.<\/em><\/p>\n

source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

OpinionGen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I\u2019m met with a page that reads, \u201cThis account doesn\u2019t exist anymore.\u201d Many Gen-Z\u2019ers are quietly quitting […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17718,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17717","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17717","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17717\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17718"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globalnewstoday.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}