Posted on 07/01/2026 4:20:49 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Semafor reported on Project 2029’s "Kids Over Clicks" proposal, which outlines Democrats' plans to regulate social media and AI companies.
Democrats are gearing up for the 2028 election and preparing a list of policy priorities—dubbed "Project 2029"—should they retake the White House. The first Project 2029 proposal is not about affordability, healthcare, or foreign policy. No, the Democrats' first proposal concerns children's online safety: the issue fueling lawmakers' bipartisan push to impose greater government control over the internet.
Semafor's Nicholas Wu first reported on the "Kids Over Clicks" proposal on Monday. The proposal, Wu wrote, advocates for "narrowing protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that shield platforms from some liability," banning social media accounts for kids under 16, "designing safer internet platforms," and more.
Supporters of the proposal include the author and social scientist Jonathan Haidt, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.), and New Jersey Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill, according to the outlet. Sherrill's involvement comes as no surprise, as she has made online safety a main focus of her gubernatorial agenda. The first-term governor has proposed creating both an Office of Youth Online Mental Health Safety and a Social Media Research Center in New Jersey. The Kids Over Clicks proposal was written by Rishi Bharwani, the U.S. director of Reset Tech, a group dedicated to "countering digital threats to society." Bharwani previously co-chaired Sherrill's children's online safety policy team and led Booker's tech policy team.
The proposal claims that America is witnessing a "tobacco moment," this time for social media and AI companies, and the government must intervene as it did with the tobacco industry to prevent harm. But this is a fraught comparison, as Reason has pointed out, because tobacco is a physical product with measurable side...
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Gotta get that freedom under control.
People are saying things that inconvenience the Democrats. It’s time for common sense.
Maybe they can get Starmer to help with publicity.
If Jonathan Haidt supports it, I’ll at least take a look. He’s been prophetic on the social media contagion for many years, starting long before it became fashionable. And he’s had very constructive conversations with several conservatives on the question.
That is not an endorsement of the democrat package as a whole. Given the dems’ propensity for hidden agendas, trapdoors and expansive loopholes, the overall package may be terrible.
But there may be some pieces conservatives might want to support in a carefully crafted bipartisan measure. Even Hitler was right about dogs and some of modern art.
I’d love to find a way to keep smartphones out of the hands of young children until they’ve reached an age of reasonable maturity. Like 35.
Bottom line is they want to end anonymity on the Interwebs so they can sic crazy people on you when you say something they don't like.
Nine most terrifying words, 2026:
”I’m from the government, and it’s for the children.”
Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile.
"But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt."
That is indeed the problem. But that doesn’t mean middle school kids should have smartphones.
The groomer/abortion party wants to regulate speech “for the children.” Yeah, right.
“Give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take a mile.”
Exactly.
And you believe passing a law is the way to fix that?
Name one problem that passing a law has fixed.
How many drug laws do we have?
Was drug addiction/trafficking stopped by them?
How many gun laws do we have?
Do they keep guns out of the hands of bad guys?
How will passing a law against cellphone possession for certain demographics be any different?
Imagine the fines .gov can levy on these vague laws
“average person unknowingly breaks at least three federal criminal laws every day.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.