In a growing effort to protect children online, policymakers and consumer advocacy groups have been pushing for new safeguards against digital platforms that may worsen mental health issues for young users. However, federal efforts to pass children’s online safety protections have been stalled due to disagreements among House and Senate leaders. In response, state officials have rushed to fill the void with their own bills requiring tech companies to vet their products for risks to children before launching them. But these bills have faced broad opposition from tech trade groups, many of which are supported by big tech giants like Amazon, Google and Meta. These groups have deployed lobbyists to meet with key state officials, sent their leaders to testify in opposition to the efforts, and even fired off letters warning about the potentially catastrophic impact of the bills on user privacy and free speech online. Despite such opposition, supporters of the proposed legislation argue that these safeguards are necessary to prevent children from being exposed to addictive social media features and other harmful designs.
Research News Archives
SAR Links
Archives
Recent Posts
- Fact-Checkers Aren’t Infallible: Debunking MBFC’s “Pseudoscience” Label on RF Safe January 5, 2026
- MBFC’s Misrepresentation: Straight-Up Lying or Just Sloppy? January 5, 2026
- Unmasking Media Bias Fact Check’s “Pseudoscience” Label on RF Safe: Factual Errors, Shallow Reviews, and the Real Harm to a 30-Year Mission January 5, 2026
- Best Anti‑Radiation Phone Case 2026: Why QuantaCase (RF Safe) Is the Stand‑Out Choice January 2, 2026
- Ethical Connectivity Is Not Optional: A Public Challenge to Beast Mobile and Trump Mobile January 2, 2026
- High-Certainty RF Harms vs. 1996 Rules: Why Prudent Avoidance Is Now the Only Responsible Default January 2, 2026
- Mechanisms, High Certainty Evidence, and Why the Clean Ether Act Is Now a Public Health Imperative January 2, 2026
- The Quiet Policy That Decides Whether Children Get Protected—or Preempted January 2, 2026
- Put Your Name on the Record: What the RF Safe “Act Now” Page Is For—and Why It Exists January 2, 2026
- EHS vs. “EMR Syndrome”: Protecting Children Requires Mechanisms and Solutions, Not Ideological Paralysis December 31, 2025
- EMR Syndrome: How Fear Driven Ideology Is Undermining Real EMF Safety—and Hurting the People It Claims to Protect December 30, 2025
- Rouleaux in Real Time: Ultrasound Evidence, Red Blood Cells, and the S4–Mito–Spin Mechanism December 29, 2025
- RF Safe Launches “Ethical Connectivity Pledge,” Calls on Beast Mobile, Trump Mobile, and Celebrity Backed Wireless Plans to Lead the Light Age With Integrity December 17, 2025
- Open Letter to MrBeast December 17, 2025
- The “Good Light → Bad Light” Problem December 17, 2025
- Beast Mobile Ethical Connectivity Is Not Optional December 17, 2025
- How RF Safe Will Serve Humanity in 2026 December 17, 2025
- MrBeast: If You’re Going to Launch “Beast Mobile,” Don’t Put a Microwave Transmitter in Kids’ Pockets Without a LiFi Exit December 17, 2025
- Atomic Neural Network within DNA December 16, 2025
- This piece does not argue that radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields “cause” any single disease. December 15, 2025
Recent Compares
-
Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max vs Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra View Comparison → -
Samsung Galaxy S24 SAR Levels vs Apple iPhone 15 SAR Levels View Comparison → -
Samsung Galaxy S24 Plus SAR Levels vs Apple iPhone 15 Plus SAR Levels View Comparison → -
Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra SAR Levels vs Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max SAR Levels View Comparison → -
Apple iPhone 15 vs Samsung Galaxy S23 SAR Levels View Comparison → -
Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max vs Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max SAR Levels View Comparison →

