MIT neuroscientists have figured out how the brain is able to focus on a single voice among a cacophony of many voices, shedding light on a longstanding neuroscientific phenomenon known as the cocktail party problem.

This attentional focus becomes necessary when you’re in any crowded environment, such as a cocktail party, with many conversations going on at once. Somehow, your brain is able to follow the voice of the person you’re talking to, despite all the other voices that you’re hearing in the background.

Using a computational model of the auditory system, the MIT team found that amplifying the activity of the neural processing units that respond to features of a target voice, such as its pitch, allows that voice to be boosted to the forefront of attention.

“That simple motif is enough to cause much of the phenotype of human auditory attention to emerge, and the model ends up reproducing a very wide range of human attentional behaviors for sound,” says Josh McDermott, a professor of brain and cognitive sciences at MIT, a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research and Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines, and the senior author of the study.

The findings are consistent with previous studies showing that when people or animals focus on a specific auditory input, neurons in the auditory cortex that respond to features of the target stimulus amplify their activity. This is the first study to show that extra boost is enough to explain how the brain solves the cocktail party problem.

Ian Griffith, a graduate student in the Harvard Program in Speech and Hearing Biosciences and Technology, who is advised by McDermott, is the lead author of the paper. MIT graduate student R. Preston Hess is also an author of the paper, which appears today in Nature Human Behavior.

Modeling attention

Neuroscientists have been studying the phenomenon of selective attention for decades. Many studies in people and animals have shown that when focusing on a particular stimulus like the sound of someone’s voice, neurons that are tuned to features of that voice — for example, high pitch — amplify their activity.

When this amplification occurs, neurons’ firing rates are scaled upward, as though multiplied by a number greater than one. It has been proposed that these “multiplicative gains” allow the brain to focus its attention on certain stimuli. Neurons that aren’t tuned to the target feature exhibit a corresponding reduction in activity.

“The responses of neurons tuned to features that are in the target of attention get scaled up,” Griffith says. “Those effects have been known for a very long time, but what’s been unclear is whether that effect is sufficient to explain what happens when you’re trying to pay attention to a voice or selectively attend to one object.”

This question has remained unanswered because computational models of perception haven’t been able to perform attentional tasks such as picking one voice out of many. Such models can readily perform auditory tasks when there is an unambiguous target sound to identify, but they haven’t been able to perform those tasks when other stimuli are competing for their attention.

“None of our models has had the ability that humans have, to be cued to a particular object or a particular sound and then to base their response on that object or that sound. That’s been a real limitation,” McDermott says.

In this study, the MIT team wanted to see if they could train models to perform those types of tasks by enabling the model to produce neuronal activity boosts like those seen in the human brain.

To do that, they began with a neural network that they and other researchers have used to model audition, and then modified the model to allow each of its stages to implement multiplicative gains. Under this architecture, the activation of processing units within the model can be boosted up or down depending on the specific features they represent, such as pitch.

To train the model, on each trial the researchers first fed it a “cue”: an audio clip of the voice that they wanted the model to pay attention to. The unit activations produced by the cue then determined the multiplicative gains that were applied when the model heard a subsequent stimulus.

“Imagine the cue is an excerpt of a voice that has a low pitch. Then, the units in the model that represent low pitch would get multiplied by a large gain, whereas the units that represent high pitch would get attenuated,” Griffith says.

Then, the model was given clips featuring a mix of voices, including the target voice, and asked to identify the second word said by the target voice. The model activations to this mixture were multiplied by the gains that resulted from the previous cue stimulus. This was expected to cause the target voice to be “amplified” within the model, but it was not clear whether this effect would be enough to yield human-like attentional behavior.

The researchers found that under a variety of conditions, the model performed very similarly to humans, and it tended to make errors similar to those that humans make. For example, like humans, it sometimes made mistakes when trying to focus on one of two male voices or one of two female voices, which are more likely to have similar pitches.

“We did experiments measuring how well people can select voices across a pretty wide range of conditions, and the model reproduces the pattern of behavior pretty well,” Griffith says.

Effects of location

Previous research has shown that in addition to pitch, spatial location is a key factor that helps people focus on a particular voice or sound. The MIT team found that the model also learned to use spatial location for attentional selection, performing better when the target voice was at a different location from distractor voices.

The researchers then used the model to discover new properties of human spatial attention. Using their computational model, the researchers were able to test all possible combinations of target locations and distractor locations, an undertaking that would be hugely time-consuming with human subjects.

“You can use the model as a way to screen large numbers of conditions to look for interesting patterns, and then once you find something interesting, you can go and do the experiment in humans,” McDermott says.

These experiments revealed that the model was much better at correctly selecting the target voice when the target and distractor were at different locations in the horizontal plane. When the sounds were instead separated in the vertical plane, this task became much more difficult. When the researchers ran a similar experiment with human subjects, they observed the same result.

“That was just one example where we were able to use the model as an engine for discovery, which I think is an exciting application for this kind of model,” McDermott says.

Another application the researchers are pursuing is using this kind of model to simulate listening through a cochlear implant. These studies, they hope, could lead to improvements in cochlear implants that could help people with such implants focus their attention more successfully in noisy environments.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 13 March 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02585-1

The massive carbon store in soils is vulnerable to anthropogenic warming. Now, a study shows that climate-driven changes in precipitation can mediate soil carbon responses to warming, with drought amplifying soil carbon losses.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 13 March 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02583-3

Increasing risks of post-experimental ecology

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 13 March 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02580-6

Post-growth scholarship seeks to address the limitations of growth-oriented mitigation scenarios by exploring the potential of profound socio-economic transformations. This Perspective synthesizes core principles for modelling post-growth futures.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 13 March 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02584-2

The response of soil carbon to warming is critical feedback that has been difficult to constrain. This study uses a long-term experiment to show that precipitation modulates microbial and therefore carbon dynamics; drought leads to carbon loss with warming, but wet conditions increase soil carbon.

Characterized by weakened or damaged heart musculature, heart failure results in the gradual buildup of fluid in a patient’s lungs, legs, feet, and other parts of the body. The condition is chronic and incurable, often leading to arrhythmias or sudden cardiac arrest. For many centuries, bloodletting and leeches were the treatment of choice, famously practiced by barber surgeons in Europe, during a time when physicians rarely operated on patients. 

In the 21st century, the management of heart failure has become decidedly less medieval: Today, patients undergo a combination of healthy lifestyle changes, prescription of medications, and sometimes use pacemakers. Yet heart failure remains one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, placing a substantial burden on health-care systems across the globe. 

“About half of the people diagnosed with heart failure will die within five years of diagnosis,” says Teya Bergamaschi, an MIT PhD student in the lab of Nina T. and Robert H. Rubin Professor Collin Stultz and the co-first author of a new paper introducing a deep learning model for predicting heart failure. “Understanding how a patient will fare after hospitalization is really important in allocating finite resources.”

The paper, published in Lancet eClinical Medicine by a team of researchers at MIT, Mass General Brigham, and Harvard Medical School, shares results from developing and testing PULSE-HF, which stands loosely for “Predict changes in left ventricULar Systolic function from ECGs of patients who have Heart Failure.” The project was conducted in Stultz’s lab, which is affiliated with the MIT Abdul Latif Jameel Clinic for Machine Learning in Health. Developed and retrospectively tested across three different patient cohorts from Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and MIMIC-IV (a publicly available dataset), the deep learning model accurately predicts changes in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which is the percentage of blood being pumped out of the left ventricle of the heart.

A healthy human heart pumps out about 50 to 70 percent of blood from the left ventricle with each beat — anything less is considered a sign of a potential problem. “The model takes an [electrocardiogram] and outputs a prediction of whether or not there will be an ejection fraction within the next year that falls below 40 percent,” says Tiffany Yau, an MIT PhD student in Stultz’s lab who is also co-first author of the PULSE-HF paper. “That is the most severe subgroup of heart failure.” 

If PULSE-HF predicts that a patient’s ejection fraction is likely to worsen within a year, the clinician can prioritize the patient for follow-up. Subsequently, lower-risk patients can reduce their number of hospital visits and the amount of time spent getting 10 electrodes adhered to their body for a 12-lead ECG. The model can also be deployed in low-resource clinical settings, including doctors offices in rural areas that don’t typically have a cardiac sonographer employed to run ultrasounds on a daily basis.

“The biggest thing that distinguishes [PULSE-HF] from other heart failure ECG methods is instead of detection, it does forecasting,” says Yau. The paper notes that to date, no other methods exist for predicting future LVEF decline among patients with heart failure.

During the testing and validation process, the researchers used a metric known as "area under the receiver operating characteristic curve" (AUROC) to measure PULSE-HF’s performance. AUROC is typically used to measure a model’s ability to discriminate between classes on a scale from 0 to 1, with 0.5 being random and 1 being perfect. PULSE-HF achieved AUROCs ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 across all three patient cohorts.

Notably, the researchers also built a version of PULSE-HF for single-lead ECGs, meaning only one electrode needs to be placed on the body. While 12-lead ECGs are generally considered superior for being more comprehensive and accurate, the performance of the single-lead version of PULSE-HF was just as strong as the 12-lead version.

Despite the elegant simplicity behind the idea of PULSE-HF, like most clinical AI research, it belies a laborious execution. “It’s taken years [to complete this project],” Bergamaschi recalls. “It’s gone through many iterations.” 

One of the team’s biggest challenges was collecting, processing, and cleaning the ECG and echocardiogram datasets. While the model aims to forecast a patient’s ejection fraction, the labels for the training data weren’t always readily available. Much like a student learning from a textbook with an answer key, labeling is critical for helping machine-learning models correctly identify patterns in data.

Clean, linear text in the form of TXT files typically works best when training models. But echocardiogram files typically come in the form of PDFs, and when PDFs are converted to TXT files, the text (which gets broken up by line breaks and formatting) becomes difficult for the model to read. The unpredictable nature of real-life scenarios, like a restless patient or a loose lead, also marred the data. “There are a lot of signal artifacts that need to be cleaned,” Bergamaschi says. “It’s kind of a never-ending rabbit hole.”

While Bergamaschi and Yau acknowledge that more complicated methods could help filter the data for better signals, there is a limit to the usefulness of these approaches. “At what point do you stop?” Yau asks. “You have to think about the use case — is it easiest to have this model that works on data that is slightly messy? Because it probably will be.”

The researchers anticipate that the next step for PULSE-HF will be testing the model in a prospective study on real patients, whose future ejection fraction is unknown.

Despite the challenges inherent to bringing clinical AI tools like PULSE-HF over the finish line, including the possible risk of prolonging a PhD by another year, the students feel that the years of hard work were worthwhile. 

“I think things are rewarding partially because they’re challenging,” Bergamaschi says. “A friend said to me, ‘If you think you will find your calling after graduation, if your calling is truly calling, it will be there in the one additional year it takes you to graduate.’ … The way we’re measured as researchers in [the ML and health] space is different from other researchers in ML space. Everyone in this community understands the unique challenges that exist here.”

“There’s too much suffering in the world,” says Yau, who joined Stultz’s lab after a health event made her realize the importance of machine learning in health care. “Anything that tries to ease suffering is something that I would consider a valuable use of my time.” 

“It’s a real validation of all the work behind the scenes,” says Karl Berggren, faculty head of electrical engineering within the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS). He’s looking at the numbers of new enrollees in Course 6-5, Electrical Engineering With Computing, the flagship electrical engineering degree offered by EECS, which was launched last fall. 

The new major has been embraced by the MIT student community. “The fact that Course 6-5 is now the third-most selected major among first-year students shows that the department is clearly meeting a growing need for a curriculum that bridges electrical engineering and computing. This growth is coming from students already interested in pursuing a degree in EECS,” says Anantha Chandrakasan, MIT’s provost. “The major was thoughtfully designed to offer a strong foundation in core electrical engineering concepts — such as circuits, signals, systems, and architecture — while also providing well-structured specialization tracks that prepare students for the future of the field.”

Those tracks include structured paths to explore not only the traditional domains of electrical engineering (such as hardware design and energy systems), but cutting-edge fields such as nanoelectronics, quantum systems engineering, and photonics. 

“They are very flexible, and essentially allow me to take whatever I want, with the tracks filling up almost automatically,” says 6-5 major Charles Reischer. “For me, it essentially reduces the amount of specific required classes in the major, which has been helpful for choosing the classes I find interesting.” 

Jelena Notaros, who helped develop the Electromagnetics and Photonics track within the new major, has seen the new wave of student interest from the other side. “It’s been incredibly rewarding … I think students are excited to have the opportunity to take a class where they can learn about a cutting-edge field and test real state-of-the-art chip hardware using industry-standard equipment.” Notaros’s class, 6.2320  (Silicon Photonics), includes features not found in a university class anywhere else, such as a sequence in which students can test actual chips at three electronic-photonic probe stations. 

Another 6-5 track, Quantum Systems Engineering, features direct student access to quantum hardware, including electron-nuclear systems and state-of-the-art simulations methods and tools. Professor Dirk Englund, who teaches multiple courses within the track, explains, “it’s been so successful in part through strong industry support, including from QuTools Inc. Students work with the same tech we use in the Boston-Area Quantum Network Testbed — the metro quantum network linking MIT, Lincoln Lab, and Harvard, and the NSF CQN.” 

Many of Englund’s students have gone on to pursue a career in quantum information science, either in grad school or in industry. “Students recognize quantum engineering is the future. They see they’re building the foundation for metro-scale quantum networks.” 

The new curriculum’s emphasis on hands-on learning is deliberate, and ubiquitous throughout 6-5. Within the Circuits track, students who enroll in class 6.208 (Semiconductor Electronic Circuits) will get an opportunity not only to design a circuit, but to actually see their design made, in a process called “tape-out.” Professor Ruonan Han, who helped design the course, explains, “a tape-out is a perfect training that poses [real-life] constraints and forces the students to solve practical engineering problems. Through circuit simulation using mainstream industry CAD tools, the students better understand how deep-scaled transistors differ from the ideal behaviors taught in textbooks. By drawing the layouts of the silicon and metal patterns, the students learn how a modern chip is made, layer by layer. The complex (and often frustrating) rules of the layout also keep reminding the students of all the technical limitations during the chip manufacturing, and make them better appreciate all the accomplishments in semiconductor manufacturing. Even the firm and non-negotiable tape-out submission deadline forces the students to not only wisely manage their development timeline, but also to experience heart-beating moments when decisions on critical engineering trade-offs should be made (in order to deliver). To these students, it was such relentless efforts that gave them lots of satisfaction and pride when they finally hold their own chips in hand.” 

The sense of completing a full problem-solving cycle is echoed in class 6.900 (Engineering for Impact), a capstone course designed by Professor Joel Voldman, a former faculty head of electrical engineering, along with Senior Lecturer Joe Steinmeyer. Over the course of a semester, students team with city governments and nonprofits to solve complex local issues. The course is designed not only to introduce students to realistic project management factors (such as budgets, timelines, and stakeholders), but also to give them a taste of the satisfaction of engineering a solution that meets a real community’s need. 

“I’ve taken 6.900, and it’s been eye-opening in the collaboration of hardware, firmware, and software to create a cohesive and working product,” says Andrea Leang, a senior majoring in 6-2 who nonetheless decided to try the new course. “In my 6-2 experience, I spent the first two years taking more CS [computer science] classes, but as I went into junior year, I wanted to explore more EE [electrical engineering].” That desire led Leang to Voltage, the student group for electrical engineers. “Honestly, it was the first big community of EE I’ve joined. Joining Voltage opened my eyes to what MIT had to offer on EE, and a community who was enthusiastic to share their knowledge.” 

Matthew Kim, one of the executives of the Voltage group, echoes Leang’s experience. “​​It has been great working [...] to build a community for EE. We heard faculty say that they wanted to be more engaged with students and communicate more, and it has definitely been felt with the restart and support of Voltage. And I’m hopeful that the community will continue to grow.” 

That growth has been rapid. The new major’s enrollment is now roughly equivalent to the combined enrollment in the older 6-1 and 6-2 programs, showing the desirability of a major that incorporates fundamentals of both computing and electrical engineering. 

Department head Professor Asu Ozdaglar is thrilled with the energizing effect of the new major. “We are delighted to see the initial success of the 6-5 major, which provides our students an exciting and forward-looking curriculum, developed through extensive work and great deal of thought by electrical engineering faculty. The new curriculum reflects the critical role computing plays in electrical engineering, whether in designing new devices and circuits, analyzing data, or in studying complex systems, which almost invariably combine hardware and software."

“What excites me most about this major is how it empowers students to bring ideas to life — from the invisible signals that connect our world to the complex systems that drive modern technology,” says Dan Huttenlocher, dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing and the Henry Warren Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. “Students are using computation as a creative and analytical tool to expand the boundaries of engineering. They gain a deep understanding of how hardware and software come together to drive technological progress.” 

The new degree program’s designers are gratified by the swell of student interest. 

“The buzz surrounding the classes and the new 6-5 degree program is fantastic,” says Voldman. “It’s great to see the strong student interest in what we’ve put together.” 

Apple announcement:

…iPhone and iPad are the first and only consumer devices in compliance with the information assurance requirements of NATO nations. This enables iPhone and iPad to be used with classified information up to the NATO restricted level without requiring special software or settings—a level of government certification no other consumer mobile device has met.

This is out of the box, no modifications required.

Boing Boing post.

EFF has long warned against age-gating the internet. Such mandates strike at the foundation of the free and open internet. They create unnecessary and unconstitutional barriers for adults and young people to access information and express themselves online. They hurt small and open-source developers. And none of the available age verification options are perfect in terms of protecting private information, providing access to everyone, and safely handling sensitive data. 

Last year, EFF raised concerns about A.B. 1043 as one of several bills in the California legislature that took the wrong approach to protecting young people online—by focusing on censorship rather than privacy. Now that A.B. 1043 is set to go into effect in 2027, we've received a lot of questions about its possible effects. 

A.B. 1043’s Censorship Trap

Even proposals that may not explicitly mandate age verification, such as A.B. 1043, can still create many of the same censorship problems. A.B. 1043 requires all operating systems and app stores to create age bracketing systems that will segment their users based on their ages. Users are then required to provide operating systems and apps their birth date or age so that they can be placed in their respective age bracket. A.B. 1043 also requires application and software developers to collect this age bracket information when a user want to use that software or application.

A.B. 1043 treats the age-bracket signal sent by a user as giving the application or service actual knowledge of users’ ages. Knowledge that the user is a minor could provide the basis for liability under other laws, such as California Age-Appropriate Design Code.

The result is a recipe for censorship. Applications and software developers for operating systems may interpret A.B. 1043 and its potential enforcement by the California Attorney General as requiring them to exclude users who say they are minors or who don’t fit in a specific age bracket they believe is acceptable to use their application or software. But minors have a First Amendment right to access the vast majority of these apps and services. What California has done is essentially outsource censorship to developers, who are likely to lean into over-censorship.

Broad Language Undercuts Policy Goals

A.B. 1043’s one-size-fits-all approach is also problematic because it disregards the many ways in which we make and use digital tools. It assumes the internet and digital devices begin and end with the dominant technology companies and device makers, when we know that’s not the case. Additionally, many families share devices, especially in low-income households. These proposals do not account for situations where there is more than one user of a device.

Additionally, broad proposals that demand the implementation of such censorship tools under the guise of protecting young people's safety force developers to reach for imperfect solutions—or risk being found non-compliant and pushed out of markets. Many of these mandates imagine technology that does not currently exist. Such poorly thought-out mandates, in truth, cannot achieve the purported goal of age verification. Often, they are easy to circumvent and many also expose consumers to real data breach risk.

Squeezing Small and Open-Source Developers Hurts Everyone

A.B. 1043’s burdens fall particularly heavily on developers who aren’t at large, well-resourced companies, such as those developing open-source software. Not recognizing the diversity of software development when thinking about liability in these proposals effectively limits software choices—which is especially harmful at a time when computational power is being rapidly concentrated in the hands of the few. This harms users' and developers' right to free expression, their digital liberties, privacy, and ability to create and use open platforms. It also, perversely, entrenches the dominance of major operating system developers and device makers.

A.B. 1043 and similar proposals also raise considerable implementation issues because they cast a potentially wide net. A.B. 1043, for example, carves out “broadband internet access service," "telecommunications service,” and the “use of a physical product,” whereas “mobile devices” and “computers” are covered. However, so many devices could fall into these categories; people consider smart watches to be computers, for example. Virtually every digital device that runs software built in the past three decades could fall into that category. This means that consumers may have to submit age information to more companies than ever, again increasing the possibility of data misuse and data breach.

There Is Still A Better Way

Legislators do not need to sacrifice their constituents' First Amendment rights and privacy to make a safer internet, but they can address many of the harms these proposals seek to mitigate. Many lawmakers have recognized these approaches, such as data minimization, in their proposals. Rather than creating age gates, a well-crafted privacy law that empowers all of us—young people and adults alike—to control how our data is collected and used would be a crucial step in the right direction.

When Rep. Leigh Finke spoke last month before the Minnesota House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee to testify against HF1434, a broad-sweeping proposal to age-gate the internet, she began with something disarming: agreement.

“I want to support the basic part of this,” she said, the shared goal of protecting young people online. Because that is not controversial: everyone wants kids to be safe. But HF1434, Minnesota’s proposed age-verification bill, simply won’t “protect children.” It mandates that websites hosting speech that is protected by the First Amendment for both adults and young people to verify users’ identities, often through government IDs or biometric data. As we’ve discussed before, the bill’s definition of speech that lawmakers deem “harmful to minors” is notoriously broad—broad enough to sweep in lawful, non-pornographic speech about sexual orientation, sexual health, and gender identity.

Rep. Finke, an openly transgender lawmaker, next raised a point that her critics have since tried to distort: age-verification laws like the Minnesota bill are already being used to block young LGBTQ+ people from exercising their First Amendment rights to access information that may be educational, affirming, or life-saving. Referencing the Supreme Court case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, she noted that state attorneys general have been “almost jubilant” about the ability to use these laws to restrict queer youth from accessing content. “We know that ‘prurient interest’ could be for many people, the very existence of transgender kids,” she added, referring to the malleable legal standard that would govern what content must be age-gated under the law. 

But despite years’ worth of evidence to back her up, Finke has faced a wave of attacks from countless media outlets and religious advocacy groups for her statements. Rep. Finke’s testimony was repeatedly mischaracterized as not having young people’s best interests in mind, when really she was accurately describing the lived reality of LGBTQ+ youth and advocating in support of their access to vital resources and community.

In fact, this backlash proves her point. Beyond attempting to silence queer voices and to scare other legislators from speaking up against these laws, it reveals how age-verification mandates are part of a larger effort to give the government much greater control of what young people are allowed to say, read, or see online. 

Rep. Finke was also right that these proposals are bad policy—they prevent all young people from finding community online—and that they violate young people’s First Amendment rights.

Why FSC v. Paxton Matters

Rep. Finke was similarly right to bring up the Paxton case, because beyond the troubling Supreme Court precedent it produced, Texas’s age-verification law also drew eager support from an extraordinary number of amicus briefs from anti-LGBTQ organizations (some even designated hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center). 

In FSC v. Paxton, the Supreme Court gave Texas the green light to require age verification for sites where at least one-third of the content is sexual material deemed “harmful to minors,” which generally means explicit sexual content. This ruling, based on how young people do not have a First Amendment right to access explicit sexual content, allows states to enact onerous age-verification rules that will block adults from accessing lawful speech, curtail their ability to be anonymous, and jeopardize their data security and privacy. These are real and immense burdens on adults, and the Court was wrong to ignore them in upholding Texas’ law. 

But laws enacted by other states and Minnesota HF 1434 go further than the Texas statute. Rather than restricting minors’ from accessing sexual content, these proposals expand what the state deems “harmful to minors” to include any speech that may reference sex, sexuality, gender, and reproductive health. But young people have a First Amendment right to both speak on those topics and to access information online about them.

We will continue to fight against all online age restrictions, but bills like Minnesota’s HF 1434, which seek to restrict minors from accessing speech about their bodies, sexuality, and other truthful information, are especially pernicious.

EFF and Rep. Finke are on the same page here: age verification mandates create immense harm to our First Amendment rights, our right to privacy, as well as our online safety and security. These proposals also fully ignore the reality that LGBTQ young people often rely on the internet for information they cannot get elsewhere. 

But the Paxton case, and the coalition behind it, illustrates exactly how these laws can be weaponized. They weren’t there just to stand up for young people’s privacy online—they were there to argue that the state has a compelling interest in shielding minors from material that, in practice, often includes LGBTQ content. Ultimately, these groups would like to age-gate not just porn sites, but also any content that might discuss sex, sexuality, gender, reproductive health, abortion, and more.

Using Children as Props to Enact Censorship 

The coalition of organizations that filed amicus briefs in support of Texas’s age verification law tells us everything we need to know about the true intentions behind legislating access to information online: censorship, surveillance, and control. After all, if the race to age-gate the internet was purely about child safety, we would expect its strongest supporters to be child-development experts or privacy advocates. Instead, the loudest advocates are organizations dedicated to policing sexuality, attacking LGBTQ+ folks and reproductive rights, and censoring anything that doesn’t fit within their worldview.

Below are some of the harmful platforms that the organizations supporting the age-gating movement are advancing, and how their arguments echo in the attacks on Rep. Finke today:

Policing sexuality, bodily autonomy, and reproductive rights

Many of the organizations backing age-verification laws have spent decades trying to restrict access to accurate sexual health information and reproductive care.

Groups like Exodus Cry, for example, who filed a brief in support of the Texas AG in the SCOTUS case, frame pornography as part of a broader moral crisis. Founded by a “Christian dominionist” activist, Exodus Cry advocates for the criminalization of porn and sex work, and promotes a worldview that defines “sexual immorality” as any sexual activity outside marriage between one man and one woman. Its leadership describes the internet as a battleground in a “pornified world” that has to be reclaimed. 

Another brief in support of the age-verification law was filed by a group of organizations including the Public Advocate of the United States (an SPLC-designated hate group) and America’s Future. America’s Future is an organization that was formed to “revitalize the role of faith in our society” and fiercely advocates in favor of trans sports bans. 

These groups see age-verification laws as attractive solutions because they create a legal mechanism to wall off large swaths of content that merely mentions sex from not only young people but millions of adults, too.

Attacking LGBTQ+ Rights

Several of the most prominent legal advocates behind age-verification laws have also led the crusade against LGBTQ+ equality. The internet that these groups envision is one that heavily censors critical and even life-saving LGBTQ+ resources, community, and information. 

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), for instance (which is another SPLC-designated hate group), built its reputation on litigation aimed at rolling back LGBTQ+ protections—including  allowing businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples, criminalizing same-sex relationships abroad, and restricting transgender rights. 

The internet that these groups envision is one that heavily censors critical and even life-saving LGBTQ+ resources, community, and information. 

Then there’s other groups like Them Before Us and Women’s Liberation Front, both of which submitted amici in support of the Texas Attorney General and are devoted to upending LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. Them Before Us says it’s “committed to putting the rights and well-being of children ahead of the desires and agendas of adults.” But it’s also running a campaign to “End Obergefell,” the 2015 Supreme Court case that upheld the right to same-sex marriage, and has been on the cutting edge of transphobic campaigning and pseudoscientific fearmongering about IVF and surrogacy. The Women’s Liberation Front, on the other hand, is an organization that has a long track record of supporting transphobic policies such as bathroom bills, bans on gender-affirming healthcare, and efforts to define “sex” strictly as the biological sex assigned at birth. 

Through cases like FSC v. Paxton, groups like these three continue to advance a vision of society that creates government mandates to enforce their worldviews over personal freedom, while hiding behind a shroud of concern for children’s safety. But when they also describe LGBTQ+ people as “evil” threats to children and run countless campaigns against their human rights, they are being clear about their intentions. This is why we continue to say: the impact of age verification measures goes beyond porn sites.

Expanding censorship beyond the internet into real-life public spaces

As we’ve said for years now, the push to age-gate the internet is part of a broader campaign to control what information people can access in public life both on- and offline. Many of the same organizations advancing these proposals claim to be acting on behalf of young people, but their arguments consistently use children as props to justify giving the government more control over speech and information.

Many of the organizations advocating for online age verification have also supported book bans, attacks on DEI policies and education, and efforts to remove LGBTQ+ materials from schools and libraries. Two of the organizations who supported the Texas Attorney General, Citizens Defending Freedom and Manhattan Institute, have led campaigns around the country to “abolish DEI” and ban classical books like “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison from school libraries. These efforts are not different from the efforts to restrict access to the internet—they reflect a broader strategy to restrict access to ideas or information that these groups find objectionable. And they discourage free thought, inquiry, and the ability for people to decide how to live their lives. 

These campaigns rely on the same core argument: that certain ideas are inherently dangerous to young people and must therefore be restricted. But that framing misrepresents an important reality: if lawmakers genuinely want to address harms that young people experience online, they should start by listening to young people themselves. When EFF spoke directly with young people about their online experiences, they overwhelmingly rejected restrictions on their access to the internet and came back with nuanced and diverse perspectives. Once that principle—that certain ideas are inherently dangerous—is accepted, the internet, once a symbol of free expression, connection, creativity, and innovation, becomes the next logical target. 

Once that principle—that certain ideas are inherently dangerous—is accepted, the internet, once a symbol of free expression, connection, creativity, and innovation, becomes the next logical target. 

This also wouldn’t be the first time a vulnerable group is used as a prop to advance internet censorship laws. We’ve seen this playbook during the debate over FOSTA/SESTA, where many of the same advocates claimed to speak for trafficking victims/survivors and sex workers, while pushing legislation that ultimately censored online speech and harmed the very communities it invoked. It’s a familiar pattern: invoke a vulnerable group, frame certain speech as a threat, and use that as a way to expand government control over the flow of information. And as we said in the fight against FOSTA: if lawmakers are serious about addressing harms to particular communities, they should start by talking to those communities. This means that lawmakers seeking to address online harms to young people should be talking to young people, not groups who claim their interests. 

Rep. Finke Was Not Radical. She Was Right.

The Paxton case, and the coalition backing age verification laws in the U.S., shows us exactly why the messaging around these laws draws superficial support from parents and lawmakers. But we’ve heard the quiet part said out loud before. Marsha Blackburn, a sponsor of the federal Kids Online Safety Act, has said that her goal with the legislation was to address what she called “the transgender” in society. When lawmakers and advocacy groups frame queer existence itself as a threat to young people, age-verification laws become ideological enforcement instead of regulatory policy.

When lawmakers and advocacy groups frame queer existence itself as a threat to young people, age-verification laws become ideological enforcement instead of regulatory policy.

In defending free speech, privacy, and the right of young people to access truthful information about themselves, Rep. Leigh Finke was not radical—she was right. She was warning that broad, ideologically driven laws will be used to erase, silence, and isolate young people under the banner of child protection. 

What’s at stake in the fight against age verification is not just a single bill in a single state, or even multiple states, for that matter. It’s about whether “protecting children” becomes a legal pretext for embedding government control over the internet to enforce specific moral and religious judgments—judgments that deny marginalized people access to speech, community, history, and truth—into law. 

And more people in public office need the courage of Rep. Finke to call this out.

Tanker backlogs, damaged energy infrastructure and threats in the Strait of Hormuz could keep gasoline prices elevated.

Xcel Energy floated the idea in response to the expectation it would face "significant capacity shortfalls” through the winter of 2028.

The leader of the U.N. International Maritime Organization speaks about the president’s campaign to kill a net-zero initiative.

A leading ratings group warns that the utility faces $50 billion in liability for Oregon wildfires in 2020 and might not be able to pay.

Senators blocked rival plans Wednesday to fund the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Some lawmakers argued the bill language was overly broad and could stifle clean energy policy.

CARB’s proposed cap-and-trade rules are getting political blowback from in-state Democrats — and the Nevada governor — because of refinery concerns.

State Farm has also agreed not to cancel any new policies this year, and it won’t be canceling some policies it had planned not to renew in wildfire-affected areas.

Brussels must take urgent measures to reduce the carbon footprint of food and farming, a scientific advisory board report says.

A sub-Antarctic island population is succeeding even though the water is warming and the food web that it relies on is changing with it, says a seabird ecologist.