— Published on Jul 13, 2026 11:41 AM

It always comes back to "protecting the children." It's one of the most convincing ways of getting people to sign on to (or simply support) a bill. But when a goal like this gets shouted about so widely by lawmakers who have a less than sterling record on these issues, we need to consider whether the solutions proposed actually address the problem -- and whether the consequences they carry are worth the problems they "resolve."

Many people have already been exposed to age verification techniques online, whether it's while making a purchase or elsewhere. When done in a way that respects a user's freedom and privacy, there's nothing particularly objectionable about these measures. In some cases, there may very well be a good reason to prevent minors from accessing certain materials online, but that does not (and will never) mean that this technology should be baked into software. There is no situation in which it is appropriate. It is fundamentally incompatible with a user's freedom and is impossible to do effectively without Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). Curtailing computing freedom like this is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

Over the years, software freedom and digital rights activists have seen countless bills proposed by lawmakers (sometimes willfully) ignorant of the real issues at hand. Around the United States, all kinds of age verification laws are being rushed onto the books, but none that we're aware of pose as distinct of a threat to software freedom and the free software community as the ones that focus on device-based age verification. Examples of these legislative control attempts are cropping up all over the world. In the United States federal government right now, it's exemplified by bills like the under-protested GUARD Act.

If passed, the GUARD Act would place a nationwide ban on minors using "chatbot" services, and would require all users of such services in the United States to submit to mandatory verification. In short, it would open the door to a "surveillance regime." Such a regime would make creating a free machine learning bundle almost, if not totally, impossible through its development restrictions and threats of criminialization. Say goodbye to the anonymous use of such tools, and hello to the suffocation of free software development and technology more generally.

While it's nominally about protecting children from chatbots, which are powered by so-called "artificial intelligence," the Act has wide-reaching implications for all software users -- and should be regarded as an existential threat to the entire free software movement. Chatbots and their ilk aren't popular with our movement, but that doesn't mean barring children from them is the right thing to do. What's at stake is freedom 0 as we know it: the right for anyone of any age, anywhere, to use any program for any purpose. This freedom should be regarded as a cornerstone for a free digital society. Even as I write this, we're teetering toward dystopia. Freedom 0 is a fight we can't afford to lose.

The vast majority of free software projects have only one contributor. Depending on how someone (and the courts) interprets the term "provider" in the bill's text, even the most trivial of programs could be expected to implement age verification technology before minors in the United States are allowed to execute the program. Depending on how such legislation is enforced, how could a single contributor on one of the ethical software repositories keep up?

We can't play games with the future of computing. There's burnout in social movements all over the world -- including ours, like developers overwhelmed by LLM patches and issues -- but the internet itself is at risk. We chose to speak up about this issue not only because of the grave threat it poses to user freedom, but because of its connection to free machine learning, a topic the FSF has been researching and soon plans to publish about. The GUARD Act, as well as any zombified bill with the same provisions that Congress tries to resuscitate, must be stopped.

If you're in the United States, call your local senator to inform them of the dangers of this kind of legislation. The importance of a phone call over an email can't be stressed enough. Only meaningful, person-to-person communication gives senators a clear idea of how their constituents feel. Otherwise, your objections to the GUARD Act or any other dangerous piece of legislation might just be swept under the rug.

The GUARD Act isn't the only example of age verification we're combating. We'll be highlighting these issues in future posts and actions, including one coming up very soon.

This year's International Day Against DRM on July 17th will put a spotlight on age verification issues both in the United States and abroad. Please consider lending us your individual support or as a supporting organization. If you're working against this or similar legislation, we'd love to hear from you. The FSF has already reached out to the many LibreLocal meetup organizers we helped for their support. We need your help, too.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to protect children, but we need sustainable solutions that do what they propose to do without tossing out a free digital society in the process.