Rep. Jake Auchincloss is taking fresh aim at Silicon Valley’s biggest players, rolling out a sweeping trio of bills that target legal immunity, teen screen time, and the money tech giants make from advertising to young users. The proposals landed with a thud that Big Tech can’t easily ignore.
The Massachusetts Democrat frames it bluntly: the biggest platforms have made billions off attention and outrage, and he says the bills are meant to hit them where it hurts most.
A Renewed Political Fight Over Social Media’s Influence
Auchincloss didn’t sugarcoat his frustration with tech giants. He described them as “the most wealthy, most powerful corporations in the history of the world,” and there was a sting in the way he said social platforms have “corroded our civil discourse” and treated kids like “products, not people.” It’s the kind of line you hear in private a lot more often than in public.
He packaged the bills together under the name “UnAnxious Generation,” a nod to Jonathan Haidt’s bestseller, The Anxious Generation, which has already become required reading in some policy circles.
And honestly, you could feel the influence—his proposals clearly fan out around Haidt’s arguments about how social apps have reshaped childhood.
But at the center of it all sits a clear warning: the free ride is ending.
The Deepfake Liability Act and a New Fight Over Section 230
Section 230 has been fiercely defended by tech companies for years, almost like a shield that never cracks. Auchincloss and Utah Republican Celeste Maloy want to change that with the Deepfake Liability Act.
The bill takes aim at the protection that platforms enjoy for user-generated content. It doesn’t erase the immunity altogether, but it does set conditions. Companies must show they’ve made serious attempts to curb deepfake porn, cyberstalking, and digital forgeries. And one crisp line stands out: AI-generated content will no longer be lumped under Section 230.
A short paragraph follows here, just one sentence.
That alone is enough to make several tech lawyers sit up straight.
Companies today must remove deepfake images or nonconsensual sexual content within 48 hours under existing laws. But Auchincloss argues that’s not nearly enough. His point is simple: removing harmful content after the fact still means the harm has happened.
He wants proactive systems instead of “clean-up crews.”
And he says tying that to legal immunity will force executives to treat deepfake risks as “a board level problem,” something that hits the corporate hierarchy, not just a trust-and-safety team buried in a corner.
How the Bills Fit Into a Bigger Political Mood
This section will have 5 paragraphs with varied lengths.
The push comes during a moment when both parties are unusually united in their irritation with Big Tech’s influence.
There’s a sense that lawmakers feel the window is finally open for sharper regulation.
But unity doesn’t mean smooth sailing. Several Republicans are wary of any bill that even hints at expanding government oversight, and several Democrats worry about potential First Amendment pitfalls.
Some offices quietly note that any attempt to rewrite Section 230 becomes a constitutional tug-of-war almost by default.
One interesting detail is how Auchincloss positions the package: not as punishment, but as a form of accountability. He says the companies have enjoyed decades of freedom, which worked early on but now feels out of sync with how enormous—and influential—they’ve become.
A smaller one-sentence paragraph is here.
He thinks Congress has moved too slowly, and his tone shows he’s tired of caution.
In between the political tension and the legal debates, there’s also a cultural thread. Parents are more vocal. Teachers feel overwhelmed. And teens themselves—according to surveys from Pew Research and the CDC—report higher levels of anxiety, sleep loss, and online harassment. Those numbers matter because they give lawmakers real data to point to.
The Bill That Targets Teens’ Time Online
This section will have 4 paragraphs.
A second part of Auchincloss’ package focuses heavily on screen time. He argues that the apps are built to hold kids for hours, and the companies know exactly how to do it. “Attention fracking,” he calls it, and the phrase sticks mostly because it sounds messy and industrial—like something that drills into kids’ brains for profit.
One paragraph here with just one sentence.
That’s basically the emotional thesis behind the second bill.
The measure—and its language is still being refined—would restrict addictive design features for minors. That means endless scrolling, autoplay, and reward notifications could face stricter limits when the user is under 18. Some tech advocates say companies already self-police these features, but lawmakers aren’t buying it.
A small bullet-point section fits naturally here after discussing the design choices:
-
The bill examines features proven to boost engagement time, especially autoplay, infinite feeds, “streaks,” and algorithmic loops aimed at teens.
The political difficulty is obvious: regulating app design gets very close to regulating speech and expression. That’s why both sides expect this part of the package to spark the longest debate, maybe even longer than Section 230 changes.
A New Tax Plan Aimed Straight at Tech’s Advertising Fortune
This section will have 6 paragraphs.
The third bill takes a financial turn: a tax on advertising revenue generated from minors’ digital activity. It’s a narrower tax than broader digital-ad proposals floated in the past, but that narrowness gives it more punch.
Another one-sentence paragraph here.
It’s also the part Big Tech is least likely to tolerate.
Auchincloss wants the revenue from this tax to flow into youth mental health programs and digital literacy initiatives in public schools. He says the companies built fortunes off kids’ attention, so paying into programs that help those same kids isn’t unreasonable.
A table fits perfectly here to break down the idea without overexplaining:
| Area of Spending | Proposed Use |
|---|---|
| Youth Mental Health | School counselors, community clinicians |
| Digital Literacy | Curriculum, teacher training |
| Safeguards & Research | Studies on tech’s effect on children |
The congressman also stresses that the tax isn’t meant to shrink companies, but to rebalance incentives so they stop chasing teen engagement for profit.
A short sentence here.
But executives across Silicon Valley will almost certainly see it as a threat to their business models.
What Comes Next for the UnAnxious Generation Package
This section will have 3 paragraphs.
The bills are expected to hit committees early next year, and staff from multiple offices say the early bipartisan interest is real, though fragile. There’s also talk about attaching pieces of the package to larger tech accountability bills moving through the Senate.
One one-sentence paragraph here.
That kind of maneuvering could help the proposals survive election-year gridlock.
Meanwhile, youth-safety advocates say this is the most aggressive package they’ve seen since Congress first started trying to regulate social platforms. Whether it actually becomes law is uncertain, but the mood around tech giants is different now—edgier, less patient, and less forgiving.
