The TikTok logo is displayed through a magnifying glass in this photo illustration in Ontario, Canada, on February 5, 2026. (Photo by Thomas Fuller/NurPhoto via AP)

Understanding Brazil’s $29.7 Million TikTok Fine Over Children’s Data

Three human silhouettes are depicted mid-stride, each comprising of a collage of hardware used to develop AI including circuit boards and CPU chips. In the background there is a black and grey gradient with smoke. Beneath the runners from the left, there are two rectangle panels which run across the image, one is red and the other is blue. 

To Avoid a 'Tokenocracy,' Ensure Popular Access to AI Systems

CHONGQING, CHINA - AUGUST 10: In this photo illustration, the logo of Meta is displayed on a smartphone screen on August 10, 2026 in Chongqing, China. (Photo by VCG/VCG via AP )

What Meta’s US Settlement on Child Safety Means for Europe

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg attends UFC Freedom 250 on the South Lawn of the White House, Sunday, June 14, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

What's in Meta's Teen Social Media Settlement—and What Hinges on Its Rivals

Image of Solana Larsen with text, Managing Editor Solana Larsen

Solana Larsen Named Managing Editor of Tech Policy Press

A child stands near a games stall. (Photo by Maxim Konankov/NurPhoto via AP) 

(Photo by Maxim Konankov/NurPhoto via AP)

Banning AI Toys for Four Years Won't Make Kids Safer

A yard sign expressing opposition to the construction of a data center is seen outside of a home in Mifflinville, Pa. on July 3, 2026. (Photo by Paul Weaver/Sipa USA via AP Images)

Data Center Discontent Drives State Legislation Surge

L to R: Open AI CEO Sam Altman, US President Donald Trump, CEO of DeepMind Demis Hassabis, South Korea's President Lee Jae Myung and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz attend a working session during the G7 Summit in Evian, France, on June 17, 2026. (Jeanne Accorsini/Sipa via AP Images)


AI Systems Are Getting More Powerful. The Ability to Verify Must Keep Pace.

The Capitolio Nacional in Bogotá, where Colombia's Congress is considering Bill 025 to regulate artificial intelligence.

Colombia is Preparing a Poor Copy of the EU's AI Act

French President Emmanuel Macron. (Manon Cruz/Pool Photo via AP)

France’s Constitutional Council Ruling Tests the Limits of Social Media Bans

United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks to members of the media outside the White House in Washington, Thursday, Aug. 20, 2026. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

What the Bond Market Disruption Means for Rebuilding American Tech Policy

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses the nation from the rampart of the 17th century Mughal-era Red Fort monument during the country's Independence Day celebrations in New Delhi, India, Saturday, Aug. 15, 2026. (AP Photo)

Technocracy Won't Debug India's Education Crisis

Saline, Michigan, December 1, 2025: A sign on a rural Michigan road opposes a planned $7 billion data center on southeast Michigan farm land. Opponents say the data center could raise residential electricity rates and endanger the water supply. (Photo by: Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

What to Do With a Data Center Pause — and Unpacking the ‘Censorship-Industrial’ Complex Narrative

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, conducts the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government in the Rayburn Building on Thursday, July 20, 2023. 

How the 'Censorship-Industrial Complex' Narrative Went From Fringe to Trump Policy

Abstract image of a whistleblower amid a see of faces.

Congress Can Get AI Whistleblower Protection Right On Its First Try

Nine small images with schematic representations of differently shaped neural networks, a human hand making a different gesture is placed behind each network.

AI Audits Need a Power Test, Not Just a Fairness Score

The Mathare River is one of the rivers that flows into Nairobi River. Photo by Queen Asali/Wiki For Sustainable Futures 2026/CC by 4.0

The Mathare River is one of the rivers that flows into Nairobi River. Photo by 

Taxing Tech in Age of AI Could Fund Human Rights

Composite. Left, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito attends a meeting in Rome, Sept. 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini) Right, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, is seen in the US Capitol on Thursday, March 26, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images)

How the Supreme Court and Big Tech Both Weaponize 'Race-Neutrality'

Children’s Digital Rights Need More Than a False Promise of Safety

In an aerial view, the Meta El Paso Data Center is seen on August 13, 2026 in El Paso, Texas. Meta continues construction on its more than $10 billion data center, occupying approximately 1,000 acres, and has expanded the project to 1 gigawatt of computing capacity, allowing the facility to support a growing range of AI workloads and the training and deployment of AI models and technologies. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

Zuckerberg’s AI Manifesto Lost it at Compute

 in Oakland, California to face a judge and jury over alleged harms to children in a bellwether trial brought by state attorneys general from California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey. The trial was expected to last through October.

But on Wednesday, less than ten days after the trial began, Meta reached a landmark settlement with 52 attorneys general from US states, territories, and the District of Columbia, agreeing to pay 

 while also making changes to its platforms for teen users, including restrictions on late-night access and limits on daily time spent on its apps.

Meta denied the allegations and admitted no wrongdoing. Still, many 

 social media’s ‘Big Tobacco’ moment.

“The message to the tech industry is clear: build child safety in, or courts and legislatures will make you,” said James Steyer, founder and chief executive of Common Sense Media, in a statement. “Between devastating evidence that was emerging in the trial and pending legislation in California, Mark Zuckerberg saw the hammer coming down. Meta's decision to settle is proof that the prospect of paying real money works.”

Others are less certain it will necessarily result in meaningful change.

“Today’s announced settlement is a significant milestone in the battle to hold Meta responsible for providing safe products, but it should not be interpreted as an ‘all clear’ sign by parents and public officials,” said Arturo Béjar, a former Meta child safety leader who 

 at the trial last week. “The settlement addresses but does not solve very significant problems which remain.”

Such problems include certain design features that are not addressed, according to Jennifer King, the privacy and data policy fellow at the Stanford University Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. These include infinite scroll.

“Ultimately, Instagram and Facebook are products intended for use by adults that were not designed with anyone’s​ health and safety in mind, but instead optimized for maximum engagement and profitability,” said King.

The settlement also contains a catch: Roughly ~$5 billion of the ~$17 billion settlement amount touted in headlines is contingent on Meta’s competitors—TikTok, YouTube and Snap—being bound to “substantively equivalent obligations” on restrictions for teen users and taking on comparable monetary obligations, according to 

. If these rivals are locked into similar rules, then under the settlement Meta will extend the block on night access and tighten the daily time cap, and will owe additional contingent payments to the states.

The settlement consists of $12 billion in guaranteed payments that can be used by the states to fund a variety of possible initiatives, such as after-school and summer programs, digital wellness and youth mental health programs, and other remedies. It requires Meta to make various changes to its products, including nighttime limits on teen access and notifications; options for teens to switch to a non-personalized, chronological feed; hiding like and reaction counts for teens by default; barring certain “cosmetic procedure” filters; expanded parental tools; and “productive pause” prompts aimed at curbing excessive use.

The settlement also requires that Meta implement an “age assurance” framework. Within a year, Meta is required to distinguish under-13, teen, and adult users and to meet certain thresholds for accuracy. 

“Certainly this will be a test of age estimation and verification features: how well they perform, how to adjudicate misclassifications, and, perhaps, how effective they are,” noted King.

These changes are expected to create safer and more intentional experiences for young people on Meta’s apps, according to Mick Tobin, co-founder and advocacy director of youth advocacy nonprofit Young People’s Alliance. “Giving teens the ability to turn off algorithmic feeds, muting disruptive notifications, and hiding like counts will help combat compulsive use and the constant social comparison that fuels anxiety and depression,” he said. “These are the design protections young people have demanded for years.”

Yet some see the settlement as putting too much onus on parental supervision. 

“The settlement puts too much emphasis on parental controls, rather than confronting the intentional design choices upstream, including default algorithms designed to keep kids from leaving the platforms,” said Meetali Jain, executive director of Tech Justice Law, a litigation and advocacy organization. “We shouldn’t have to rely on parents policing their kids. Companies should be designing products that are safe from the onset.”

The settlement resolves the claims by the state attorneys general, but leaves claims by other plaintiffs in the sprawling multidistrict litigation intact, including those by individuals and school districts.

"Meta is trying to shift the industry to strict age verification and strict controls on how kids use their services. It might work,” said James Grimmelmann, a law professor at Cornell University and Cornell Tech. “Meta is also trying to stop the bleeding from the huge number of addiction and harmful-feature lawsuits it's facing. It won't work," he said.

In a substantial section on “Accountability,” the settlement requires that a “State Committee” made up of a “bipartisan group of no more than 6 Attorney General offices” and Meta identify a “mutually approved qualified, independent third-party auditor” that would have access to the company’s personnel, systems, and “raw data; aggregated data; information; internal documents and communications” necessary to evaluate its implementation of the relief terms. The auditor can directly report any concerns to the State Committee, and if it identifies a material weakness, Meta has to develop a corrective-action plan, though the auditor’s recommendations are otherwise “non-binding.”

“Meta is going to face ongoing monitoring under an independent auditor to ensure that the protections it is required to provide under this settlement agreement are actually effective,” said Haley Hinkle, policy counsel at Fairplay, an organization that works to protect kids from Big Tech. “By asking the court to approve these design protections, Meta admits what we have long known, which is that their platform design 

“Having an independent party verify the statements of Meta is important,” said Jeff Allen, cofounder and chief research officer at the nonprofit Integrity Institute. “However, it seems that the audit reports will have to be treated as confidential by the states. This means that the public at large will be unlikely to see the actual data. Parents won't be able to decide for themselves if, for example, the platform is as safe as individual parents would like it to be with regards to putting their child in contact with malicious actors.”

What is necessary, said Béjar, are “effectiveness obligations” that produce substantially different results than the past interventions Meta has rolled out. “The level of harm … cannot be what Meta says it is,” he said. “It must be independently measured and capture the harm that young people experience, not what Meta says they do.”

Phase II and ‘Industry-Wide Adoption’

Among the novel aspects of the settlement are its provisions for what it terms “Industry-Wide Adoption” of its obligations. If TikTok, YouTube, and Snap are bound to equivalent obligations, then the settlement says Meta must make additional payments and that it will implement additional “Contingent Time Management” measures, increasing the restrictions on night usage of its apps and tightening the daily usage limitations.

There are three routes for other platforms to “adopt” the obligations stipulated under the settlement. The condition can be met if the other firms enter into a settlement, consent decree, or other commitment that is substantially similar to the Meta settlement; if they become subject to state or federal laws or regulations that impose equivalent obligations, or if they enter into “verified” voluntary compliance.

If another industry player settles with another state “for comparable claims” that are “on terms more favorable,” then the settling state would adjust its arrangement so Meta gets the same treatment. If Meta agrees to any stricter terms with any of the states, then all of the states get the same terms within 30 days.

The settlement also contemplates what happens if a new platform emerges that changes the competitive landscape. Such a new market entrant could change the calculus and cause the condition of “industry wide adoption” to collapse. A new app would qualify if it is functionally similar to Meta, YouTube, Snap, and TikTok applications, has at least 5 million teen users, and entices users to spend at least 30 minutes daily, for a period of four consecutive months.

"The settlement provides a clear off-ramp for both Google and TikTok from potential future litigation filed against them by state attorneys general,” said Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow in technology policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. “Whether they choose to take it, however, is another matter. They may not agree to the feature and design changes that Meta was amenable to, or they may object to the approximately $5.3 billion price tag. That’s ultimately a business decision those companies will need to make for themselves."

Within hours after the settlement news was out, 

 to YouTube and TikTok, urging its competitors to join in making these platforms safe for teens. “We want to ensure teens benefit from this new industry standard, but we cannot do it alone,” the letter said. “These protections will only be truly effective if we work with our peers—TikTok and YouTube—to put the same measures in place.”

Kelly Stonelake, a former Meta employee of 15 years who turned whistleblower and became an advocate for child online safety, said the provisions around industry adoption could turn the settlement into leverage for Meta against its competitors.

“If it works, this stops being just a Meta settlement and starts becoming something closer to a national baseline for how social media platforms treat children,” added Stonelake.

Fairplay’s Hinkle cautioned against giving Meta too much credit for its overture.

“Meta could try to spin this as some kind of industry leadership, but the reality is that it has had all the resources in the world to better protect children from the start,” said Hinkle.

The settlement makes it harder for other platforms to argue that more stringent safety measures can’t be implemented, experts told Tech Policy Press. But there is something almost surreal about Meta positioning itself as the company calling on the rest of the industry to embrace these protections, according to Stonelake.

“For years, the industry argument has largely been that companies should be trusted to develop safety measures themselves,” she said. “Now Meta is effectively saying that voluntary action by one company is insufficient and that an industry-wide standard is necessary. On that point, I agree with them. I just think it is worth asking why it took a courtroom to get Meta there.”

According to Stanford’s King, the settlement could also have implications beyond social media. 

“It puts all of the AI developers on notice that they’re not going to have 5-7 years to drag out their kid/teen strategy,” said King. “They have to be ready now.”

 seeks to keep every toy that includes a companion AI chatbot off the shelves until 2031. Those of us who study how young people use technology have very little to offer on AI toys yet in terms of data-driven insights, and that is the difficulty with such a heavy-handed bill. A four-year sales ban does not help fill the knowledge gap that currently exists. Rather, it helps guarantee that we will arrive at 2031 knowing about the same things about AI toys as we do know, which is very little.

, the bill defines a toy as any product designed or intended for play by children under 18. It cleared the state Senate 39 to 0, passed the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee 14 to 1 in June and now sits on the Appropriations suspense file with an end-of-August deadline for the Legislature to act. This level of bipartisan agreement does reflect a real, well-founded concern about AI toys. However, a moratorium addresses the symptom rather than the cause, and lawmakers would do well to identify a solution that does more than simply buy time.

Here is some context that should be considered. Researchers at the 

 tested a batch of AI toys last year, and discovered that a teddy bear called Kumma told a child where to find knives and matches, gave step-by-step instructions for lighting a match and drifted into sexually explicit conversation. The researchers noticed that the guardrails held at first, but then broke down over the course of a longer exchange.

What happened next, though, is the biggest takeaway. Once PIRG made the Kumma problem public, 

 and ran a safety audit, and the model provider, OpenAI, suspended the developer for violating its rules. When Kumma returned to the market, it no longer explained how to start a fire and no longer engaged in sexual conversations.

Therefore, a problematic product was identified, publicly named and fixed in a matter of weeks, all without being banned. Public testing found the problem, and public attention forced the repair. The company demonstrated it was acting in good faith, and corrected course quickly under scrutiny, which suggests it would respond just as readily to enforceable rules spelled out in legislation. Everything got sorted the way it should have, and a four-year ban was not the solution that made that AI teddy bear safer.

Bans treat careful companies and careless ones the same

A ban is a blunt instrument, and it does not distinguish between companies that take safety seriously and companies that do not. Imagine a situation where one AI toy records every conversation, makes the transcript available to a parent in an app, deletes it after 90 days and ships with working parental controls. Imagine a second toy that offers none of that. SB 867 would treat the two identically and prohibit the sale of both. That outcome removes any reason for a company to invest in safety, because the law does not care to recognize the difference.

The bill also gives no attention to the form factors children will most frequently use. A child kept from an AI teddy bear may still have a tablet or a phone, whether their own, their sibling’s, their parent’s or guardian’s, and the app-based chatbots on those devices reach far more children, far more often, with fewer safeguards than a toy that logs every word for a parent to review.

In a national study my colleague Justin W. Patchin and I published this spring in the 

three in five US teens reported having used a conversational AI chatbot

, and nearly half of those users reported at least one harmful experience, including manipulation, inappropriate conversations and encouragement toward self-harm. Those conversations happen privately on tablets and phones, with no transcript for a parent to read the next morning. SB 867 does not touch these situations.

Arguments for a moratorium don’t survive scrutiny

Supporters of SB 867 argue that a moratorium buys time for empirical research. A four-year sales ban does not produce that kind of evidence, though. In fact, it removes the conditions under which evidence can be gathered. Careful study of how children interact with these toys is possible without a ban, as researchers at the 

 when they observed 14 young children playing with one of the leading AI toys. At one point a 3-year-old said, “I’m sad,” and the toy misheard, replied that it was a happy little bot, and asked what they should talk about next. In this situation, the child’s distress did not register at all.

However, the Cambridge team did not respond to that case by calling for a ban. Rather, they called for enforceable standards, testing with real children before release and transparent labeling so that a parent knows what a toy records and what age it was tested for. Their position was that these products should answer for themselves (rather than disappear for four years). An afternoon in a research lab can show how a child responds to a toy over a very short period of time. It cannot, though, show what a year of ordinary use does to a developing child. That is one of the research questions we need to answer while these products are in homes.

It’s tempting to think that an AI toy is a uniquely special hazard 

 of its physical form. The concern is that a chatbot on a screen is one thing, whereas a plush animal with a face is something a child holds, names and sleeps with, potentially creating a deeper and more problematic attachment. The reasoning here is understandable, but it just does not align with what we know about children and the objects they love.

Children have formed attachments to transitional objects

 like stuffed animals and dolls for generations. A child talks to a teddy bear, tells it secrets, carries it everywhere and is heartbroken when losing it. Developmental researchers have long treated these attachments as ordinary and healthy, and no one has proposed banning teddy bears. What has changed with AI toys is that the bear can now talk back, and what it says can be inaccurate, or unsafe, or can fail to register that a child has just disclosed sadness. Those are concerns about the 

. Those are two components that well-constructed standards-based laws can govern.

If the real concern is attachment, it is useful to ask where attachment is most likely to be a problem. It is not the toy that a parent sets up on the kitchen table with their child, and that can be monitored through an app. Rather, it is the 

 that a child privately downloads and accesses through their device, the one built to be endlessly available and endlessly agreeable. The physical toy is an easier product to regulate well. It is a specific item with an identifiable manufacturer and an app behind it, which means there is someone to hold accountable when it fails. It also falls into a category the 

 have spent decades regulating. A company can be required to test it before it ships, to disclose clearly what it records and to provide parental controls. A toy’s use is also less ambiguous. If it is a toy primarily aimed at children, a developer cannot argue its way out of 

 related to privacy and data collection (COPPA).

Two other bills do a better job addressing major concerns with AI toys

Interestingly, Senator Steve Padilla authored 

, the first law in the US to regulate companion chatbots. That bill shows that these products can be held to a standard without being pulled off the market. This is what makes SB 867 puzzling, because Padilla is now advocating for a ban even though he has shown that a legal standard can make these products safer.

Two bills already moving through the Legislature do a better job of addressing the major concerns with AI toys. 

, authored by Buffy Wicks and Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, and its Senate companion 

, also authored by Padilla, were amended in tandem in March and have advanced together since. They would bar these products from serving self-harm or sexual content to a minor, and they would require a genuine, workable response when a child signals distress (which is the failure the Cambridge team documented). They also aim to protect children’s data and provide parents with helpful safety controls. Both bills also require an annual assessment of the risks a design carries, the same approach I have argued for in the form of 

 for the platforms youth already use, and both align with the 

 I have urged platforms to adopt on their own.

These requirements should be combined with independent testing before a toy is sold, similar to how cribs and car seats are already regulated. Rules should also come with a review date, so they can be updated as we learn more. Governor Newsom used the same logic when he 

 that he argued would have walled young people off from AI chatbots, arguing that it could keep them from learning to use the technology safely even as it becomes ubiquitous. That is a very reasonable take.

Children deserve rules aimed at the harm we can actually document, and rules that get revised as our understanding of these products changes. A four-year moratorium contributes to neither goal. It provides a window of time until 2031, but as it stands, children will be no safer when that window closes. The harder tack to take, and the right one, is to require these toys to demonstrate that they are safe, and to keep studying them closely while they do.

 has joined Tech Policy Press as its new Managing Editor.

Solana has more than two decades of experience working in senior editorial roles at publications and with communities dedicated to analyzing technology’s role and impact on society, including with Mozilla, Global Voices, openDemocracy, the Open Knowledge Foundation, and more. 

She will work closely with me, Deputy Editor Ramsha Jahangir, our staff, and our global cohort of fellows to advance our charitable mission and deepen our connection to the growing global community of Tech Policy Press readers and contributors.

Between 2016 and 2025, Solana was the lead editor of Mozilla Insights and the editor of The Internet Health Report, which compiled global research, data, and policy perspectives on the internet and artificial intelligence. She also led two seasons of Mozilla’s popular podcast, IRL, about AI innovators that put people over profit.

At Global Voices, Solana was the managing editor of a groundbreaking community for worldwide multilingual reporting focused on understanding the power of online citizen media to transform news narratives—and of digital activism to transform societies. During her seven-year tenure, Global Voices chronicled the rise of blogging and social media, as well as online censorship and surveillance.

Solana was also among the first editors at openDemocracy, where she helped lead coverage on some of the earliest internet policy disputes, including copyright, open source software, and e-democracy. She has an MA in International Journalism from City University in London, and used to be a freelance tech reporter on national public radio in Denmark.

Solana is Danish-Puerto Rican and lives in Berlin.

A promotional graphic for the 2027 Tech Policy Press fellowship program that includes the deadline and the techpolicy.press/fellowship URL.

2027 Tech Policy Press fellowship applications are due on September 24, 2026.

Tech Policy Press is now accepting applications for its 2027 fellowship cohort.

 in 2023, the fellowship program has supported 25 fellows from 11 countries across three cohorts, who have written on pressing topics such as the governance of artificial intelligence, tech regulation, digital rights, and the entanglement of state and corporate power. You can learn more about past fellowship cohorts and read their work 

For 2027, we intend to support a new cohort of fellows to pursue independent reporting and analysis that explore urgent questions at the intersection of technology and democracy. The year-long, part-time fellowship is designed to support mid-career journalists, researchers, and public policy professionals. We welcome a wide range of contributions, from original reporting to policy analysis.

Applicants should come prepared with a clear area of focus and a sense of how their work will contribute to informing both the public and decision-makers. We are particularly interested in projects that center communities and regions often excluded from global tech policy conversations.

Each fellow will receive a $10,000 stipend to support their work. In addition, fellows will join an international cohort for regular feedback and exchange of ideas, receive ongoing editorial guidance, and participate in monthly sessions designed to support and strengthen their work.

Applicants should have a strong background or expertise in a specific tech policy area or issue, a particular geography, or, more generally, technology and its impact on democracy or society. All fellows will work remotely as independent contractors.

Contribute (on at least a monthly basis) analysis or reporting on issues related to technology and democracy. (While topics can change after the fellowship commences, each fellow should clearly articulate a topic and why they are a good fit to cover it)

Attend a mandatory hour-long monthly cohort meeting

Attend a monthly check-in meeting with Tech Policy Press’s editorial team to evaluate progress and discuss next steps

Collaborate with other fellows and the Tech Policy Press masthead as appropriate

Meet all agreed-upon deadlines for outputs

Disclose any potential conflicts of interest

If you would like to apply for the fellowship, complete 

 by 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 24th, 2026

Cover letter (no more than two pages) that conveys what you hope to accomplish

We will host two information sessions for potential applicants via ZOOM. Registration is required. Choose from one of two dates:

The fellowship is open to journalists, researchers, lawyers, and public policy professionals who are interested in exploring the intersection of technology and democracy. We encourage applicants from the Global Majority and underrepresented communities in media. Candidates should have a demonstrated interest or background in tech policy, media, or related fields, and be committed to producing high-quality, public-interest work during the fellowship.

What are the benefits of being a Tech Policy Press fellow?

The opportunity and support to work on a pressing, underreported issue for a year

Develop a significant body of work by the end of the fellowship

Access to an international cohort of past and current fellows

Engage in learning opportunities provided by Tech Policy Press

Develop and maintain a network of sources in your focus area

Can you provide a timeline for the application review process and when selected fellows will be notified of their acceptance?

We aim to notify applicants of their status by early December 2026.

When does the fellowship start and how long does it last?

The fellowship will commence in January 2027 and last for 12 months.

Are you accepting international applicants?

Can I share additional information that is not part of the application questions?

We will only assess applications based on the information required in the application form.

A published link should direct to work that is publicly accessible online and clearly attributed to you. This can include reported pieces, policy or issue analyses, opinion articles, essays, podcasts, newsletters, or data projects. Please note that social media posts and unpublished material, such as class assignments or dissertations, will 

Will there be an interview round for the fellowship?

A select pool of candidates may be invited for an online interview.

How does Tech Policy Press plan to promote and showcase the work of fellows to a wider audience?

We publish fellows’ work on the Tech Policy Press website and feature it prominently in our newsletter to reach a broad and engaged audience. Additionally, we highlight fellowship projects through our podcast and at special events throughout the year.

Is the 2027 cohort open to those whose main contributions are technical?

Yes. We welcome applications from a variety of disciplines, as long as you can show how your work aligns with Tech Policy Press’s editorial purview.

Can we upload pre-print papers or research papers that are not formally published yet?

What kinds of projects have past fellows worked on, particularly for candidates from policy, governance, or development backgrounds?

You can learn more about our fellows and their work via the 

Are there any preferred geographic or thematic focuses for applicants from the Global South?

What are some of the criteria to reject an application?

Applications may be rejected if they do not meet eligibility criteria as listed on our 2027 Fellowship announcement.

Yes, but we recommend submitting at least one solo publication.

You can share translated work, but we also require at least one submission to be written in English.

Should the monthly submissions be exclusive to Tech Policy Press?

Is this fellowship open to candidates outside the USA who are not authorized to work in the USA?

Yes. This fellowship is open to candidates from around the world.

Is it disadvantageous to be open to working in multiple formats?

Do you have to stick to one theme, or can you write on a variety of topics?

We encourage fellows to respond to news events as they pertain to their area of expertise.

How broadly or specifically should applicants define the tech policy area or issue they want to work on?

The place where I work automatically translates our articles into English using AI. Is that a problem?

We require evidence of your own command of English.

What should we do to share a published piece behind a paywall?

You must ensure that the pieces you submit are open access.

Last year, we received more than 2,000 applications for only 8-10 fellowship spots. Because we receive such a large number of applications, our team has to make difficult decisions. We appreciate you taking the time to apply. 

If you have other questions about this opportunity, please contact us at 

A promotional graphic for the 2027 Tech Policy Press fellowship program, that includes the deadline and the techpolicy.press/fellowship URL.

Call for Applications: 2027 Tech Policy Press Fellowship Program

Flock Safety camera on Haverhill Drive near Phillips Avenue in Toledo, Ohio. (Photo by Stephen Zenner / SOPA Images/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

Unless Flock is Reined In, Mass Video Surveillance Will Grow Even More Pervasive

CEO of Meta Platforms Mark Zuckerberg attends the Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference at the Sun Valley Lodge on July 9, 2026 in Sun Valley, Idaho. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Four States Take Meta to Trial in California, the Latest Front in Sprawling Multidistrict Fight

Cemetery for people on the move in Soufli, Evros, Greece. Photo by Petra Molnar.

The Racial Necrotechnics That Lead to Death By Design at Automated Borders

Tech Policy Press - Technology and Democracy

Tech Policy Press is tracking laws and regulations, along with government investigations and litigation, that will shape the rules and accountability for tech companies.

Latest

Podcast

Recent

Our content delivered to your inbox

Thank you!

Around the globe