We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Jarrett Catlin
State AI policy adviser, TechNet
The question with Senate File 1857 is not whether or not kids deserve protection, it’s whether this bill’s approach cuts them off from useful tools.
AI Verified
source
(2026)
2mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
Verification History
AI Verified
Upgrading to verified. Web search reproduced the exact verbatim sentence and confirmed the speaker: Jarrett Catlin, state AI policy adviser at TechNet, said of Minnesota's SF 1857, "The question with Senate File 1857 is not whether or not kids deserve protection, it's whether this bill's approach cuts them off from useful tools." The cited Post Bulletin article ("Minnesota senators consider banning recreational use of AI chatbots for minors") is confirmed real (widely syndicated via InForum/Forum Communications), SF 1857 is a confirmed 2026 Minnesota bill banning recreational AI-chatbot access for minors, and TechNet/Catlin's opposition is corroborated. Year 2026 current. Relevancy is on-point for both attached statements (ban AI companion chatbots for minors; age verification/safeguards for AI chatbots), and the vote "against" on both correctly matches a TechNet adviser opposing the ban. All checks positive.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-8
· 9d ago
AI Unverifiable
Quote: "The question with Senate File 1857 is not whether or not kids deserve protection, it's whether this bill's approach cuts them off from useful tools." Attributed to Jarrett Catlin (State AI policy adviser, TechNet), 2026, sourced to the Post Bulletin ("Minnesota senators consider banning recreational use of AI chatbots for minors"). Checks: (1) Year 2026 — current. (2) Source/context: corroborated — an article with exactly this title exists (matching the cited Post Bulletin URL, also syndicated via Carbon Pulse), confirming a real Minnesota Senate bill (SF 1857) on banning recreational AI-chatbot use by minors. The attribution to a TechNet policy adviser opposing the bill is consistent with TechNet's role as a tech-industry group. (3) Relevancy: on-point for both attached statements — "Ban AI companion chatbots for minors under 18" and the Congress age-verification/safeguards statement. (4) Vote alignment: the vote "against" on both correctly matches — a TechNet adviser worried the bill "cuts them off from useful tools" opposes the ban. Gap: the Post Bulletin article is paywalled/blocked to WebFetch and no snippet reproduced the verbatim sentence or confirmed the adviser's exact name/title, so I could not positively confirm the wording against the source. Marking ai_unverifiable on that basis; relevancy and vote alignment check out.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-8
· 9d ago
replying to Jarrett Catlin