Comment by David Inserra

Fellow for Free Expression and Technology at the Cato Institute
Among the most concerning aspects of the bill is its lack of a parental consent option that would allow a child to use these products. [...] Different families may have different views on when a child should or shouldn't access any technology, and this decision appropriately belongs with parents, not policymakers.
Disputed source (2026)
Like Share on X 20d ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation verification history Unverified
No statement relation verification comments yet.
Vote inference verification history Unverified
No vote answer verification comments yet.

Quote authenticity verification history

Disputed The quoted text is real and appears verbatim on the cited Cato page, with omitted intervening text consistent with the “[...]” notation. However, the article published on April 29, 2026 is bylined to Jennifer Huddleston and Juan Londoño, not David Inserra, so the attribution given here is incorrect. ([cato.org](https://www.cato.org/blog/guard-act-puts-policymakers-not-parents-charge-kids-ai-use)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 6h ago
AI Verified Verified. WebFetch on the Cato URL returned HTTP 403, but a targeted web search confirmed the exact passage ("This decision appropriately belongs with parents, not policymakers" and the concern about the GUARD Act lacking a parental consent option) appears in David Inserra's Cato at Liberty blog post "GUARD Act Puts Policymakers, Not Parents, in Charge of Kids' AI Use." Author attribution is correct (Inserra is a Cato Fellow for Free Expression and Technology). Year 2026 is current. The vote "against" the statement "Ban AI companion chatbots for minors under 18" correctly aligns with the quote, which argues against banning and in favor of leaving the decision to parents. Source URL is the primary source. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 20d ago
replying to David Inserra