Governments around the world are adopting online age assurance requirements of different kinds, reshaping how digital services are accessed by adults and youth. KGI’s latest report provides a technical assessment of how age assurance systems work in practice and examines their accuracy, circumvention resistance, availability, and privacy implications.

Online platforms shape what we know, how we connect, and who gets heard. As critical conversations unfold publicly on digital platforms, the ability to study them at scale has steadily diminished. KGI’s latest report authored by a distinguished group of leaders from research, civil society, and journalism offers a roadmap for expanding access to high-influence public platform data – the narrow slice of public platform data that has the greatest impact on civic life due to its reach, source, or role in shaping what people see online.

Algorithms determine what we read, watch, and encounter online, and, increasingly, they also influence our offline lives. Yet algorithms are often built to maximize short-term engagement and capture attention, rather than to deliver long-term value to users. KGI’s new commentary takes a deep dive into the evolving landscape of recommender system design, highlighting six innovative trends that show it is possible to design better feeds that put people first.

Model legislation published by the Knight-Georgetown Institute provides a pathway for lawmakers who want to encourage better algorithmic feeds that put users’ interests front and center.

Should we be able to understand the risks kids face online? Understand how brands communicate with consumers? How politicians communicate online? These questions – and many more – can only be answered when public platform data is accessible. A new series by Tech Policy Press and the Knight-Georgetown Institute explores why public platform data matters, what threats researchers and journalists face trying to access this data, and how we can build a more transparent digital public sphere.

On September 2, US District Court Judge Amit Mehta issued an opinion that many in the tech industry had been waiting on for more than 15 years: a ruling about how to rectify Google’s maintenance of its illegal monopoly in online search. The most consequential aspect of the opinion is that the remedies will not meaningfully address the conduct at the center of the case: Google paying distributors like Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla tens of billions of dollars per year to lock in Google Search as the default on nearly every mobile phone and across much of the desktop browser market.