When Children Are Treated as Adults: How One Alabama Teen Inspired My Fight for Justice

Girl behind bars.
Girl behind bars. By Nejron Photo; Adobe Stock. File #: 32689299

I did not enter the world of juvenile justice reform through textbooks, research questions, or curiosity about public policy. I entered it through a child. A girl I first met when she was just fourteen years old, wide-eyed, quiet, and already carrying a lifetime of burdens on her small frame. I was assigned as her CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) at a time when her life was marked by instability, poverty, and trauma. She was living in conditions most adults would find impossible, yet she still greeted me each week with a hesitant smile, a mix of hope and uncertainty in her eyes. Her resilience was unmistakable, even if she didn’t yet recognize it in herself.

Over the years, I watched her survive circumstances that would flatten most adults. She moved between unsafe living situations, often unsure where she would sleep or whether she would eat. She navigated school while juggling the chaos around her. She experienced loss, betrayal, and instability. And yet she showed up. She tried. She hoped. She fought to stay afloat.

Nothing in those early years prepared me for what would come next.

At sixteen, through a series of events, she was just present when a crime occurred. One she did not commit, did not plan, and did not anticipate. But in Alabama, presence is enough to catapult a child into the adult criminal system. Under Alabama’s automatic transfer statute, Ala. Code § 12-15-203, youth charged with certain offenses are moved to adult court entirely by default, without judicial evaluation and without any meaningful consideration of developmental maturity, trauma history, or the child’s actual involvement.

The law did not acknowledge her age, her vulnerability, her role in the event, or her long history of surviving poverty, abuse, and instability. It simply swept her into the adult system as if she were fully responsible for the incident and for her own survival. Overnight, she went from being a child in need of care to being treated as an adult offender. She was taken to an adult county jail, where her new reality consisted of four concrete walls, metal doors, and the unrelenting loneliness that comes from being a minor in a facility designed for grown men.

 

Child behind bars.
Child behind bars. By Tinnakorn; Adobe Stock. File #: 691836996

Because the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) requires strict “sight and sound separation” between minors and adults, and because most Alabama jails have no youth-specific housing units, she was placed into what the facility calls “protective custody.” In reality, this translated into solitary confinement. She spends nearly every hour of every day alone. No peers. No programming. No classroom. No sunlight. No meaningful human contact.

Not for days. Not for weeks. But for over an entire year.

Even now, writing those words feels unreal. A child, my former CASA child, has spent more than a year in near total isolation because Alabama does not have the infrastructure to house minors safely in adult jails. And it was this experience – witnessing her slow unraveling under the weight of isolation – that pushed me into research and now advocacy.

But the research came after the heartbreak.
She was the beginning, and she remains the reason.

Understanding the System That Failed Her

When I began researching how a child like her could be locked in an adult jail for over a year, the data was overwhelming. In 2023 alone, an estimated 2,513 youth under age eighteen were held in adult jails and prisons in the United States, according to The Sentencing Project. Alabama is not an outlier — it is fully participating in this national trend of treating children as adults based on the offense they are charged with, rather than who they are developmentally.

The more I learned about solitary confinement, the more horrified I became.
And yet none of it surprised me, not after watching what it is doing to her.

A young woman in handcuffs.
A young woman in handcuffs. By Nutlegal; Adobe Stock. File #: 259270712

Human Rights Watch reports that youth held in solitary confinement are 19 times more likely to attempt suicide than their peers in general populations. The United Nations Mandela Rules explicitly prohibit solitary confinement for anyone under eighteen, identifying it as a form of torture. The ACLU has documented the widespread use of isolation for youth in jails due to Prison Rape Elimination Act compliance limitations. And reports from the Prison Policy Initiative and the Equal Justice Initiative show that children in adult facilities face elevated risks of physical assault, sexual violence, psychological decline, and self-harm.

Developmental science aligns with these findings. Decades of work by scholars such as Laurence Steinberg show that adolescent brains are not fully developed — especially the regions governing impulse control, long-term planning, and risk assessment — but are exceptionally responsive to rehabilitation and growth.

Yet Alabama’s transfer laws ignore this entire body of scientific knowledge.

Even more troubling, youth transferred to adult court are 34% more likely to reoffend than youth who remain in the juvenile system. Adult criminal processing actively harms public safety.

Meanwhile, evidence-based juvenile programs, such as family therapy, restorative justice practices, and community-centered interventions, can reduce recidivism by up to 40%.

Everything we know about youth development suggests that rehabilitation, not punishment, protects communities.

Everything we know about juvenile justice suggests that children should never be housed in adult jails.

Everything we know about solitary confinement suggests that no human, let alone a child, should endure it.

And yet here she was, enduring it.

What Isolation Does to a Child

It is one thing to read the research. It is another to watch a child absorb its consequences.

When I visit her, she tries to be brave. She sees me on the video monitor and forces herself to smile, though the strain shows in her eyes. She tells me about the silence in the jail at night, the way it wraps around her like a heavy blanket. She talks about missing school — math class, of all things — and how she used to dream about graduating. She describes the fear, the uncertainty, the way days blend into each other until she loses track of time entirely.

She has asked me more than once if anyone remembers she is only seventeen.
She wonders whether her life outside those walls still exists.
She apologizes for crying — apologizes for being scared, as if fear is a defect rather than a reasonable response to months of isolation.

Watching her navigate the psychological toll of solitary confinement is one of the most difficult experiences I have had as an advocate. The changes have been slow, subtle, and painful: her posture tenser, her voice quieter, her expressions more guarded, her hope more fragile.

Children are resilient, but resilience has limits.
Solitary confinement breaks adults.
What it does to children is indescribable.

A woman in despair.
A woman in despair. By yupachingping; Adobe Stock. File #: 246747604

Why Alabama Must Reform Its Juvenile Transfer Laws

The more I researched, the more I understood that her story is not an exception; it is a predictable outcome of Alabama’s laws.

Ending this harm requires several critical reforms:

  1. Eliminate automatic transfer.

A child’s fate should not be decided by statute alone. Judges must be empowered to consider the full context — trauma history, level of involvement, mental health, maturity, and the circumstances of the offense.

  1. Ban housing minors in adult jails.

Other states have already taken this step. Alabama must follow.

  1. End juvenile solitary confinement.

Solitary confinement is not a protective measure; it is a human rights violation.

  1. Expand access to juvenile rehabilitation programs.

The science is clear: youth rehabilitation supports public safety far more effectively than punishment.

  1. Increase statewide transparency.

Alabama must track how many minors are transferred, how they are housed, and how long they remain in adult facilities. Without data, there can be no accountability.

She Deserves Justice

I am writing a policy brief because of her.
I studied this policy landscape because of her.
I advocate for systemic change because of her.

Her story is woven into every sentence of my research, every recommendation I’ve made, every argument I’ve formed. She is the reason I cannot walk away from this fight, not when I’ve witnessed what the system does to the children most in need of protection.

She deserves safety.
She deserves support.
She deserves a justice system that recognizes her humanity.

And she is not alone. There are countless children in Alabama — many living in poverty, many from marginalized communities, many without stable adult support — who are forced into adult systems that were never designed for them.

Their stories matter.
Their lives matter.
And the system must change.

Light falling over a girl's eyes.
Light falling over a girl’s eyes. By stivog; Adobe Stock. File #: 422569932

What You Can Do

If you believe that children deserve dignity, fairness, and protection, here are ways to support change:

  • Support organizations working to reform youth justice in Alabama:
    Equal Justice Initiative, Alabama Appleseed, ACLU of Alabama, or me — I can use all the help I can get.
  • Share this story to help build awareness.
  • Contact state legislators and demand an end to automatic transfer and juvenile solitary confinement.
  • Become a CASA and advocate for children whose voices are often ignored.
  • Vote in local elections, especially for district attorneys, sheriffs, and judges — leaders whose decisions directly impact youth.

Conclusion: Children Are Not Adults—Alabama’s Laws Must Reflect This Truth

The science is clear, the research is clear, and the human impact is undeniable.
Children are developmentally different. Children are vulnerable. And, in my opinion, children deserve grace, understanding, and second chances.

When we place children in adult jails, when we isolate them for months, when we treat them as if they are beyond repair, we do more than violate their rights—we violate our own values as a society.

The 17-year-old girl I have advocated for over the past three years is a reminder of what is at stake. She is not a statistic. She is not a file number. She is a child — a child whose life, dignity, and future must matter as much as any adult’s.

She is the beginning of my story in this work, and she remains at its heart.
Her experience makes it impossible to ignore the urgency of reform.
And her resilience makes it impossible to lose hope.

Alabama can do better.
Alabama must do better.
And children like her are counting on us to make sure it happens.

Woman behind bars
Woman behind bars; By primipil; Adobe Stock. File #: 524235023

The Toll of Iran’s Women‑Led Rights Movement: A Psychological Standpoint

Woman Life Freedom
Image 1: “Woman Life Freedom” The slogan highlights courage and persistence in the global struggle for equality and justice. Source: Adobe Stock #1657149359

On September 16, 2022, the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Jina Amini while in the custody of Iran’s morality police ignited a nationwide uprising. What began as protests over hijab enforcement evolved into a broader demand for freedom and justice under the slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom.” But beyond the political stakes, this movement has unleashed profound psychological consequences for individuals and society; it is a crisis at the intersection of human rights and mental health.

An Overview of the Crisis

Women in Iran began revolting after the death of 22-year-old Mahsa (Jina) Amini, who was arrested by the country’s “morality police” in September 2022 for allegedly wearing her hijab too loosely. Witnesses reported that she was beaten in custody, and she died shortly afterward, becoming a symbol of the everyday oppression that Iranian women face under strict mandatory hijab laws and decades of state surveillance, harassment, and punishment. Her death ignited widespread anger, leading women and girls to remove their hijabs, cut their hair, and protest the broader system of gender-based control. This outrage quickly expanded beyond Amini herself, sparking one of the largest protest movements in Iran’s recent history and drawing nationwide support.

The protests triggered by Amini’s death were among the largest Iran had seen in decades, spreading to more than 150 cities. State repression followed swiftly: reports indicate that security forces used lethal force, detained thousands, and committed acts of torture and sexual violence against protesters. A UN fact-finding mission later concluded that many of these violations may amount to crimes against humanity, including murder, imprisonment, torture, and persecution, particularly targeting women. Despite international outcry, accountability has been limited, and the psychological wounds continue to deepen.

The Weaponization of Psychiatry

One of the most chilling psychological tactics used by the Iranian regime against participants in the recent protests is the involuntary psychiatric hospitalization of dissenters. Authorities have publicly admitted that some student protesters were sent to “psychological institutes” during and after the protests, not for genuine mental illness, but as a tool to “re-educate” them.

In one particularly disturbing case, Ahoo Daryaei, a doctoral student who protested by partially removing her hijab in public, was reportedly forcefully disappeared and likely sent to a psychiatric hospital. Labeling protest behavior as “madness” isn’t just stigmatizing; it’s a deliberate form of repression rooted in misusing mental health institutions. Psychiatrists inside and outside Iran have condemned this practice as a gross violation of human rights.

Trauma, Anxiety, and Depression

The violence of the crackdown and the constant threat to safety have caused widespread psychological trauma. But even those not visibly injured describe deep emotional scars.

In interviews and counseling settings, psychologists report a surge in anxiety and depression among young women across Iran. A female psychotherapist described how girls in small towns, once relatively isolated, entered into a state of “heightened awareness” after Amini’s death, but also into frustration and internal conflict:

“This newfound awareness has disrupted their previous state of relative comfort … tension and conflict within their families have become an added burden …”

These emotional struggles are compounded by the fact that some girls feel guilty or disloyal to their families when they defy expectations, which is a significant psychological burden. On a broader level, the constant surveillance, repression, and societal division fuels pervasive fear. A published analysis of Iran’s protests noted that protest-related trauma is not just physical but deeply psychological, affecting individuals’ ability to trust, belong, and imagine a safer future.

Collective Psychology: Identity, Resilience & Social Change

Despite the repression, the movement has fostered powerful collective resilience and identity. Psychologically, protests like these are often rooted in social identity theory: people come together around a shared sense of injustice (in this case, gender-based oppression and state violence) and develop strong bonds that motivate collective action.

One manifestation of this is the growing refusal of women to wear the hijab, which is becoming seen as a normalized act of civil disobedience. This symbolic rejection has become a form of psychological resistance. Rather than waiting for external change, many Iranians are asserting internal agency and self-determination.

This quiet revolution isn’t risk-free. Protesters face brutality, arrest, and psychological harm. But for many, the act of defiance itself is a source of empowerment and a way to reshape their own sense of identity, purpose, and belonging in a context that so blatantly denies them autonomy.

Iranian woman protesting
Image 2: Iranian woman protesting. Source: Adobe Stock, Mumpitz, #543171718

Intergenerational Effects & the Future

The mental health impacts of the crackdown are likely to have long-term, intergenerational consequences. Children and teenagers exposed to violence, either directly or via their families, may carry trauma that affects their development, academic performance, and relationships. For some, the protests represent a break from generational patterns of silence or submission, but that break comes with a cost.

Moreover, the lack of institutional accountability, as documented by Human Rights Watch and the UN, compounds the trauma. Without justice or recognition, survivors may struggle to process their experiences, leading to lasting emotional scars. Yet, there is hope: the persistence of the movement, even in the face of brutal repression, suggests that for many Iranians, psychological healing and human-rights change are intertwined. The continued refusal to comply, the daily acts of resistance, and the communal memory of trauma may all serve as foundations for a future built on dignity and freedom.

Why This Is a Human Rights and Mental Health Crisis

From a human-rights perspective, what’s happening in Iran is not just political suppression, but also a systematic campaign of gendered persecution, psychological control, and enforced conformity. The UN mission concluded that many of the regime’s actions amounted to crimes against humanity, including persecution, torture, and sexual violence.

Psychologically, the use of psychiatric institutions to silence dissenters violates fundamental principles of autonomy and mental integrity. Even more, the widespread trauma threatens social cohesion, sense of identity, and collective well-being. The mental health crisis is not a side effect, it’s central to the human rights violations. Without addressing both the physical and psychological consequences, the wounds of this movement will remain unhealed, and the foundation for meaningful justice and reform will be unstable.

What Needs to Happen

Addressing this crisis requires coordinated action on multiple fronts. International accountability and support are essential, with bodies like the UN and international courts pressing for justice, accountability, and reparations for victims of repression, while countries with universal jurisdiction consider investigating human rights abuses, including psychological repression. Mental health infrastructure and aid must also be expanded, with support from international organizations to provide trauma counseling and remote psychosocial assistance to Iranians both inside and outside the country who lack safe access to care. Protecting dissenters from psychiatric abuse is critical; international psychiatry associations should condemn involuntary hospitalizations of protesters and provide clear guidelines for safeguarding patients’ rights, while diplomatic or economic pressure could be directed at institutions complicit in these abuses. Finally, empowering local and global solidarity is vital: amplifying the voices of Iranian activists, particularly women, and supporting cultural forms of resistance such as music, art, and storytelling can promote healing, identity formation, and collective resilience.

Conclusion

The “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement in Iran is more than a political uprising; it’s a psychological battleground. The regime’s brutal crackdown is not only a violation of bodily rights but of mental integrity. People are being traumatized, surveilled, pathologized, and denied justice. Yet in the face of repression, they are also cultivating a new collective identity, resilience, and purpose. Understanding this crisis through a psychological lens is essential. It reminds us that human rights are not abstract ideals; they are woven into our mental well-being, our capacity to heal, to resist, and to imagine a freer future.

Catcalling Isn’t Just a Safety Issue

  What is Catcalling?

When I was 13 years old, I was helping tear shingles off the roof. It was the middle of the day, so cars were driving up and down the road. One car had the top down and a group of guys were in it. My back was towards them, but I heard whistles and yelps. When I turned around they were already speeding away.

Everyone might have a slightly different definition of catcalling; it can be based on things someone has heard, seen, or experienced. The official definition of catcalling is “a loud, sexually suggestive, threatening or harassing call or remark directed at someone publicly.” This behavior can include sexual comments and remarks, whistles, following someone in public, and even indecent exposure. While anyone can experience it, women have historically been, and continue to be, the main targets.

 In a study done by Colleen O’Leary of Illinois State University, women were interviewed about their experiences with catcalling. Most of them defined catcalling as “a man yelling sexual or derogatory comments towards a woman.” The majority of participants said that it is a verbal and audible gesture, while others said that they would consider things like staring and other suggestive behaviors as catcalling as well. It is important to remember that individual experiences shape your definition, and just because it is different from someone else’s, does not make it wrong.

Impact of Catcalling

For the women experiencing it, catcalling is almost never positive. While most men, when asked, said that it was their way of “complimenting” a woman, the women experiencing these comments did not agree that catcalling felt like a compliment. Catcalling is a form of sexual harassment, the consequences of which are not small or harmless. Girls as young as 11 years old, and even younger, will receive unprompted commentary on their appearances. Exposure to objectification at such a young age can cause feelings of shame, body image issues, anxiety, and vulnerability.

A girl sitting at a school desk staring out to the side, it looks like she is distracted and not paying attention
Caption: Girl distracted in school. By: Seventyfour Source: Adobe Stock Asset ID#: 906974163

By the age of seventeen, 85% of girls claim that they have been sexually harassed. When 5,000 women were asked about their experience, 85% of them said that they choose alternate routes (often longer ones) to get to their destinations to avoid experiencing unwanted attention. Another study of 4,900 women found that more than a third had been late to school or work because of street harassment.

These studies show that catcalling is not innocent. Those who experience sexual harassment can have feelings of absent mindedness and a lack of focus. Research shows that girls who experienced objectification by men perform worse academically, especially in mathematics. Unlike a compliment, which makes someone feel good, this makes girls doubt themselves and diminishes them to “objects”.

Safety Issues

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that all people have the right to life, liberty and security, which includes feeling secure and safe in public spaces. For most women, catcalling can quickly lead to feeling unsafe in an area where they expect to experience catcalling. In a study done by Colleen O’Leary of Illinois State, it is reported that women felt fear when they had to walk alone at night, use public transit, or walk in desolate public spaces like parking garages.

A woman standing at a fenced dimly lit bridge in the dark looking outward before she walks forward.
Caption: Woman walking at night By: Haru Works Source: Adobe Stock Asset ID#: 576642516

Some women have stated that they have cancelled plans and social outings, not because they did not want to go, but in fear of being harassed. The need to avoid catcalling and potential street harassment outweighed the experience they would get when hanging out with their friends. A smaller percentage of women reported that they packed up their things and decided to move towns. Imagine packing up your life and leaving your family, friends, and work behind because you don’t feel safe in the streets of the town you live in.

In a podcast hosted by Ayesha Rascoe, she interviewed a person who came up with an exhibit idea where males would get to experience getting catcalled by other men. Women from the Sacramento region, where this exhibit took place, were asked to send in their stories of being catcalled. Their submissions were then recorded in studios with men reading the submissions out loud. The idea of the exhibit was a dark hallway with a mirror in the middle. This was meant to provide an auditory experience. When men got to the mirror, they would put on headphones that would play a montage of the recorded submissions of catcalls, all while staring at themselves in the mirror.

This exhibit was visited by people all over the world, and both men and women came to experience it. Women who went in came out and stated that they felt validated and seen. Men came out of the exhibit crying and pleading for forgiveness. A lot of them claimed that they had never realized the impact catcalling carried. For most of them this was the first time that they experienced anything like this. And while this was a controlled environment, and there was no imminent danger, it made real situations that much scarier. Walking out of the exhibit, you are unscathed, bothered, but unharmed. The same is not true for real scenarios where women have experienced it.

Economic Issues

As mentioned previously, a research study showed that girls who have experienced objectification tend to perform worse in school, specifically in subjects like math. However, this is not exclusive to a school setting. Women experiencing objectification from the opposite sex, often experience enhanced feelings of self-objectification. Studies have shown that this has consequences of hindering focus and the ability to concentrate. In turn, it leads to inadequate performance in mathematical fields or during times when logical reasoning is required.

A woman looking angry at a man.
Caption: A woman looking angry at a man. By: Drobot Dean Source: Adobe Stock Asset ID#: 94475250

In one study, college girls were left alone in a dressing room for 10 minutes and asked to complete a math test. The only difference is that some girls were wearing swimsuits, while the others wore sweaters. The women who were dressed in swimwear performed poorer on the test compared to those in sweaters. The same study was completed on college males, and there was negligible difference in their test scores regardless of what they were wearing.

This is important because in both studies it is apparent that, when girls experience feelings of sexualization or think that they are in danger of being perceived in sexual contexts, they tend to underperform on daily tasks. This puts them at a disadvantage in both the classroom and in the workplace, which might help explain why the male and female gap in STEM fields remains high.

Conclusion

While there are no legal repercussions that are meant to protect women, or anyone, from catcalling in the US, it is beginning to be recognized as a legitimate form of sexual harassment. In 2022, Britain included catcalling and street sexual harassment as crimes that would hold a two-year jail punishment. By doing this they are aiming to create a safer environment for their citizens.

Additionally, by creating immersive exhibits like the ones in Sacramento, along with protective laws, there is hope that catcalling and street harassment will be a thing of the past. As societies move towards a safer tomorrow, it is important to remember those who have been impacted by this. The more this gets spoken about and the more experiences are shared, the bigger an impact will be created.

Finally, it is important to step in when someone needs help. When witnessing an instance of street harassment or catcalling, statistically, bystanders will not engage because they assume someone else will help. With this mentality, those being affected by catcalling and street harassment are left without help. If you come across this, do not be the one who thinks someone else will step in. If it is safe for you to do so, then calling the police, intervening, or even creating a distraction can make all the difference for someone.

AI in Mental Health Diagnostics

Digital cloud earth floating on neon data circle grid in cyberspace particle wave.
Image 1: Digital cloud earth floating on neon data circle grid in cyberspace particle wave. Adobe Express Stock Images. ZETHA_WORK. #425579329

In recent years, the promise of artificial intelligence (AI) in mental-health care has grown rapidly. AI systems now assist in screening for depression or anxiety, help design treatment plans, and analyze huge volumes of patient data. However, emerging evidence shows that these systems are not neutral: they can embed and amplify bias, threaten rights to equality and non‐discrimination, and have psychological consequences for individuals. We’ll be examining how and why bias arises in AI applications for mental health, the human rights implications, and what psychological effects these developments may carry.

The Rise of AI in Mental Health

AI’s application in mental health is appealing. Many people worldwide lack timely access to mental-health professionals, and AI systems promise scale, cost-efficiency, and new capabilities, like detecting subtle speech or behavioral patterns, that might identify issues earlier. For example, algorithms trained on speech patterns aim to flag depression or PTSD in users.

In principle, this could extend care to underserved populations and reduce the global burden of mental illness. But the technology is emerging in a context of longstanding disparities in mental health care; differences in who is diagnosed, who receives care, and who gets quality treatment.

How Bias Enters AI-based Mental Health Tools

Bias in AI systems does not begin with the algorithm alone; it often starts with the data. Historical and structural inequities, under-representation of certain demographic groups, and sensor or model limitations can all embed biased patterns that then get automated.

A recent systematic review notes major ethical issues in AI interventions for mental health and well‐being: “privacy and confidentiality, informed consent, bias and fairness, transparency and accountability, autonomy and human agency, and safety and efficacy.”

In the mental health screening context, a study from the University of Colorado found that tools screening speech for depression or anxiety performed less well for women and people of non‐white racial identity because of differences in speech patterns and model training bias. A separate study of four large language models (LLMs) found that for otherwise identical hypothetical psychiatric cases, treatment recommendations differed when the patient was identified (explicitly or implicitly) as African American, suggesting racial bias.

These disparities matter: if a diagnostic tool is less accurate for certain groups, those groups may receive delayed or improper care or be misdiagnosed. From a rights perspective, this raises issues of equality and non-discrimination. Every individual has a right to healthcare of acceptable quality, regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other status.

Human Rights Implications

Right to health and equitable access

Under human rights law, states have obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to health. That includes ensuring mental health services are available, accessible, acceptable and of quality. If AI tools become widespread but are biased against certain groups, the quality and accessibility of care will differ, and that violates the equality dimension of the right to health.

Right to non-discrimination

The principle of non-discrimination is foundational: individuals should not face less favorable treatment due to race, gender, language, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, or other prohibited grounds. If an AI mental health tool systematically under-detects problems among women or ethnic minorities or over-targets mental-health evaluation for other groups, discrimination is implicated. For instance, a study found LGBTQIA+ individuals were much more likely to be recommended mental health assessments by AI tools than was clinically indicated based on socioeconomic or demographic profile.

Right to privacy, autonomy and dignity

Mental health data is deeply personal. The use of AI to screen, predict or recommend treatment based on speech, text or behavior engages issues of privacy and autonomy. Individuals must be able to consent, understand how their data is used, challenge decisions, and access human oversight. The systematic review flagged “autonomy and human agency” as core ethical considerations.

Accountability and due process

When decisions about screening, diagnosis, or intervention are influenced by opaque algorithms, accountability becomes unclear. Who is responsible if an AI tool fails or produces biased recommendations? The software developer? The clinician? The institution? This ambiguity can undermine rights to remedy and oversight. The “Canada Protocol” checklist for AI in suicide prevention emphasized the need for clear lines of accountability in AI-driven mental health systems.

Differential labeling and stigma

When AI systems target certain groups disproportionately, for example, recommending mental health assessments for lower-income or LGBTQIA+ individuals when not clinically indicated, it may reinforce stigma. Being singled out for mental health screening based on demographic profile rather than actual need can produce feelings of being pathologized or surveilled.

Bias in therapeutic relationship

Mental health care depends heavily on the relationship between a person and their clinician. Trust, empathy, and feeling understood often determine how effective treatment will be. When someone believes their provider truly listens and treats them fairly, they’re more likely to engage and improve. But if technology or bias undermines that sense of understanding, people may withdraw from care or lose confidence in the system.

Reduced effectiveness or misdiagnosis

If an AI tool under-detects depression among certain groups, like women or ethnic minorities, and that leads to delayed treatment, then the psychological impact of possible longer suffering, increased severity, and reduced hope is real and harm-producing. One study found that AI treatment recommendations were inferior when race was indicated, particularly for schizophrenia cases.

These psychological effects show that bias in AI is not just a technical defect; it can ripple into lived experience, identity, mental health trajectories, and rights realization.

Chatbot conversation Ai Artificial Intelligence technology online customer service.
Image 2: Chatbot conversation with AI technology online customer service. Adobe Express Stock Images. khunkornStudio.
#567681994

Why AI Bias Persists and What Makes Mental Health AI Especially Vulnerable

Data limitations and under-representation

Training data often reflect historical care patterns, which may under-sample certain groups or encode socio-cultural norms that do not generalize. The University of Colorado study highlighted that speech-based AI tools failed to generalize across gender and racial variation.

Hidden variables and social determinants

One perspective argues that disparities in algorithmic performance arise not simply from race labels but also from un-modelled variables, such as racism-related stress, generational trauma, poverty, and language differences, all of which affect mental health profiles but may not be captured in datasets.

Psychology of diagnostic decision-making

Mental health diagnosis is not purely objective; it involves interpretation, cultural nuance, and relational trust. AI tools often cannot replicate that nuance and may misinterpret behaviors or speech patterns that differ culturally. That raises a psychological dimension: people from different backgrounds may present differently, and a one-size-fits-all tool may misclassify them.

Moving Toward Rights-Respecting AI in Mental Health

Given the stakes for rights and psychology, what should stakeholders do? Below are guiding principles anchored in human rights considerations and psychological realities:

  1. Inclusive and representative datasets
    AI developers should ensure that training and validation data reflect diverse populations across race, gender, language, culture, and socioeconomic status. Without this, bias will persist. Datasets should also capture social determinants of mental health, such as poverty, trauma, and discrimination, rather than assuming clinical presentations are uniform.
  2. Transparency, explainability, and human oversight
    Patients and clinicians should know if an AI tool is being used and how it functions, and they should remain able to challenge its outputs. Human clinicians must retain decision-making responsibility; AI should augment, not replace, human judgement, especially in mental-health care.
  3. Bias-testing and ongoing evaluation
    AI tools should be tested for fairness and performance across demographic groups before deployment, and, once deployed, they should be continuously monitored. One large study found that AI recommendations varied significantly by race, gender, and income.
    Also, mitigation techniques are emerging to reduce bias in speech- or behavior-based models.
  4. Rights to remedy and accountability
    When AI-driven systems produce harmful or discriminatory outcomes, individuals must have paths to redress. Clear accountability must be established among developers, providers, and institutions. Regulatory frameworks should reflect human rights standards: non-discrimination, equal treatment, and access to care of quality.
  5. Psychological safety and dignity
    Mental health tools must respect the dignity of individuals, allow for cultural nuance, and avoid pathologizing individuals based purely on demographic algorithms. The design of AI tools should consider psychological impacts: does this tool enhance trust, reduce stigma, and facilitate care, or does it increase anxiety, self-doubt, or disengagement?
  6. Translate rights into policy and practice
    States and professional bodies should integrate guidelines for AI in mental health into regulation, licensing, and accreditation structures. Civil society engagement, which includes patient voices, mental-health advocates, and rights organizations, is critical to shaping responsible implementation.

Looking Ahead: Opportunities and Risks

AI has enormous potential to improve access to mental health care, personalize care, and detect risks earlier than ever before. But, as with many new technologies, the impacts will not be equal by default. Without a proactive focus on bias, human rights, and psychological nuance, we risk a two-tier system: those who benefit versus those left behind or harmed.

In a favorable scenario, AI tools become transparent and inclusive, and they empower both clinicians and patients. They support, rather than supplant, human judgement; they recognize diversity of presentation; they strengthen trust and equity in mental health care.
In a less favorable scenario, AI solidifies existing disparities, misdiagnoses or omits vulnerable groups, and erodes trust in mental-health systems, compounding rights violations with psychological harm.

The path that materializes will depend on choices made today: how we design AI tools, how we regulate them, and how we embed rights and psychological insight into their use. For people seeking mental health support, equity and dignity must remain at the heart of innovation.

Conclusion

The use of AI in mental health diagnostics offers promise, but it also invites serious rights-based scrutiny. From equality of access and non-discrimination to privacy, dignity and psychological safety, the human rights stakes are real and urgent. Psychologists, technologists, clinicians, regulators and rights advocates must work together to ensure that AI supports mental health for all, not just for some. When bias is allowed to persist, the consequences are not only technical, but they’re also human.

Neurorights and Mental Privacy

Neurons cells concept, whitehoune, #170601825
Image 1: Conceptual illustration of neuron cells, whitehoune, Adobe Express Stock Images, #170601825

As neuroscience and commercial neurotechnology advance, a new human-rights conversation is emerging: who controls the contents of the mind? This question, framed as “neurorights,” aims to protect mental privacy, personal identity, and cognitive liberty as technologies that can read, interpret, or modulate brain activity move from labs into clinics and consumer markets.

Imagine a person using a sleek, wireless headband marketed to boost productivity. The device measures tiny electrical signals from their scalp, brainwaves that reflect attention, stress, and fatigue levels. This neural data is sent to a companion app that promises personalized “focus insights.” Yet behind the scenes, that same data can be stored, analyzed, and even shared with advertisers or insurers who want to predict behavioral patterns. Similar EEG-based devices are already used in classrooms, workplaces, and wellness programs, raising questions about who owns the data produced directly by our brains and how it might shape future decisions about employment, education, or mental health.

What are neurorights?

“Neurorights” is an umbrella term for proposed protections covering mental privacy (control over access to one’s neural data), cognitive liberty (the freedom to think without undue intrusion or manipulation), mental integrity (protection from harmful interference with brain function), and fair access to cognitive enhancements. Advocates argue these protections are needed because neural signals, unlike most data, are deeply tied to personal identity, emotion, and thought.

Why human rights framing matters

Framing these issues as human-rights questions does more than add vocabulary; it shifts the burden from optional ethics to enforceable obligations. Rights language foregrounds duties of states and powerful actors (companies, employers, security services) A rights framework also helps center vulnerability. People detained in criminal justice systems, psychiatric patients, low-income communities, and marginalized groups may face disproportionate risks of coercive or exploitative uses of neurotechnology.

The psychological stakes concerning selfhood

Psychology offers essential insights into why neural intrusions are psychologically distinct from other privacy breaches. Anticipated or actual access to one’s neural signals can change behavior, prompting self-censorship, anxiety about inner experiences, or altered identity narratives as people adapt to the possibility that their private mental states might be exposed, interpreted, or changed.

Moreover, interventions that modulate mood, memory, or decision-making, whether therapeutic or commercial, reach into capacities that underpin agency and moral responsibility. Psychology research shows that perceived loss of agency can undermine motivation, increase helplessness, and disrupt social relationships; applied at scale, these individual effects could reshape community life and civic participation.

Current technologies and real-world uses

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), invasive implants, noninvasive electroencephalography (EEG) headsets, and machine-learning models that decode neural patterns are no longer just speculative. Companies developing clinical implants aimed at restoring lost motor function and consumer devices marketed for wellness, focus, or gaming generate neural data that, if mishandled, could reveal health conditions, emotional states, or behavioral tendencies.

Reports and investigations have raised alarms about both safety and governance, questioning lab practices, clinical oversight, and whether companies adequately protect highly sensitive neural signals. Meanwhile, policymakers and researchers are documenting opaque data practices among consumer neurotech firms and urging regulators to treat neural data as especially sensitive.

Where governments and institutions are acting

Latin America has been a notable early mover on neurorights. Chile passed constitutional protections and subsequent legislation explicitly recognizing rights tied to mental privacy and brain integrity, signaling a precautionary approach to neurotechnology governance. Regional advocacy and legal scholarship have spread the debate through Mexico, Brazil, and other jurisdictions.

Outside Latin America, regulatory efforts differ. Subnational privacy laws in places like Colorado have moved to include neural or biological data under sensitive-data protections, and U.S. senators have urged federal scrutiny of how companies handle brain data. At the international level, UNESCO and other bodies are mapping ethical frameworks for neurotech and its impact on freedom of thought and personal identity.

Psychological harms and social inequality

Human-rights concern about neurotech is not simply theoretical. Psychological harms from intrusive neurotechnology can include sustained anxiety about mental privacy, identity disruption if neural signatures are used to label or stigmatize people, and coerced behavioral modification in institutional settings.

These harms are likely to be unequally distributed, with some groups facing fewer safeguards and greater exposure to surveillance or coercion. Rights-based governance should therefore combine privacy protections with equity measures, ensuring safeguards are accessible to those most at risk.

Human brain illustration, Adobe Express Stock Images, Hein Nouwens, #141669980
Image 2: Human brain illustration, Adobe Express Stock Images, Hein Nouwens, #141669980

Benefits and risks

After discussing so many potential risks of neurotech, it’s important to acknowledge that this technology also has legitimate benefits: neurotechnologies offer therapeutic promise for paralysis, severe depression, epilepsy, and other conditions where traditional treatments fall short. The human-rights approach is not about halting innovation; it’s about steering it so benefits don’t come at the cost of fundamental freedoms, dignity, or mental integrity.

Principles for rights-respecting governance

Based on human-rights norms and psychological science, several practical principles can help guide policy and practice:

  1. Mental-privacy-first data rules. Neural data should be treated as inherently sensitive, requiring explicit, revocable, and informed consent for collection, use, and sharing, plus clear limits on secondary uses.
  2. Strong procedural safeguards in clinical research. Trials for invasive devices must meet rigorous safety, animal-welfare, and informed-consent standards to protect participants’ welfare and dignity.
  3. Transparency and oversight for commercial neurotech. Companies should disclose data flows, model-training practices, and any commercial sharing of neural signals, and independent audits and enforceable penalties should deter misuse.
  4. Protection against coercion. Employment, school, or criminal-justice settings should be barred from coercively requiring neural monitoring or interventions without robust legal protections and judicial oversight.
  5. Equity and access. Policies should avoid creating two-tier systems where only affluent groups receive safe, beneficial neurotech while others suffer surveillance or low-quality interventions; public health pathways for safe therapeutic access are essential.
  6. Legal recognition of cognitive liberties. Where feasible, codifying protections for mental privacy and mental integrity, at least as part of sensitive-data regimes and health-privacy laws, creates enforceable rights rather than aspirational principles.

What psychology researchers can do

Psychologists and behavioral scientists are well placed to measure and communicate the human impacts of neurorights policy choices. Empirical studies can probe how perceived neural surveillance influences stress, self-concept, and social behavior; intervention trials can test consent processes and mental-privacy safeguards; and qualitative work can amplify vulnerable groups’ lived experiences.

What civil society and rights advocates should watch

Advocates should monitor corporate data practices and any opaque sharing of neural signals, laws that would allow state access to neural data for security or law-enforcement purposes without adequate safeguards, and the commercialization of consumer BCIs that escape medical regulation yet collect deeply personal neural information. Public interest litigation, public education campaigns, and multi-stakeholder policy forums can help shape accountable pathways.

A cautious optimism

The rise of neurorights shows that society can respond proactively to emerging technologies. Chile’s early steps and subnational privacy laws signal that legal systems can adapt to protect inner life, and UNESCO and scientific communities are actively debating ethical frameworks. But these steps are the beginning, not a solution. Meaningful protection requires global attention, interdisciplinary research, and enforceable rules that place human dignity and psychological well-being at the center.

Conclusion

Neurotechnology promises real benefits for health and human flourishing, but it also raises unprecedented questions about mental privacy and the boundaries of state and corporate power. A human-rights approach, guided by psychological evidence about identity, agency, and harm, offers a way to balance innovation with dignity. Protecting the privacy and integrity of our minds is not just technical policy; it’s a defense of what it means to be a person.

“Hidden in Plain Sight”: Child Sex Trafficking in Alabama

On a humid summer morning in 2025, investigators in Bibb County, Alabama, followed a tip to a property behind a small home in the city of Brent. They say they discovered an underground bunker that had been repurposed into a site of horrific abuse involving at least 10 children, ages 3 to 15. Seven individuals, some of them related to the victims, were arrested on charges that included human trafficking, rape, sexual torture, and kidnapping. The sheriff called it the worst case he had seen in three decades, and more arrests could still come as the investigation develops.

Adobe Stock. File #: 297986967; ‘Shadows in a dark black room.’ By Светлана Евграфова

Stories like this are shocking, but they are not isolated. Sex trafficking thrives in secrecy and shame, and it depends on community silence to survive. This post explains what sex trafficking is under federal and Alabama law, how recent state legislation increased penalties, what warning signs look like in everyday settings, and exactly how to report concerns safely.

What the Law Means by “Sex Trafficking”

Federal law (TVPA & 18 U.S.C. § 1591)

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) is the main federal law to fight human trafficking. It created programs to prevent trafficking, protect survivors, and prosecute traffickers. A key part of this law is 18 U.S.C. § 1591, which makes sex trafficking a serious federal crime. It says that anyone who recruits, transports, or profits from someone in sex trafficking, especially minors, or adults forced by fraud, threats, or coercion, can face very long prison sentences and hefty fines. The law focuses on both holding traffickers accountable and assisting survivors in rebuilding their lives. Importantly, force, fraud, or coercion does not need to be proven when the victim is under 18. That is the bright line of federal law: a child cannot consent to commercial sex.

Adobe Stock. File #: 298570791; ‘Stop child abuse. Human is not a product.’ By AtjananC.

Alabama makes human trafficking a serious crime under its criminal code.

  • First-degree trafficking (Ala. Code § 13A-6-152): This covers forcing someone into sexual servitude or exploiting a minor for sex.
  • Second-degree trafficking (Ala. Code § 13A-6-153): This includes recruiting, transporting, or making money from trafficking, even if the person isn’t directly exploiting the victim.

In April 2024, Alabama passed the “Sound of Freedom Act” (HB 42). This law increased penalties: if someone is convicted of first-degree trafficking involving a minor, they must receive a life sentence, making the punishment even stronger than the usual Class A felony.

Before HB 42, Alabama’s Class A felonies carried 10–99 years or life. The new law removes judicial discretion for minor-victim cases by requiring at least life imprisonment upon conviction for first-degree trafficking.

Adobe Stock; File #209721316; ‘Offender criminal locked in jail’. By methaphum

Why “Coercion” Isn’t Always What You Think

In the public imagination, trafficking looks like kidnapping by strangers. Sometimes it is. More often, it looks like grooming and manipulation by someone the child knows, an older “boyfriend,” a family member, a family acquaintance, someone who offers rides, cash, substances, or a place to crash. Under both federal and Alabama law, proof of force, fraud, or coercion is not required when the victim is under 18, because the law recognizes how easily minors can be exploited.

Where Sex Trafficking Hides—And the Red Flags

Trafficking can occur in short-term rentals, hotels, truck stops, private residences, and online (through social media, gaming platforms, and messaging apps). No community is immune – rural, suburban, and urban areas all see cases. You may notice a child who:

  • Is suddenly disengaged from school and activities
  • Has unexplained injuries
  • Has new “friends” and gifts
  • Has an adult who answers for them
  • Has restricted movement
  • Has signs of deprivation
  • Appears coached in what to say.
Adobe Stock: File #:176601576. Woman sitting on bed in room with light from window. By yupachingping

Educators, coaches, healthcare providers, youth pastors, and even neighbors are often the first to spot concerns. Alabama’s recent case in Bibb County proves that abuse networks can be family-linked and community-embedded, not organized by only outsiders. Trust your instincts; the law backs you up when you report in good faith.

If You See Something: How to Report in Alabama

  • Immediate danger? Call 911.
  • Children (under 18): In Alabama, make a report to your county Department of Human Resources (DHR) or local law enforcement. DHR maintains a county-by-county contact directory and guidance on how to report child abuse/neglect.
  • National Human Trafficking Hotline (24/7): 1-888-373-7888, text 233733 (BeFree), or chat online. Advocates provide confidential help and can connect callers to local services.

A note for mandated reporters:

Alabama’s mandated reporting law (Ala. Code § 26-14-3) requires many professionals, including teachers, healthcare workers, counselors, clergy, and others, to report suspected child abuse or neglect immediately. When in doubt, report; you do not have to prove trafficking to act.

What “Safe Harbor” Means for Children

Across the U.S., Safe Harbor policies aim to treat exploited minors as victims who need services, not as offenders. While states differ in how these protections are implemented, the core idea is consistent: a child who has been bought and sold should receive trauma-informed care and not face prosecution for acts stemming from exploitation. If you work with youth, be aware that Alabama’s human trafficking statutes align with this child-protection lens, and service providers can help navigate options.

A Real Case, Real Lessons

Return to Bibb County. According to reports, some victims in the alleged bunker case were kept underground, drugged, and “sold” to abusers; one suspect is accused of distributing child sexual abuse material. Community members later asked how this could have continued for years without intervention. The uncomfortable answer: it’s easy to miss what you’re not looking for, and it’s hard to report what you can’t imagine happening. That’s why awareness, clear reporting pathways, and strong laws all matter.

Adobe Stock: File #: 495335081 ‘Hidden in plain sight. Closeup shot of a beautiful young womans eye’. By Marco v.d Merwe/peopleimages.com

Practical Steps You Can Take This Week

  1. Save the Hotline: Put 1-888-373-7888 in your phone under “Human Trafficking Hotline.” Please share it with colleagues and students in age-appropriate ways.
  2. Know your local contact: Look up your county DHR reporting number and bookmark it. If you work in a school or clinic, post it in staff areas.
  3. Review indicators: Spend 10 minutes with DHS’s Blue Campaign indicators and guidance for identifying victims. Consider how these apply in your setting (classroom, clinic, church, etc.).
  4. Clarify your duty to report: If you’re a mandated reporter, review Alabama’s summary materials and your organization’s internal protocol to be prepared before a crisis.
  5. Combat myths: Remember, children cannot consent to commercial sex, and proof of force or violence is not required for a child sex trafficking case under federal law.

Bottom Line

Sex trafficking can surface anywhere—including small Alabama towns. Federal law treats any commercial sexual exploitation of a minor as trafficking, full stop; Alabama now backs that stance with one of the harshest penalties in the country when the victim is a child. Awareness is not enough unless it’s paired with action: see the signs, make the call, and let the system take care of the rest.

Adobe Express Stock Images. File #: 300469288; ‘IT’S TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT’. By New Africa

Economy and Exploitation: The AI Industry’s Unjust Labor Practices

I remember when ChatGPT first started gaining popularity. I was a junior in high school, and everyone around me couldn’t stop marveling over its seemingly endless capabilities. The large language model could write essays, answer physics questions, and generate emails out of thin air. It felt to us, sixteen and seventeen-year-olds, like we had discovered magic – a crystal ball that did whatever you told it.

I’m writing this, three years later, to break the news that it is, unfortunately, not magic. Artificial Intelligence (AI) relies on human input at nearly every stage of its preparation and verification. From content moderation to data collection, outwardly automated AI systems require constant human intervention to ensure the algorithm runs smoothly and sensically. This intervention calls for human labor to sift through and manage a given model’s data and performance. But where does this labor come from? And what are the implications of these workers’ invisibility to the public?

Labor Source

On the surface, it appears that Big Tech companies such as OpenAI, Sama, Meta, and Google are bearing the brunt of the labor it takes to develop and operate their AI systems. A closer look reveals that the human labor these AI systems require is distributed across the globe. These massive companies employ subcontractors to hire and manage workers who will perform the countless small, repetitive tasks required. These subcontractors, looking for maximum profit, often hire workers from less developed countries where labor rights are less strictly enforced and wages are not stringently regulated. What does this mean? Cheap, exploitative labor. Those living in poverty, refugee camps, and even prisons have been performing data tasks for subcontractors like Amazon Mechanical Turk and Clickworker. The outsourcing of workers in countries such as India and Kenya by affluent businesses in mostly Western countries seems to perpetuate patterns of exploitation and colonialism and play into global wealth disparities. 

Woman in a chair looking at computer screens
Crowdsourced Woman Monitors Data. Source: Adobe Stock

Wages

On top of the larger systemic implications of wealthier countries’ outsourcing their labor to less affluent countries, the individual workers themselves often suffer human rights abuses regarding wages.

According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), wage theft is a pressing issue when it comes to crowdworkers; this is due to employers denying wages to anyone who is deemed to have completed their tasks incorrectly. Issues with software and the flagging system can result in employers withholding wages due to completed tasks being labelled as incorrectly done. In the ILO’s survey, only 12 percent of crowdworkers conceded that all of their task fulfillment rejections were justifiable, with the majority claiming that only some of them were warranted. In other instances, pay can take the form of vouchers or gift cards, some of which are deemed invalid upon use. Unexpected money transfer fees and hidden fines can also result in wages being lower than initially expected or promised. 

Woman looking at her phone and credit card in shock.
Woman Looks at Her Wages, Which Are Lower than Expected. Source: Adobe Stock

Even if outsourced workers did always get paid correctly, it usually doesn’t amount to much. According to an ILO survey, the median earnings of microworkers were 2 US dollars an hour. In one specific case in Madagascar, wages were as low as 41 cents an hour. These workers are being paid far less than a livable wage under the excuse that their work is menial and performed task-by-task. The denial of wages and the outsourcing companies’ low pay rates violate ‘equal pay for equal work’ under Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

For some in periphery countries like India and Venezuela, data microwork is people’s only source of income. Its convenience and accessibility are attractive to those who don’t have the resources to apply for typical jobs, but its wages do not pay for the decent standard of living that is outlined in the UDHR in Article 25. As one microworker from Venezuela said in an interview with the BBC, “You will not live very well, but you will eat well.” 

 

Working Conditions

In addition to low wages, crowdworkers often face human rights violations regarding working conditions, and most of them are largely unable to access methods to advocate for better treatment from their employers. For those who classify and filter data, a day at work may include flagging images of graphic content, including murder, child sexual abuse, torture, and incest. This was the case for Kenyans employed by Sama and subsequently OpenAI; workers have testified to having recurring visions of the horrors they’ve seen, describing their tasks as torturous and mentally scarring. Many requests for mental health support are denied or not fulfilled. These experiences make workers vulnerable to developing post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and emotional numbness.

 

Woman covering her face as she looks at a laptop.
Woman Looks At Disturbing Images as She Monitors Data. Source: Adobe Stock

In one instance, the subcontractor Sama shared the personal data of one crowdworker with Meta, including parts of a non-disclosure agreement and payslips. Other workers on Amazon Mechanical Turk experienced privacy violations like “sensitive information collection, manipulative data aggregation and profiling,” and methods of scamming and phishing. This arbitrary collection and abuse of workers’ private data directly violates Article 12 of the UDHR, which enshrines the protection of privacy as a human right.

The nature of crowdwork is such that individuals work remotely and digitally, granting more power to the contractors over their workers and significantly diminishing microworkers’ capacity to take collective action and compromise with employers for better conditions. This independent contractor relationship between employers and employees has weakened the ability for microworkers to unionize and bargain with their contractors. Employers are able to rate crowdworkers poorly, which often results in the rejection of workers when they attempt to find new tasks to fulfill. There are few ways for workers to review their employers’ performance in a similar way, creating an unjust power imbalance between employer and employee, and various violations of labor rights. The possible convenience of self-employment and remote work comes with surrendering basic workers’ rights, such as “safeguards against termination, minimum wage assurances, paid annual leave, and sickness benefits”. Each of these aspects of microwork denies employees the labor rights outlined in Article 23 of the UDHR, another direct violation of human rights by these outsourcing companies. 

What’s Next?

The first step to addressing the human rights violations that are facing outsourced Artificial Intelligence data microworkers is ensuring their visibility. Dismantling the narrative of Artificial Intelligence models as fully automated systems and raising awareness about the essential roles microworkers play in the preparation and validating of data can help garner public attention. Since many of these crowdworkers are employed abroad, it is also important for advocates to highlight the exploitation that these tech companies and contractors are profiting from. In addition, because these workers have little bargaining power, making their struggles visible and starting dialogue with companies on their behalf can be a crucial step towards ensuring that microworkers have access to their human and privacy rights. While research and policy continues to expand regarding AI’s impact on the labor force, it is essential that academics and lawmakers alike consider the effects on the whole production chain, including low-wage workers abroad, rather than just the middle-class domestic workforce. Finally, it is imperative that big tech businesses and the crowdsourcing companies they contract with are held publicly accountable for their practices and policies when it comes to wages, payment methods, mental health resources, working conditions, and unionization. These initiatives can begin only once the public becomes aware of the exploitation of these invisible workers. So, the next time someone throws a prompt at ChatGPT, start a conversation about how reliant AI is on human labor. Only then can we start to grant visibility to microworkers and work towards change.

Children’s Shows Today: Their Impact on Child Development and Behavior 

Overview 

Children’s television shows have a big influence on how young children learn and behave in a time when digital media permeates every aspect of daily life. Both positive and negative consequences can result from the content children consume, ranging from social skills and cognitive development to emotional regulation and moral development. It is crucial to look at how these shows affect young audiences in both positive and possibly negative ways as programming keeps changing to include new themes and methods of education.  

Young boy watching television.
Image 1: Young boy watching television. Source: Yahoo! Images

The Evolution of Children’s Programming  

Over the past few decades, children’s television has undergone substantial changes. The foundation for media aimed at teaching literacy, social skills, and emotional intelligence was established by conventional educational shows such as Sesame Street and Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. These programs’ emphasis on realistic relationships, slow-paced storytelling, and likable characters made it possible for young viewers to learn things in an entertaining yet developmentally appropriate way.  

Children’s programming nowadays comes in various forms, such as interactive series, educational cartoons, stories with an adventure theme, and content that is only available on streaming services. As digital platforms like Netflix, Disney+, and YouTube Kids have grown in popularity, kids now have more access to content than ever before. Although this accessibility opens new avenues for enjoyment and education, it also brings up issues with screen time, the suitability of the content, and the long-term consequences of digital consumption.  

Positive Impacts of Children’s Shows  

Cognitive and Language Development   

A lot of children’s programs are made with learning objectives in mind. Storytelling, problem-solving, and language development are all incorporated into shows like Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood, Bluey, and Dora the Explorer. According to research, preschool-aged children can benefit from well-structured educational programs that help them detect patterns, develop critical thinking skills, and improve their language skills. Asking questions and waiting for answers are examples of interactive components that promote active engagement as opposed to passive viewing.  

Social and Emotional Learning   

Children’s shows often cover concepts like cooperation, empathy, and conflict resolution. While Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood specifically teaches emotional regulation techniques through songs and relevant scenarios, Paw Patrol and Doc McStuffins are examples of programs that show teamwork and problem-solving. Children may benefit from these components as they learn to manage their own emotions and social situations.  

Cultural Awareness and Diversity   

Diverse cultures, languages, and family patterns are being reflected in modern children’s programs. Children are exposed to diverse customs and viewpoints through shows like Elena of Avalor and Molly of Denali, which promote inclusivity and deepen their awareness of the world. These programs encourage tolerance and open-mindedness in young viewers by exposing them to a range of experiences and backgrounds.  

Encouragement of Creativity and Imagination   

Imagination and artistic expression can be fostered by the storytelling, music, and creative problem-solving emphasized in many children’s shows. Children may think creatively outside the screen, thanks to shows like Peppa Pig and Curious George, which promote curiosity, exploration, and imaginative play. 

child looking at a laptop
Image 2: Child looking at a laptop. Source: Yahoo! Images

Potential Negative Effects of Children’s Shows  

Screen Time and Passive Consumption   

Excessive screen time is one of the biggest issues with children’s television. Children between the ages of two and five should not spend more than an hour a day on high-quality screens. Long-term use of screens can lead to problems regulating concentration, sleep issues, and decreased physical activity. The advantages of educational programs may also be limited by passive consumption, in which kids watch without actively participating or absorbing the content.  

Behavioral Imitation and Aggression   

Fast-paced action scenes, exaggerated facial expressions, or even mild hostility are all part of the narrative of several children’s television programs. Although many shows aim to teach morality and problem-solving skills, some topics may unintentionally encourage impulsive action. According to studies, kids who often watch fast-paced, action-packed television may be more aggressive or have trouble controlling their impulses than kids who watch informative, slower-paced programs. 

Commercialization and Consumerism   

Extensive merchandising, ranging from toys and apparel to branded snacks, is associated with many well-known children’s programs. Early brand loyalty is fostered by the frequent appearance of characters from popular television series like Paw Patrol and Frozen on a variety of consumer goods. As children may form strong brand preferences as a result of media exposure, this may encourage imaginative play but also mayraise worries about materialism and the commercialization of childhood.  

Unrealistic Expectations and Stereotyping   

Even though they are entertaining, certain children’s television showscould encourage irrational expectations about relationships, achievement, and life. Certain programs may subtly reinforce preconceptions through gender-specific roles, idealized character depictions, or overstated problem resolutions. When it comes to helping kids think critically about what they watch and promoting conversations about the implications for real life, parents and other adults play an important part.  

The Role of Parents and Caregivers  

Given the possible advantages and disadvantages of children’s programming, parental participation is still crucial to maximizing the beneficial effects and reducing the negative ones. Sometips forconsuming media responsibly are:  

Co-Viewing and Discussion. Watching programs with children allows caregivers to explain concepts, answer questions, and reinforce positive messages. Discussing themes and moral lessons can deepen understanding and encourage critical thinking.  

Setting Limits on Screen Time. Establishing boundaries for television and digital device use ensures that children engage in a balanced mix of activities, including physical play, reading, and social interactions.  

Selecting High-Quality Content.Choosing age-appropriate, educationally enriching programs can enhance learning experiences. Platforms like PBS Kids and Sesame Workshop offer well-researched content that aligns with developmental needs.  

Encouraging Active Engagement.Rather than passive viewing, caregivers can promote active engagement by asking children about what they watched, encouraging them to reenact stories, or relating on-screen lessons to real-life situations.  

Conclusion  

Children’s television shows continue to significantly impact the behavior and development of young viewers. Excessive screen time and exposure to inappropriate content can be problematic, while well-designed programs can promote learning, creativity, and social-emotional development. Parents who actively participate and establish a balance between education and fun can help children benefit from media use in a constructive and developmentally appropriate way. Supporting the upcoming generation of young viewers will require constant research and careful content creation as technology and storytelling continue to advance.  

 

Human Rights Concerns at Tesla’s Texas Gigafactory 

 Overview 

The Austin, Texas-based Tesla Gigafactory is regarded as a pillar of innovation, pushing the boundaries in sustainable production and economic expansion. However, serious human rights issues have emerged behind the news of economic revival and technical advancement. These problems, which range from claims of discrimination and labor exploitation to infractions of workplace safety, expose a concerning aspect of Tesla’s operations. As a leader in renewable energy and technology, Tesla needs to maintain ethical business standards in its establishments, particularly as public scrutiny increases.  

red tesla vehicle fob supercharger
Image 1: Red Tesla vehicle fob supercharger. Source: Yahoo! Images

 

Workplace Safety Concerns 

Workplace safety is one of the Gigafactory’s most urgent human rights issues. After discovering that four employees at the Austin site had been exposed to dangerous chemicals without the appropriate training or safety precautions, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) penalized Tesla close to $7,000 in November 2024. Hexavalent chromium, an extremely hazardous material that can cause cancer, damage to the kidneys, and serious respiratory problems, was being handled by the workers. OSHA claims that workers in the Cybertruck body area were exposed to significant health hazards because they lacked the necessary training to handle hazardous materials.  

Apart from this offense, Tesla is also being investigated for the August 2024 worker death that was recorded at the facility. Even though the incident’s specifics are unknown until OSHA’s investigation is finished, it raises more concerns about the factory’s safety procedures and supervision. This is not an isolated problem for Tesla; the firm has been repeatedly criticized for its record on workplace safety in several locations, which suggests a systemicissue.  

Employee reports present a worrisome image. Workers have complained that safety instruction is either hurried or superficial, with little focus on long-term precautions. Some believe that speed and output are given precedence over worker safety due to Tesla’s focus on increasing production for vehicles such as the Cybertruck. This conflict between safety and efficiency draws attention to a crucial area where Tesla’s company operations deviate from ethical standards.  

Wage Theft and Exploitation 

Widespread criticism has also been directed at labor violations that occurred during the Texas Gigafactorydevelopment. A Texas-based nonprofit group called the Workers Defense Project complained to the U.S. Department of Labor in November 2022 on behalf of construction workers employedat the facility. According to the allegations, employees were sometimes not paid at all and were not paid for overtime. Contractors are also accused of giving employees phony safety training certifications, which essentially left them unprepared for the dangers they encountered on the job site. 

These labor violations reflect a larger problem with supply chain management at Tesla. Tesla indirectly supports exploitative activities by using subcontractors who compromise workers’ protections. Under the possibility of losing their jobs, construction workers, many of whom are immigrants, said they felt pressured into dangerous working conditions. In addition to breaking labor regulations, such actions also go against fundamental human rights values, which place an emphasis on treating employees fairly and with dignity.  

The problem is made worse by the contractors’ lack of responsibility. Employees who tried to report dangerous working conditions or wage fraud frequently faced retaliation or disregard. This cycle of exploitation shows how urgently Tesla must strengthen its oversight of its contractors to guarantee compliance with ethical standards and labor laws.  

Environmental Hazards and Worker Safety 

Although the Austin Gigafactory’s environmental practiceshave come under fire, Tesla’s dedication to sustainability is a fundamental component of its brand identity. There were rumors in November 2024 that a broken furnace door had exposed the facility’s employees to temperatures as high as 100 degrees Fahrenheit. According to reports, this problem lasted for months as Model Y manufacturing ramped up, seriously affecting worker comfort and safety. 

Additionally, Tesla was accused by a whistleblower of manipulating furnace operations to pass emissions tests. This manipulation prompted wider environmental concerns in addition to putting workers at risk of exposure to dangerous pollutants. Tesla’s public pledge to sustainability and environmental responsibility is compromised when it uses unethical means to satisfy regulatory requirements.  

These environmental risks exacerbate an already difficult and, at times, dangerous work environment for employees. Reports of excessive temperatures, chemical fume exposure, and insufficient ventilation reveal a pattern of carelessness that endangers workers. In addition to harming employees, these circumstances damage Tesla’s standing as a leader in environmentally friendly technology.  

Tesla car production factory
 Image 2: Tesla car production factory. Source: Yahoo! Images 

Allegations of (Potential) Racial Discrimination 

Claims of racial discrimination have also sparked criticism of Tesla’s workplace culture. Although its facility in Fremont, California, has received a lot of attention, its challenges are representative of largerissues that could affect its operations in Texas. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Tesla in September 2023, claiming that Black workers at the Fremont facility experienced widespread racial harassment. The lawsuit described instances of graffiti, racial epithets, and a toxic workplace where complaints were frequently disregarded. Workers who reported such instances were subject to retribution, which included negative employment changes and terminations.  

Even though these claims are specific to Tesla’s California plant, they raise important concerns about the company’s work environment and whether the Texas Gigafactory is engaging in similar activities. According to reports from former workers, Tesla’s leadership has had difficulty addressing concerns of equity and inclusivity within the company. Such claims reveal a stark discrepancy between a company’s internal procedures and public image, which is concerning for a forward-thinking business.  

Broader Implications for Human Rights 

The human rights violations at Tesla’s Gigafactory in Texas are not isolated events; rather, they are a part of a wider trend of unethical behavior by the business. Communities like Austin have benefited economically from Tesla’s quick growth and innovation-focused approach, but worker safety, ethical labor standards, and environmental responsibility shouldn’t be sacrificed for these advantages.  

Furthermore, the significance of Tesla’s actionsis increased by itsinfluence. Being one of the most well-known businesses in the world, Tesla sets the standard for how big businesses can balance innovation and morality. Tesla runs the danger of damaging its reputation and alienating both staff and customers if it doesn’t sufficiently address thesehuman rights issues.  

Steps Toward Ethical Practices 

Tesla must take swift action to change the way it operates and address theseconcerns. First and foremost, the business needs to make a stronger commitment to workplace safety by putting in place comprehensive training programs and making sure that all workers, whether they are contracted or directly employed, have enough protection. Regular audits are part of this to find and fix safety hazards before they cancause harm.  

Labor practices also need to see substantial reform. Tesla needs to hold contractors accountable for wage theft and other violations by implementing stricter oversight mechanisms. Ensuring that workers are paid fairly and on time is not just a legal obligation, but a moral imperative.  

Environmental responsibility must be prioritized as well. Tesla’s innovative reputation relies on its commitment to sustainability, and this should extend to its factory operations. Adhering to environmental regulations and maintaining transparency in emissions testing are important steps toward rebuilding trust.  

Finally, fostering an inclusive workplace culture is essential for addressing allegations of discrimination. Tesla would benefit from establishing clear channels for employees to report harassment and discrimination without fear of retaliation. Regular training on diversity and inclusion can also help create a more equitable environment for all workers.  

Conclusion 

These major concerns at Tesla’s Texas Gigafactory are a sobering reminder of the ethical challenges accompanying rapid industrial growth. From workplace safety violations to wage theft and allegations of discrimination, these issues stress the gaps in Tesla’s operations that demand immediate attention. Given its influence, Tesla has a unique opportunity to set an example for ethical corporate practices.  

By addressing these concerns head-on, Tesla can ensure that its growth benefits its bottom line and the workers and communities contributing to its success. Ultimately, the true measure of Tesla’s impact will be its technological achievements and its commitment to upholding the fundamental rights and dignity of its workforce.  

 

Griefbots: Blurring the Reality of Death and the Illusion of Life

Griefbots are an emerging technological phenomenon designed to mimic deceased individuals’ speech, behaviors, and even personalities. These digital entities are often powered by artificial intelligence, trained on data such as text messages, social media posts, and recorded conversations of the deceased. The concept of griefbots gained traction in the popular imagination through portrayals in television and film, such as the episode “Be Right Back” from the TV series Black Mirror. As advancements in AI continue to accelerate, griefbots have shifted from speculative fiction to a budding reality, raising profound ethical and human rights questions.

Griefbots are marketed as tools to comfort the grieving, offering an opportunity to maintain a sense of connection with lost loved ones. However, their implementation brings complex challenges that transcend technology and delve into the realms of morality, autonomy, and exploitation. While the intentions behind griefbots might seem compassionate, their broader implications require careful consideration. With the rising intricacy of the morality of AI, I want to explore some of the ethical aspects of griefbots and ask questions to push the conversation along. My goal is not to strongly advocate for or against their usage but to engage in philosophical debate.

An image of a human face-to-face with an AI robot
Image 1: An image of a human face-to-face with an AI robot. Source: Yahoo Images

Ethical and Human Rights Ramifications of Grief Bots

Commercial Exploitation of Grief

The commercialization of griefbots raises significant concerns about exploitation. Grieving individuals, in their emotional vulnerability, may be susceptible to expensive services marketed as tools for solace. This commodification of mourning could be seen as taking advantage of grief for profit. Additionally, if griefbots are exploitative, it prompts us to reconsider the ethicality of other death-related industries, such as funeral services and memorialization practices, which also operate within a profit-driven framework. 

However, the difference between how companies currently capitalize on griefbots and how the death industry generates profit is easier to tackle than the other implications of this service. Most companies producing and selling griefbots charge for their services through subscriptions or minute-by-minute payments, distinguishing them from other death-related industries. Companies may have financial incentives to keep grieving individuals engaged with their services. To achieve this, algorithms could be designed to optimize interactions, maximizing the time a grieving person spends with the chatbot and ensuring long-term subscriptions. These algorithms might even subtly adjust the bot’s personality to make it more appealing over time, creating a pleasing caricature rather than an accurate reflection of the deceased.

As these interactions become increasingly tailored to highlight what users most liked about their loved ones, the griefbot may unintentionally alter or oversimplify memories of the deceased, fostering emotional dependency. This optimization could transform genuine mourning into a form of addiction. In contrast, if companies opted to charge a one-time activation fee rather than ongoing payments, would this shift the ethical implications? In such a case, could griefbots be equated to services like cremation—a one-time fee for closure—or would the potential for misuse still pose moral concerns?

Posthumous Harm and Dignity

Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher, famously argued that death is not harmful to the deceased because, once dead, they no longer exist to experience harm. Griefbots challenge the assumption that deceased individuals are beyond harm. From Epicurus’s perspective, griefbots would not harm the dead, as there is no conscious subject to be wronged. However, the contemporary philosopher Joel Feinberg contests this view by suggesting that posthumous harm is possible when an individual’s reputation, wishes, or legacy are violated. Misrepresentation or misuse of a griefbot could distort a person’s memory or values, altering how loved ones and society remember them. These distortions may result from incomplete or biased data, creating an inaccurate portrayal of the deceased. Such inaccuracies could harm the deceased’s dignity and legacy, raising concerns about how we ethically represent and honor the dead.

a version of Michelangelo's famous painting "The Creation of Adam" but with a robot hand instead of Adam's
Image 2: A robot version of Michelangelo’s painting “the Creation of Adam” Source: Yahoo Images

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Because griefbots are supposed to represent a deceased person, they have the potential to disrespect people’s dignity by falsifying that person’s reason and consciousness. By creating an artificial version of someone’s reasoning or personality that may not align with their true self, griefbots risk distorting their essence and reducing the person’s memory to a fabrication. 

But imagine a case in which an expert programmer develops a chatbot to represent himself. He perfectly understands every line of coding and can predict how the griefbot will honor his legacy. If there is no risk to the harm of his dignity, is there still an ethical issue at hand?

Consent and Autonomy

Various companies allow people to commission an AI ghost before their death by answering a set of questions and uploading their information. If individuals consent to create a griefbot during their lifetime, it might seem to address questions of autonomy. However, consent provided before death cannot account for unforeseen uses or misuse of the technology. How informed can consent truly be when the long-term implications and potential misuse of the technology are not fully understood when consent is given? Someone agreeing to create a griefbot may envision it as a comforting tool for loved ones. Yet, they cannot anticipate future technological advancements that could repurpose their digital likeness in ways they never intended.

This issue also intersects with questions of autonomy after death. While living individuals are afforded the right to make decisions about their posthumous digital presence, their inability to adapt or revoke these decisions as circumstances change raises ethical concerns. In HI-PHI Nation’s Podcast, The Wishes of the Dead, they explore how the wishes of deceased individuals, particularly wealthy ones, continue to shape the world long after their death. The episode uses Milton Hershey, founder of Hershey Chocolate, as a case study. Hershey created a charitable trust to fund a school for orphaned boys and endowed it with his company’s profits. Despite changes in societal norms and the needs of the community, the trust still operates according to Hershey’s original stipulations. Critics questioned whether continuing to operate according to Hershey’s 20th-century ideals was still relevant in the modern era, where gender equality and broader educational access have become more central concerns.

Chatbots do not have the ability to evolve and grow the way that humans do. Barry explains the foundation of this concept by saying, “One problem with executing deeds in perpetuity is that dead people are products of their own times. They don’t change what they want when the world changes.” And even if growth was implemented into the algorithm, there is no guarantee it would be reflective of how a person changes. Griefbots might preserve a deceased person’s digital presence in ways that could become problematic or irrelevant over time. Although griefbots do not have the legal status of an estate or will, they still preserve a person’s legacy in a similar fashion. If Hershey was alive today, would he modify his estate to reflect his legacy?

It could be argued that the difference between Hershey’s case and Chatbots is that wills and estates are designed to execute a person’s final wishes, but they are inherently limited in scope and duration. Griefbots, by contrast, have the potential to persist indefinitely, amplifying the damage to one’s reputation. Does this difference encompass the true scope of the issue at hand, or would it be viable to argue that if chatbots are unethical, then persisting estates would be equally unethical as well? 

A picture of someone having a conversation with a chatbot
Image 3: A person having a conversation with a chatbot. Source: Yahoo Images

Impact on Mourning and Healing

Griefbots have the potential to fundamentally alter the mourning process by offering an illusion of continued presence. Traditionally, grieving involves accepting the absence of a loved one, allowing individuals to process their emotions and move toward healing. However, interacting with a griefbot may disrupt or delay this natural progression. By creating a sense of ongoing connection with the deceased, these digital avatars could prevent individuals from fully confronting the reality of the loss, potentially prolonging the pain of bereavement.

At the same time, griefbots could serve as a therapeutic tool for some individuals, providing comfort during difficult times. Grief is a deeply personal experience and for certain people, using chatbots as a means of processing loss might offer a temporary coping mechanism. In some cases, they might help people navigate the early, overwhelming stages of grief by allowing them to “speak” with a version of their loved one, helping them feel less isolated. Given the personal nature of mourning, it is essential to acknowledge that each individual has the right to determine the most effective way for them to manage their grief, including whether or not they choose to use this technology.

However, the decision to engage with griefbots is not always straightforward. It is unclear whether individuals in the throes of grief can make fully autonomous decisions, as emotions can cloud judgment during such a vulnerable time. Grief may impair an individual’s ability to think clearly, and thus, the use of griefbots might not always be a conscious, rational choice but rather one driven by overwhelming emotion.

Nora Freya Lindemann, a doctoral student researching the ethics of AI, proposes that griefbots could be classified as medical devices designed to assist in managing prolonged grief disorder (PGD). PGD is characterized by intense, persistent sorrow and difficulty accepting the death of a loved one. Symptoms of this disorder could potentially be alleviated with the use of griefbots, provided they are carefully regulated. Lindemann suggests that in this context, griefbots would require stringent guidelines to ensure their safety and effectiveness. This would involve rigorous testing to prove that these digital companions are genuinely beneficial and do not cause harm. Moreover, they should only be made available to individuals diagnosed with PGD rather than to anyone newly bereaved to prevent unhealthy attachments and over-reliance.

Despite the potential benefits, the psychological impact of griefbots remains largely unexplored. It is crucial to consider how these technologies affect emotional healing in the long term. While they may offer short-term comfort, the risk remains that they could hinder the natural grieving process, leading individuals to avoid the painful yet necessary work of acceptance and moving forward. As the technology develops, further research will be essential to determine the full implications of griefbots on the grieving process and to ensure that they are used responsibly and effectively.

Conclusion

Griefbots are at the intersection of cutting-edge technology and age-old human concerns about mortality, memory, and ethics. While they hold potential for comfort and connection, their implementation poses significant ethical and human rights challenges. The concepts I explored only scratch the surface of the iceberg. As society navigates this uncharted territory, we must critically examine its implications and find ways to use AI responsibly. The questions it raises are complex, but they offer an opportunity to redefine how we approach death and the digital legacies we leave behind.