Submit
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Back to Blog

What Are Cookies? Types, Uses, & Why They’re Crumbling

October 21, 2020
|
Read time {time} min
Written by
Permission
Stay in the loop

Get the latest insights, product updates, and news from Permission — shaping the future of user-owned data and AI innovation.

Subscribe

It’s the end of the road for third-party cookies—and that’s a good thing.

Perhaps you don’t know what third party cookies are. Let’s begin by explaining why cookies exist at all.

What Is a Cookie?

A cookie is a parcel of data stored in the browser to speed-up and simplify interactions between the browser and a website it is connected to. Any data can be stored in a cookie.

How Do Cookies Work?

The browser provides a place where websites can store data when that website is being accessed, and the browser stores it. The idea was invented by Lou Montulli of Netscape Communications in 1994, the year that the Web was born.

The problem was that a PC could disconnect from a website for many reasons: the PC or the website might crash or the internet could disconnect. So the website cookie could store your identity data, your preferences, and maybe even session information. Then, if anything failed you could restart near to where you left off.

Since then things have become more complex and there are several different types of cookie, as follows.

The Different Types of Internet Cookies

The Session Cookie

These are temporary cookies that last only for the duration of a session. They tend to store mundane data like login credentials and usually evaporate when you reboot the computer or close the browser. They can also be used to help with website performance like ensuring fast page loads.

There’s unlikely to be anything objectionable stored in these cookies.

The Persistent Cookie

Websites that plant these cookies in your browser usually give them an expiration date, which could be any time from seconds to years.

You know you have a persistent identity cookie if you are on a website and reboot your computer only to discover when you return to the website that you are still logged in.

Such cookies are commonly used to track your on-site behavior and to tailor your user experience.

There is unlikely to be anything objectionable about these cookies either.

The Secure Cookie

These cookies assist with encryption and hence are definitely good guys. They are only transmitted securely (via HTTPS) and they are used to implement security on banking and shopping websites.

They keep your financial details secret but allow the site to remember those details.

The First-Party Cookie

All the above are examples of first-party cookies. Technically first-party simply means that it’s a two-way arrangement between you and the website. However, many websites monitor website traffic with help from external vendors, particularly Google with Google Analytics.

The cookies placed by Google for that purpose are usually thought of as first-party cookies because they just monitor the site visit. Think of them as first-party by proxy.

The Third-Party Cookie

Third-party cookies are what drives “behavioral advertising”. They are called third-party because none of the websites you visited put them there. They were slipped into your browser by some advertiser’s ad server.

Advertisers add tags to web pages so that in conjunction with the cookies they place, they can recognize you as you skip from one website to another. They build a user profile of you and your habits in the hope of targeting you more effectively.

Whichever way you look at this, it’s a violation. They do not seek your permission and they are aggressive.

The bad advertiser practices of the web depend on these cookies. They include:

  1. Cookie-bombing: This focuses on quantity over quality, to the detriment of both the user and the advertiser. It is “pray and spray”, matching the ad with neither the website nor the user. Think of, say, feminine hygiene products advertised to men who are visiting a bookstore website. Think of ads appearing in obscure places on a web page that you will never notice, except by accident.
  2. Incessant retargeting: This is where ads seem to follow you around the web from one site to another.

The March of the Ad Blocker

Nowadays, 30% or so of people use ad blockers. The top three reasons for doing so, according to GlobalWebIndex, are: too many ads (48%), ads are annoying or irrelevant (47%), ads are too intrusive (44%). A lot of this can be put down to the kind of ads that third-party cookies thrust upon you.

Ad blockers are a severe problem for the digital advertising industry. It isn’t just that most users would rather see no ads. The digital publishing industry has no easy way of making a profit other than by ads. Web-users visit news and magazine sites page by page rather than go to one or two sites for their news. The web has no equivalent of a newspaper or a magazine.

However, there can be synergy between websites and ads, where ads are found in the context of a website to which they relate. The ads for yachts on a yachting blog, hiking gear on hiking blogs, and so on. Brand advertisers don’t want their brand ads to appear just anywhere, they want the context of the ad to be brand-positive.

Most advertisers, like most web users, do not want what third party cookies deliver, and neither do the software companies that develop browsers.

The Cookie War and the Browsers

As I noted at the beginning of this blog, the days of the third-party cookie will soon be over. It has no useful allies. All the browsers are waging war on it.

Safari

It began with Apple. In 2017, it introduced “intelligent tracking prevention” to stop cross-site tracking by third-party cookies.

Since then, Apple has improved the capability to the point where Safari will tell you which ad trackers are running on the website you’re visiting and will provide a 30-day report of the known trackers it’s identified, and which websites the trackers came from. Safari now blocks most third-party cookies by default.

Of course, Safari has less than 10% of the browser market. So, on its own, that doesn’t spell the death of the third-party cookie.

Firefox

In 2017, the Firefox browser also moved towards stronger privacy adding an optional feature that restricted cookies, cache, and other data access so that only the domain that placed the cookie had access to it.

Since then, Firefox has tightened up its privacy features. Currently, Firefox offers three levels of privacy: “Standard” (the default), “Strict”, and “Custom”. Standard blocks trackers in private (i.e. incognito) windows; it blocks third-party tracking cookies and crypto-jacking. The Strict setting does the same but also blocks fingerprinting and trackers in all windows. The Custom setting allows you to tune your privacy settings in fine detail.

As a side note, perhaps you’ve not heard of crypto-jacking. This is when a website, without so much as a “by-your-leave”, puts a script in your browser which sits there, chugging away mining cryptocurrency for the website owner. Firefox can block that.

Maybe you’ve not heard of fingerprinting either. This is when a server gathers data about your specific configuration of software and hardware in order to “fingerprint” you (i.e. assign a unique technology identity to you).

There are many details that can be gathered: your browser version and type, your OS, the timezone, active plugins, language, screen resolution, browser settings, and so on. It is really unlikely that any two users have identical information.

One study estimated that there is only a 1 in 286,777 chance that another browser will have the same fingerprint as you. The fingerprint is used to track you as you move from website to website.

Firefox’s market share is similar to Safari’s — a little under 10%.

Microsoft’s Edge

A long time ago, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer was the dominant browser. Its market share gradually declined to a few percent and Microsoft decided to reinvent its browser with Edge.

Edge provides 3 privacy settings to choose from: “Basic”, “Balanced” (the default), and “Strict”. Balanced blocks trackers from sites you haven’t visited. Strict blocks almost all trackers. Basic block trackers used for crypto-hijacking and fingerprinting.

How much traction Edge will get is uncertain. Right now it seems to have about 4% of the browser market.

Opera

Despite a fairly low market share, Opera is perhaps the most highly functional browser. It provides configurable security that is as tight as any other, including a configurable built-in ad blocker, a crypto wallet, and a VPN. It has been offering such features since 2017.

Brave

This is another niche browser but with a much smaller user base than Opera.

By default, it blocks all ads, trackers, third-party cookies, crypto-hijacking, and third-party finger-printers. It even has a built-in TOR private browsing mode (TOR stands for “The Onion Router”, open-source software that enables fully anonymous communication).

Brave tends to attract users who care deeply about privacy.

If you add up the market share of the browsers already discussed, you get less than 30%. The market gorilla is Google Chrome with a little under 70% market share.

Google Chrome

The death knell of the third party cookie sounded loud when Google joined the opposition with its Chrome browser. Google has decided to eradicate that scourge over a space of 2 years. Chrome will soon have a Privacy Sandbox, a privacy-preserving API.

Naturally, Google is very pro advertisements — they are its core business. So with Chrome, it is unlikely to shoot itself in the foot. It is far more likely to skew the ad market to its advantage.

Google’s intentions, in outline, are to hold individual user information in Chrome’s Privacy Sandbox and allow ad tech companies to make API calls to it. When they do so they will get access to personalization and measurement data to help them target ads and measure their impact, but they will get no access to your personal details that might help them identify you. The advertisers will get targeting data only.

The question is: if you eliminate third-party cookies how can ad tech companies target users and measure an ad’s effectiveness? The Privacy Sandbox is Google’s answer. It will run trials and make adjustments over the next two years to get it right.

Because Google Chrome is open-source, other browsers will be able to analyze what Google is doing and imitate it, if they choose to.

Publishers are particularly concerned about the Cookie Wars, because they may become collateral damage. Google released a study claiming that removing third-party cookies would reduce publisher ad revenue by 52%.

Making sure the change doesn’t greatly damage publishers is a sensible priority. So Google’s upcoming trials will compare monetization for publishers between the old and new setup for Google’s digital ad business (Google’s search ads and YouTube are unaffected).

The iPhone and iPad, and IDFA

What is an IDFA? The abbreviation stands for IDentifier For Advertisers, Apple’s unique mobile device number provided to ad exchanges to help them track user interactions and behavior.

It is the mobile device’s equivalent of a third-party cookie, enabling user tracking, marketing measurement, attribution, ad targeting, ad monetization, device graphs, retargeting of individuals and audiences, and programmatic advertising from demand-side platforms (DSPs), supply-side platforms (SSPs), and exchanges.

If you were unaware that Apple assigns a number to your iOS device to help track you, I’m not surprised. It may be because it is an opt-out feature you have to notice and opt-out of to prevent its use (if you have an iPhone or iPad and wish to opt-out, go to Settings > Privacy > Advertising and then turn “Limit Ad Tracking” on).

Recently, however, because of Apple’s increasing concern for its customers’ privacy, it decided to make the IDFA opt-in for every single application. Thus, with the release of iOS 14 in September 2020, each app on your device will have to ask you if you want to opt-in and reveal your IDFA.

Apple‘s change of policy will have a negative impact on companies that provide mobile ad targeting, including Google, Facebook, and Twitter. It may also affect apps like Spotify, Uber, and Lyft that invest heavily in user acquisition and depend on user data from their apps.

Apple vs. Google

You can view what’s happening with respect to tracking as a struggle between Apple and Google.

On one side of the net is Apple. It has a very self-contained business model and has pursued it through good times and bad.

When you buy Apple, you tend to go the whole hog — Apple hardware on the desktop running the Mac OS and apps from the App Store. Your mobile phone is an iPhone running iOS with App Store apps and your tablet is an iPad. If you’re into digital watches it will likely be an Apple Watch.

Apple makes the hardware, nowadays even the chip gets a cut of most of the software and builds some of the apps itself. And, of course, it sells music, videos, podcasts, etc.

What it doesn’t care about is advertising revenue. Apple is an ad-free business and has no reason to care whether Google, Facebook, or any other advertising platform gets ad revenue from its devices or not. It is without an ax to grind. It cares about customer satisfaction, and thus its primary goal is to provide its users with bulletproof, but configurable privacy.

On the opposite side of the net, Google clearly wants to maximize its ad revenue. It is the last of the browser companies to prevent third-party cookies and it intends to do so in a way that does not damage its revenues.

But, when it comes to the mobile world it is poorly placed to dominate ad traffic on iOS devices. Right now, the iPhone has about half the cell phone market in the US, and Safari has more than 50% of the browser market on the iPhone. It also dominates browser usage on the iPad. Those Safari browsers have a simple setting to stop third-party cookies dead in their tracks.

Where the IDFA comes in is for placing ads in iOS apps. You probably didn’t know it but Google has an app called AdMob for placing ads in mobile apps. AdMob is installed in 1.5 million iOS apps of which, in total, there have been 375 billion downloads. Those ads generate revenue for the app maker, but now they only work if the user opts-in.

How many users do you think will want to opt-in for such ads? Perhaps none. Facebook plays the same game, by the way, but has less of the market. Its ad distribution app is installed on a whole host of iOS apps of which there have been billions of downloads.

You probably have some of those apps installed. Tim Cook’s point is that nobody asked for your permission to be an ad victim and yet those ad distribution apps are sitting there on your iPhone or iPad anyway. Well from here on in, permission will be required.

It’s All About Permission, Permission, Permission.

Let me explain my perspective on this. I don’t even like Apple’s solution, even though I think what they are doing is not exploitative.

At the birth of the Internet, cookies were an excellent idea that helped to maintain “session integrity”. They made the web work better. Since then, they have been bent badly out of shape and been used by the Internet giants to exploit anyone who ever lifted a mobile phone or touched a keyboard.

Any data stored that can enhance the technology and the user experience is welcome. Let’s not call such data cookies, let’s refer to it as “the performance data cache”. No-one should have any problem with technical innovators adding data to this cache if it improves your digital life.

Beyond that, there is no need whatsoever for cookies of any other kind. Let’s hope they sink into the dustbin of technology and never resurface.

It is crashingly obvious that any interaction between a person and a website should be completely device-independent. It is an interaction between a person, assisted by their stored personal data, and the website with all its capabilities, including its abilities to serve ads.

The user can give permission for the use of the data and the website can interact accordingly. Under these circumstances, the user can retain control and choose to allow the advertiser to examine all their personal data for the sake of targeting, especially if the advertiser is willing to reward the user for their time and data in watching its ads.

Kudos to those that facilitate the asking and granting of permission for use of data for the purpose of targeting. Permission does you one better and ensures that you are compensated for data shared. It’s the only fair and transparent solution. After all, it’s YOUR data.

Get the Agent

Unlock the value of your online experience.

Light gradient background transitioning from white to pale green with a subtle grainy texture.

Recent articles

Insights

California’s SB 243 and the Future of AI Chatbot Safety for Kids

Nov 21st, 2025
|
{time} read time

As a mom in San Diego, and someone who works at the intersection of technology, safety, and ethics, I was encouraged to see Governor Gavin Newsom sign Senate Bill 243, California’s first-in-the-nation law regulating companion chatbots. Authored by San Diego’s own Senator Steve Padilla, SB 243 is a landmark step toward ensuring that AI systems interacting with our children are held to basic standards of transparency, responsibility, and care.

This law matters deeply for families like mine. AI is no longer an abstract technological concept; it’s becoming woven into daily life, shaping how young people learn, socialize, ask questions, and seek comfort. And while many AI tools can provide meaningful support, recent tragedies - including the heartbreaking case of a 14-year-old boy whose AI “companion” failed to recognize or respond to signs of suicidal distress - make clear that these systems are not yet equipped to handle emotional vulnerability.

SB 243 sets the first layer of guardrails for a rapidly evolving landscape. But it is only the beginning of a broader shift, one that every parent, policymaker, and technology developer needs to understand.

Why Chatbots Captured Lawmakers’ Attention

AI “companions” are not simple customer-service bots. They simulate empathy, develop personalities, and sustain ongoing conversations that can resemble friendships or even relationships. And they are widely used: nearly 72% of teens have engaged with an AI companion. Early research, including a Stanford study finding that 3% of young adults credited chatbot interactions with interrupting suicidal thoughts, shows their complexity.

But the darker side has generated national attention. Multiple high-profile cases - including lawsuits involving minors who died by suicide after chatbot interactions - prompted congressional hearings, FTC investigations, and testimony from parents who had lost their children. Many of these parents later appeared before state legislatures, including California’s, urging lawmakers to put protections in place.

This context shaped 2025 as the first year in which multiple states introduced or enacted laws specifically targeting companion chatbots, including Utah, Maine, New York, and California. The Future of Privacy Forum’s analysis of these trends can be found in their State AI Report (2025).

SB 243 stands out among these efforts because it explicitly focuses on youth safety, reflecting growing recognition that minors engage with conversational AI in ways that can blur boundaries and amplify emotional risks.

SB 243 Explained: What California Now Requires

SB 243 introduces a framework of disclosures, safety protocols, and youth-focused safeguards. It also grants individuals a private right of action, which has drawn significant attention from technologists and legal experts.

1. What Counts as a “Companion Chatbot”

SB 243 defines a companion chatbot as an AI system designed to:

  • provide adaptive, human-like responses
  • meet social or emotional needs
  • exhibit anthropomorphic features
  • sustain a relationship across multiple interactions

Excluded from the definition are bots used solely for:

  • customer service
  • internal operations
  • research
  • video games that do not discuss mental health, self-harm, or explicit content
  • standalone consumer devices like voice-activated assistants

But even with exclusions, interpretation will be tricky. Does a bot that repeatedly interacts with a customer constitute a “relationship”? What about general-purpose AI systems used for entertainment? SB 243 will require careful legal interpretation as it rolls out.

2. Key Requirements Under SB 243

A. Disclosure Requirements

Operators must provide:

  • Clear and conspicuous notice that the user is interacting with AI
  • Notice that companion chatbots may not be suitable for minors

Disclosure is required when a reasonable person might think they’re talking to a human.

B. Crisis-Response Safety Protocols

Operators must:

  • Prevent generation of content related to suicidal ideation or self-harm
  • Redirect users to crisis helplines
  • Publicly publish their safety protocols
  • Submit annual, non-identifiable reports on crisis referrals to the California Office of Suicide Prevention

C. Minor-Specific Safeguards

When an operator knows a user is a minor, SB 243 requires:

  • AI disclosure at the start of the interaction
  • A reminder every 3 hours for the minor to take a break
  • “Reasonable steps” to prevent sexual or sexually suggestive content

This intersects with California’s new age assurance bill, AB 1043, and creates questions about how operators will determine who is a minor without violating privacy or collecting unnecessary personal information.

D. Private Right of Action

Individuals may sue for:

  • At least $1,000 in damages
  • Injunctive relief
  • Attorney’s fees

This provision gives SB 243 real teeth, and real risks for companies that fail to comply.

How SB 243 Fits Into the Broader U.S. Landscape

While California is the first state to enact youth-focused chatbot protections, it is part of a larger legislative wave.

1. Disclosure Requirements Across States

In 2025, six of seven major chatbot bills across the U.S. required disclosure. But states differ in timing and frequency:

  • New York (Artificial Intelligence Companion Models law): disclosure at the start of every session and every 3 hours
  • California (SB 243): 3-hour reminders only when the operator knows the user is a minor
  • Maine (LD 1727): disclosure required but not time-specified
  • Utah (H.B. 452): disclosure before chatbot features are accessed or upon user request

Disclosure has emerged as the baseline governance mechanism: relatively easy to implement, highly visible, and minimally disruptive to innovation.

Of note, Governor Newsom previously vetoed AB 1064, a more restrictive bill that might have functionally banned companion chatbots for minors. His message? The goal is safety, not prohibition.

Taken together, these actions show that California prefers:

  • transparency
  • crisis protocols
  • youth notifications…rather than outright bans.

This philosophy will likely shape legislative debates in 2026.

2. Safety Protocols & Suicide-Risk Mitigation

Only companion chatbot bills - not broader chatbot regulations - include self-harm detection and crisis-response requirements.

However, these provisions raise issues:

  • Operators may need to analyze or retain chat logs, increasing privacy risk
  • The law requires “evidence-based” detection methods, but without defining the term
  • Developers must decide what constitutes a crisis trigger

Ambiguity means compliance could differ dramatically across companies.

The Central Problem: AI That Protects Platforms, Not People

As both a parent and an AI policy advocate, I see SB 243 as progress – but also as a reflection of a deeper issue.

Laws like SB 243 are written to protect people, especially kids and vulnerable users. But the reality is that the AI systems being regulated were never designed around the needs, values, and boundaries of individual families. They were designed around the needs of platforms.

Companion chatbots today are largely engagement engines: systems optimized to keep users talking, coming back, and sharing more. A new report from Common Sense Media, Talk, Trust, and Trade-Offs: How and Why Teens Use AI Companions, found that of the 72% of U.S. teens that have used an AI companion, over half (52%) qualify as regular users - interacting a few times a month or more. A third use them specifically for social interaction and relationships, including emotional support, role-play, friendship, or romantic chats. For many teens, these systems are not a novelty; they are part of their social and emotional landscape.

That wouldn’t be inherently bad if these tools were designed with youth development and family values at the center. But they’re not. Common Sense’s risk assessment of popular AI companions like Character.AI, Nomi, and Replika concluded that these platforms pose “unacceptable risks” to users under 18, easily producing sexual content, stereotypes, and “dangerous advice that, if followed, could have life-threatening or deadly real-world impacts.” Their own terms of service often grant themselves broad, long-term rights over teens’ most intimate conversations, turning vulnerability into data.

This is where we have to be honest: disclosures and warnings alone don’t solve that mismatch. SB 243 and similar laws require “clear and conspicuous” notices that users are talking to AI, reminders every few hours to take a break, and disclaimers that chatbots may not be suitable for minors. Those are important: transparency matters. But, for a 13- or 15-year-old, a disclosure is often just another pop-up to tap through. It doesn’t change the fact that the AI is designed to be endlessly available, validating, and emotionally sticky.

The Common Sense survey shows why that matters. Among teens who use AI companions:

  • 33% have chosen to talk to an AI companion instead of a real person about something important or serious.
  • 24% have shared personal or private information, like their real name, location, or personal secrets.
  • About one-third report feeling uncomfortable with something an AI companion has said or done.

At the same time, the survey indicates that a majority still spend more time with real friends than with AI, and most say human conversations are more satisfying. That nuance is important: teens are not abandoning human relationships wholesale. But, a meaningful minority are using AI as a substitute for real support in moments that matter most.

These same dynamics appear outside the world of chatbots. In our earlier analysis of Roblox’s AI moderation and youth safety challenges, we explored how large-scale platform AI struggles to distinguish between playful behavior, harmful content, and predatory intent, even as parents assume the system “will catch it.” 

This is where “AI that protects platforms, not people” comes into focus. When parents and policymakers rely on platform-run AI to “detect” risk, it can create a false sense of security – as if the system will always recognize distress, always escalate appropriately, and always act in the child’s best interest. In practice, these models are tuned to generic safety rules and engagement metrics, not to the lived context of a specific child in a specific family. They don’t know whether your teen is already in therapy, whether your family has certain cultural values, or whether a particular topic is especially triggering.

Put differently: we are asking centralized models to perform a deeply relational role they were never built to handle. And every time a disclosure banner pops up or a three-hour reminder fires, it can look like “safety” without actually addressing the core problem - that the AI has quietly slipped into the space where a parent, counselor, or trusted adult should be.

The result is a structural misalignment:

  • Platforms carry legal duties and add compliance layers.
  • Teens continue to use AI companions for connection, support, and secrets.
  • Parents assume “there must be safeguards” because laws now require them.

But no law can turn a platform-centric system into a family-centric one on its own. That requires a different architecture entirely: one where AI is owned by, aligned to, and accountable to the individual or family it serves, rather than the platform that hosts it.

The Next Phase: Personal AI That Serves Individuals, Not Platforms

Policy can set guardrails, but it cannot engineer empathy.

The future of safety will require personal AI systems that:

  • are owned by individuals or families
  • understand context, values, and emotional cues
  • escalate concerns privately and appropriately
  • do not store global chat logs
  • do not generalize across millions of users
  • protect people, not corporate platforms

Imagine a world where each family has its own AI agent, trained on their communication patterns, norms, and boundaries.An AI partner that can detect distress because it knows the user, not because it is guessing from a database of millions of strangers.

This is the direction in which responsible AI is moving, and it is at the heart of our work at Permission.

What to Expect in 2026

2025 was the first year of targeted chatbot regulation. 2026 may be the year of chatbot governance.

Expect:

  • More state-level bills mirroring SB 243
  • Increased federal involvement through the proposed GUARD Act
  • Sector-specific restrictions on mental health chatbots
  • AI oversight frameworks tied to age assurance and data privacy
  • Renewed debates around bans vs. transparency-based models

States are beginning to experiment. Some will follow California’s balanced approach. Others may attempt stricter prohibitions. But all share a central concern: the emotional stakes of AI systems that feel conversational.

Closing Thoughts

As a mom here in San Diego, I’m grateful to see our state take this issue seriously. As Permission’s Chief Advocacy Officer, I also see where the next generation of protection must go. SB 243 sets the foundation, but the future will belong to AI that is personal, contextual, and accountable to the people it serves.

Project Updates

ASK Trading and Liquidity are Now Live on Base’s Leading DEX

Nov 14th, 2025
|
{time} read time

We’re excited to share that the ASK/USDC liquidity pool is now officially live on Aerodrome Finance, the premier decentralized exchange built on Base. This milestone makes it easier than ever for ASK holders to trade, swap, and provide liquidity directly within the Coinbase ecosystem.

Why This Matters

  • More access. You can now trade ASK directly through Aerodrome, Base’s premier DEX—and soon, through the Coinbase app itself, thanks to its new DEX integration.

  • More liquidity. ASK liquidity is already live in the USDC/ASK pool, strengthening accessibility for everyone.

  • More connection to real utility. As ASK continues to power the Permission ecosystem, this move brings its utility to DeFi, where liquidity meets data ownership + real demand for permissioned data.

How to Join In

  • Always confirm the official ASK contract address on Base before trading:
    0xBB146326778227A8498b105a18f84E0987A684b4
  • You can trade, provide liquidity, or simply watch the pool evolve — it’s all part of growing ASK’s footprint on Base.

Building on Base’s Vision

Base has quickly become one of the most vibrant ecosystems in crypto, driven by the vision that on-chain should be open, affordable, and accessible to everyone. Its rapid growth reflects a broader shift toward usability and real-world applications, something that aligns perfectly with Permission’s mission.

As Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has emphasized, Base isn’t just another Layer-2 — it’s the foundation for bringing the next billion users on-chain. ASK’s launch on Base taps directly into that movement, expanding access to a global audience and connecting Permission’s data-ownership mission to one of the most forward-thinking ecosystems in Web3.

100,000+ ASK Holders on Base 🎉

As of this writing, we’re proud to share that ASK has surpassed 100,000 holders on Base. This is a huge milestone that reflects the growing strength and reach of the Permission community.

From early supporters to new users discovering ASK through Base and Aerodrome, this growth underscores the demand for consent-driven data solutions that reward people for the value they create.

Providing Liquidity Has Benefits

When you add liquidity to the USDC/ASK pool, you’re helping deepen the market and improve access for other community members. In return, you’ll earn a share of trading fees generated by the pool.

And as Aerodrome continues to expand its ve(3,3)-style governance model, liquidity providers could see additional incentive opportunities in the future. Nothing is live yet, but the structure is there, and we’re watching closely as the Base DeFi ecosystem evolves.

It’s a great way for long-term ASK supporters to stay engaged and help grow the ecosystem while participating in DeFi on one of crypto’s fastest-growing networks.

What’s Next

ASK’s presence on Base is just the beginning. We’re continuing to build toward broader omnichain accessibility, more liquidity venues, and new ways to earn ASK. Each milestone strengthens ASK’s position as the tokenized reward for permission.

Learn More

📘 ASK Token Utilities & Docs

💧 Aerodrome Liquidity Pool

Disclaimer:
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Token values can fluctuate and all participation involves risk. Always do your own research before trading or providing liquidity.

Insights

Online Safety and the Limits of AI Moderation: What Parents Can Learn from Roblox

Nov 10th, 2025
|
{time} read time

Roblox isn’t just a game — it’s a digital playground with tens of millions of daily users, most of them children between 9 and 15 years old.

For many, it’s the first place they build, chat, and explore online. But as with every major platform serving young audiences, keeping that experience safe is a monumental challenge.

Recent lawsuits and law-enforcement reports highlight how complex that challenge has become. Roblox reported more than 13,000 cases of sextortion and child exploitation in 2023 alone — a staggering figure that reflects not negligence, but the sheer scale of what all digital ecosystems now face.

The Industry’s Safety Challenge

Most parents assume Roblox and similar platforms are constantly monitored. In reality, the scale is overwhelming: millions of messages, interactions, and virtual spaces every hour. Even the most advanced AI moderation systems can miss the subtleties of manipulation and coded communication that predators use.

Roblox has publicly committed to safety and continues to invest heavily in AI moderation and human review — efforts that deserve recognition. Yet as independent researcher Ben Simon (“Ruben Sim”) and others have noted, moderation at this scale is an arms race that demands new tools and deeper collaboration across the industry.

By comparison, TikTok employs more than 40,000 human moderators — over ten times Roblox’s reported staff — despite having roughly three times the daily active users. The contrast underscores a reality no platform escapes: AI moderation is essential, but insufficient on its own.

When Games Become Gateways

Children as young as six have encountered inappropriate content, virtual strip clubs, or predatory advances within user-generated spaces. What often begins as a friendly in-game chat can shift into private messages, promises of Robux (Roblox’s digital currency), or requests for photos and money.

And exploitation isn’t always sexual. Many predators use financial manipulation, convincing kids to share account credentials or make in-game purchases on their behalf.

For parents, Roblox’s family-friendly design can create a false sense of security. The lesson is not that Roblox is unsafe, but that no single moderation system can substitute for parental awareness and dialogue.

Even when interactions seem harmless, kids can give away more than they realize.

A name, a birthday, or a photo might seem trivial, but in the wrong hands it can open the door to identity theft.

The Hidden Threat: Child Identity Theft

Indeed, a lesser-known but equally serious risk is identity theft.

When children overshare personal details — their full name, birthdate, school, address, or even family information — online or with strangers, that data can be used to impersonate them.

Because minors rarely have active financial records, child identity theft often goes undetected for years, sometimes until they apply for a driver’s license, a student loan, or their first job. By then, the damage can be profound: financial loss, credit score damage, and emotional stress. Restoring a stolen identity can require years of effort, documentation, and legal action.

The best defense is prevention.

Teach children early why their personal information should never be shared publicly or in private chats — and remind them that real friends never need to know everything about you to play together online.

AI Moderation Needs Human Partnership

AI moderation remains reactive.

Algorithms flag suspicious language, but they can’t interpret tone, hesitation, or the subtle erosion of boundaries that signals grooming.

Predators evolve faster than filters, which means the answer isn’t more AI for the platform, but smarter AI for the family.

The Limits of Centralized AI

The truth is, today’s moderation AI isn’t really designed to protect people; it’s designed to protect platforms. Its job is to reduce liability, flag content, and preserve brand safety at scale. But in doing so, it often treats users as data points, not individuals.

This is the paradox of centralized AI safety: the bigger it gets, the less it understands.

It can process millions of messages a second, but not the intent behind them. It can delete an account in a millisecond, but can’t tell whether it’s protecting a child or punishing a joke.

That’s why the future of safety can’t live inside one corporate algorithm. It has to live with the individual — in personal AI agents that see context, respect consent, and act in the user’s best interest. Instead of a single moderation brain governing millions, every family deserves an AI partner that watches with understanding, not suspicion.

A system that exists to protect them, not the platform.

The Future of Child Safety: Collaboration, Not Competition

The Roblox story underscores an industry-wide truth: safety can’t be one-size-fits-all.
Every child’s online experience is different and protecting it requires both platform vigilance and parent empowerment.

At Permission, we believe the next generation of online safety will come from collaboration, not competition. Instead of replacing platform systems, our personal AI agents complement them — giving parents visibility and peace of mind while supporting the broader ecosystem of trust that companies like Roblox are working to build.

From one-size-fits-all moderation to one-AI-per-family insight — in harmony with the platforms kids already love.

Each family’s AI guardian can learn their child’s unique patterns, highlight potential risks across apps, and summarize activity in clear reports that parents control. That’s what we mean by ethical visibility — insight without invasion.

You can explore this philosophy further in our upcoming piece:
➡️ Monitoring Without Spying: How to Build Digital Trust With Your Child (link coming soon)

What Parents Can Do Now

Until personalized AI guardians are widespread, families can take practical steps today:

  • Talk early and often. Make online safety part of everyday conversation.

  • Ask, don’t accuse. Curiosity builds trust; interrogation breeds secrecy.

  • Play together. Experience games and chat environments firsthand.

  • Set boundaries collaboratively. Agree on rules, timing, and social norms.

  • Teach red flags. Encourage your child to tell you when something feels wrong — without fear of punishment.

A Shared Responsibility

The recent Roblox lawsuits remind all of us just how complicated parenting in the digital world can feel. It’s not just about rules or apps: it’s about guiding your kids through a space that changes faster than any of us could have imagined! 

And the truth is, everyone involved wants the same thing: a digital world where kids can explore safely, confidently, and with the freedom to just be kids.

At Permission, we’re committed to building an AI that understands what matters, respects your family’s values and boundaries, and puts consent at the center of every interaction.

Announcements

Meet the Permission Agent: The Future of Data Ownership

Sep 10th, 2025
|
{time} read time

For years, Permission has championed a simple idea: your data has value, and you deserve to be rewarded for it. Our mission is clear: to enable individuals to own their data and be compensated when it’s used. Until now, we’ve made that possible through our opt-in experience, giving you the choice to engage and earn.

But the internet is evolving, and so are we.

Now, with the rise of AI, our vision has never been more relevant. The world is waking up to the fact that data is the fuel driving digital intelligence, and individuals should be the ones who benefit directly from it.

The time is now. AI has created both the urgency and the infrastructure to finally make our vision real. The solution is the "Permission Agent: The Personal AI that Pays You."

What is the Permission Agent?

The Permission Agent is your own AI-powered digital assistant - it knows you, works for you, and turns your data into a revenue stream.

Running seamlessly in your browser, it manages your consent across the digital world while identifying the moments when your data has value, making sure you are the one who gets rewarded.

In essence, it acts as your personal representative in the online economy, constantly spotting opportunities, securing your rewards, and giving you back control of your digital life.

Human data powers the next generation of AI, and for it to be trusted it must be verified, auditable, and permissioned. Most importantly, it must reward the people who provide it. With the Permission Agent, this vision becomes reality: your data is safeguarded, your consent is respected, and you are compensated every step of the way.

This is more than a seamless way to earn. It’s a bold step toward a future where the internet is rebuilt around trust, transparency, and fairness - with people at the center.

Passive Earning and Compounded Referral Rewards

With the Permission Agent, earning isn’t just smarter - it’s continuous and always working in the background. As you browse normally, your Agent quietly unlocks opportunities and secures rewards on your behalf.

Beyond this passive earning, the value multiplies when you invite friends to Permission. Instead of a one-time referral bonus, you’ll earn a percentage of everything your friends earn, for life. Each time they browse, engage, and collect rewards, you benefit too — and the more friends you bring in, the greater your earnings become.

All rewards are paid in $ASK, the token that powers the Permission ecosystem. Whether you choose to redeem, trade for cash or crypto, or save and accumulate, the more you collect, the more value you unlock.

Changes to Permission Platform

Our mission has always been to create a fair internet - one where people truly own their data and get rewarded for it. The opt-in experience was an important first step, opening the door to a world where individuals could engage and earn. But now it’s time to evolve.

Effective October 1st, the following platform changes will be implemented:

  • Branded daily offers will no longer appear in their current form.  
  • The Earn Marketplace will be transformed into Personalize Your AI - a new way to earn by taking actions that help your Agent better understand you, bringing you even greater personalization and value.
  • The browser extension will be the primary surface for earning from your data, and, should you choose to activate passive earning, you’ll benefit from ongoing rewards as your Agent works for you in the background.

With the Permission Agent, you gain a proactive partner that works for you around the clock — unlocking rewards, protecting your data, and ensuring you benefit from every opportunity,  without needing to constantly make manual decisions.

How to Get Started

Getting set up takes just a few minutes:

  1. Download the Permission Agent (browser extension)

  2. Activate it to claim your ASK token bonus

  3. Browse as usual — your Agent works in the background to find earning opportunities for you

The more you use it, the more it learns how to unlock rewards and maximize the value of your time online.

A New Era of the Internet

This isn’t just a new tool - it’s a turning point.

The Permission Agent marks the beginning of a digital world where people truly own their data, decide when and how to share it, and are rewarded every step of the way.