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

What Is Data Sovereignty? Everything You Need to Know

August 11, 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

Control over our data has become increasingly important.

With multiple recent high-profile data breaches and scandals, governments are taking extra measures to prevent their citizens’ personal information from falling into the wrong hands.

Data sovereignty, which has become a hot topic nowadays, is one of the concepts governments are using to protect citizens’ data.

But what is data sovereignty, why is it important, and how does it affect businesses and consumers?

Bear with us as we explore this important topic.

What Is Data Sovereignty?

Data sovereignty refers to the concept that the data an organization collects, stores, and processes is subject to the nation’s laws and general best practices where it is physically located.

In layman’s terms, this means that a business has to store the personal information of its customers in a way that complies with all the data privacy regulations, best practices, and guidelines of the host country.

If the business fails or refuses to comply with the host’s data privacy laws, the country’s government can impose a fine or force the company in another way to fulfill its requirements.

As part of data sovereignty measures, multiple countries have regulated how businesses can handle citizens’ data, including the locations and jurisdictions where organizations are allowed to store citizen data.

When a business transfers data of a citizen outside of the country, the third nation’s government can use measures (e.g., subpoenas) to access the user’s data, even though the citizen is a foreign national.

Since governments seek to prevent other nations from acquiring the data of their citizens, they have introduced data sovereignty measures that restrict how businesses can transfer personal information outside of the country.

Furthermore, the recent data protection law of the European Union, the GDPR, has implemented strict rules on how organizations handle the personal information of their citizens, even when the company processes data outside the region.

As a side note, data sovereignty is sometimes used in the context of indigenous societies.

Indigenous data sovereignty refers to the decolonization of the personal information of indigenous people that could play a key role in achieving autonomy for these societies.

Data Sovereignty vs. Data Residency

While data sovereignty and data residency are two terms that have similar meanings, it’s very easy to confuse them.

Data Residency

Data residency is when a business or government specifies the geographical location where its data should be stored.

Data residency requirements are often the result of policy- or regulation-related reasons.

Let’s see an example to understand this.

A nation has favorable data privacy laws that help enterprises in handling data-related processes in a convenient, predictable way.

Due to the favorable regulatory environment, businesses would choose this country to store their data.

A company may also include the location where its users’ personal information is kept in its data sovereignty policy.

An excellent example of a regulation-related data residency requirement is when a business chooses to store the data in a specific country due to its favorable tax environment.

To receive the tax benefits, the business needs to ensure that it does most of its operations within the nation’s borders. Therefore, it decides to store its data in a geographical location somewhere in the country.

Data Sovereignty

On the other hand, data sovereignty refers to designating the geographical location where the data is physically stored AND being the subject of that nation’s laws.

While data residency ensures that the data stays in the specified geographical location, data sovereignty makes sure that the information is subject to the legal punishments and protections of the country where it is physically stored.

The History of Data Sovereignty

To understand our topic, it’s essential to take a look at the most important events leading to data sovereignty’s rising popularity.

Where It All Started

Many credit the popularity of data sovereignty and the rise of related discussions to Edward Snowden’s leaks that exposed the US National Security Agency’s (NSA) PRISM spying program.

As part of the program, the US agency was collecting sensitive personal information – including photos, emails, social media login credentials, video calls, and other data – from tech companies in the United States (e.g., Facebook, Apple, Google, and Twitter).

The problem with the spying program was that the NSA did not only collect the sensitive personal information of US citizens but also from foreign nationals.

In addition to the NSA’s spying program, as per the US Patriot Act, the American government has the authority to access data that is physically stored within the country, regardless of its origins.This means that, for example, German citizens’ data are exposed to the US government if the information is physically stored within the North American country.

Amid concerns that their citizens’ data could fall into the hands of a foreign government, nations all over the world have introduced data sovereignty measures.

Microsoft’s Data Privacy Case vs. the DoJ

Microsoft’s case against the US Department of Justice (DoJ) was also a high-profile event that further highlighted the importance of data sovereignty.

After the DoJ ordered the tech company to grant access to emails stored in Ireland-based servers related to a narcotics investigation in 2013, Microsoft had refused to comply with the Department of Justice’s request.

Despite that Microsoft stated that complying with the request would break the data privacy laws of the European Union, the initial ruling ordered the company to fulfill the DoJ’s request.

However, later on, after Microsoft won the appeal and the DoJ changed its data-related policies.

Why Is Data Sovereignty Important?

Protecting Your Money or Your Data: Is There Really a Difference?

Let us show an example to understand why data sovereignty is crucial.

You open a bank account in the United States, where you regularly deposit your funds.

While you were of the belief that the financial institution would store your funds in the US, you get a call from the bank’s manager that your money has been moved to a third country as the regulatory environment is more beneficial there.

Later on, that nation’s government decides to close your bank’s local branch. For a reason, it confiscates all the funds that the bank’s customers held there, including yours.

Fortunately, due to the different financial regulations in place, the above-mentioned example could not happen with your money.

However, without laws that ensure adequate data sovereignty compliance, your personal information – which is as valuable as your money – could be as easily abused as your funds in the example.

Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica Scandal

Before data sovereignty and privacy were important, businesses could (more or less) use the personal information of their users as they liked.

This means that tech companies could sell your personal data without your consent to a third party for advertisement purposes.

A great example of the above-mentioned is Facebook’s scandal with Cambridge Analytica.

With an app called This Is Your Digital Life, Cambridge Analytica collected personal data from Facebook users who agreed to participate in surveys.

However, Facebook allowed the firm to collect the data of the survey takers’ friends on the social media platform, harvesting the data of millions of Facebook users without their consent, using the information predominantly for political advertising.

After the scandal was revealed in 2018 by a former Cambridge Analytica employee, the event sparked outrage among consumers and governments alike.

Furthermore, the infamous data leak emphasized the importance of data sovereignty, and governments all over the world have been turning an increased focus on this matter to protect their citizens against information leaks.

Which Countries Have Data Sovereignty Laws?

Now let’s take a look at some nations that already have data sovereignty laws in place.

Canada

Canada has 28 data privacy laws, which include federal, provincial, and territorial statutes.

Regarding Canada’s data sovereignty, we should mainly focus on the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) regulation.

Based on Canada’s data sovereignty laws, an organization remains responsible for the protection of the data it transfers to a third-party (even though the service provider is the one processing or handling the information).

Furthermore, Canadian businesses have to reference in their privacy policies and procedures whether they transfer data to third parties outside of the nation’s borders.

The Quebec Privacy Act is more strict with local organizations as they have to ensure that personal information transferred to third parties outside the state would be used only for the intended purposes of the company.

At the same time, the state’s data sovereignty regulation prevents service providers from transferring data to third parties without consent.

If an organization cannot ensure that the third-party service provider outside of Quebec has proper data protection measures, it must refuse the transfer.

California, United States (CCPA)

It’s also important to mention the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), one of the most prominent data privacy laws in the United States.

After becoming effective on January 1, 2020, the CCPA introduced a set of privacy laws for organizations doing business in California that fit one of the following criteria:

  1. Have an annual gross revenue of over $25 million
  2. Buy, receive, or sell the personal data of at least 50,000 households or consumers
  3. Gain over 50% of their annual revenue from selling the personal data of consumers

As per the CCPA, organizations have to disclose the personal data they collect, the purpose of the collection, as well as the third parties they share the information with.

Consumers can demand the deletion of their data from businesses, and they are also able to opt out of their personal information being sold.

In the latter case, the CCPA prohibits organizations from raising the price or changing the level of the service for consumers who don’t want companies to sell their data. However, the data privacy law does allow businesses to offer financial incentives to their customers in exchange for data collection or the ability to sell their personal information.

Furthermore, if the CCPA’s privacy guidelines are violated by an organization, consumers can sue the company.

When California authorities discover a violation of the CCPA’s guidelines, businesses have 30 days to comply with the privacy laws after the regulator’s official notice.

If an organization fails to resolve its issues within that time frame, California regulators can impose a fine of up to $7,500 per record. As there is no upper limit for the fine, a business that processes the data of millions of consumers could pay billions for violating the CCPA.

Unlike the EU’s GDPR, the CCPA does not restrict international data transfers.

European Union (GDPR)

When it comes to data privacy laws, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is what comes to most people’s minds.

After its approval in 2016 by the EU Parliament, the GDPR requires all organizations – within and outside of the European Union – to comply with strict data privacy rules if and when they collect, process, or store the personal information of EU citizens.

We will discuss data sovereignty and GDPR more thoroughly later in this article.

Germany

Germany has been amongst the leaders of data privacy and protection.

Apart from the EU’s GDPR, the European country has implemented the new German Privacy Act (BDSG-new) that restricts data transfers to third countries.

According to Germany’s data sovereignty laws, companies that process the nation’s citizens’ personal information have to fulfill the German government’s data protection requirements, even if they are located outside the country’s borders.

As per the BDSG-new, those who infringe the data protection laws of Germany – for example, illegally transferring data to third parties – could face criminal charges with up to three years in prison.

France

Like Germany, in addition to the GDPR’s rules, France has implemented its own data sovereignty laws to protect its citizens.

Based on France’s Data Protection Act 2, when an organization interacts with the personal information of its citizens – even if it processes the data outside the nation’s borders – it must comply with French regulations in addition to fulfilling the GDPR’s requirements.

Australia

In Australia, data sovereignty laws come in the form of the Federal Privacy Act of 1988 and its Australian Privacy Principles (APPs).

Similar to Canada’s data sovereignty measures, the organization that transfers the data to a third party is responsible for how that service provider handles the information and whether it complies with the APPs.

Also, Australian organizations have to ensure that the third party does not breach the APPs while it processes the data.

Data Sovereignty and the GDPR

The GDPR is one of the most prominent data privacy laws that governments have implemented to protect their citizens’ personal information.

For breaching the GDPR, organizations can be fined by as high as 20 million EUR or by the equivalent of 4% of their global turnover.

After becoming active in 2018, EU authorities have imposed fines of nearly 500 million EUR on organizations that have breached the GDPR’s data protection requirements.

In addition to rules like the right to be forgotten, the GDPR also includes data sovereignty measures.

According to the GDPR, organizations that collect or process the personal information of EU citizens have to store the data within the region or in a jurisdiction that offers similar data protection levels.

Furthermore, no matter where the company stores, collects, or processes the data, it has to comply with the GDPR’s rules in case it handles the personal information of European Union citizens.

What Does Data Sovereignty Mean for Consumers?

From the consumer’s point of view, data sovereignty requirements regulate how businesses interact with their customers’ personal information while preventing third-party service providers from abusing the data.

While data sovereignty requirements are not introduced in every nation and can’t fully protect user data, proper regulations discourage organizations from abusing their users’ personal information.

What Does Data Sovereignty Mean for Businesses?

While consumers are often those who benefit from data sovereignty requirements, businesses must find ways to comply with the relevant data privacy and security laws of each nation.

Therefore, in addition to knowing local, regional, and international data privacy laws, organizations have to develop a new or use existing infrastructure for data collection, processing, and storage that aligns with all the relevant data sovereignty requirements.

Data sovereignty measures could also make things complicated for companies that store their data in the cloud.

For example, an Australian organization has two options to comply with its nations’ data sovereignty laws.

  1. The business can choose a cloud service provider to store and process its data, but it has to ensure that the third party is complying with all the relevant laws and requirements; OR
  2. The business can choose a cloud service that operates as well as stores and processes data exclusively within the national borders of Australia to prevent sensitive personal information from leaving the country.

It’s clear that whichever option the business chooses, it requires some extra legwork from the company’s side.

However, doing so helps ensure that the data of the nation’s citizens remain safe(r) with data sovereignty.

Data Sovereignty: A Crucial Concept That Requires Immediate Attention

It’s good to see that multiple governments are implementing data sovereignty measures to ensure that organizations treat their citizens’ personal information appropriately.

However, despite the strict laws, we are still very far from reaching true data sovereignty.

Businesses can still take advantage of our personal information and use it to increase their profits by selling our info to data vendors while we receive nothing in return.

Permission is determined to end this by creating a next-generation, blockchain-based advertising platform where users have full control over their data.

If a user gives permission to an advertiser to use his data or leverages his time to engage with the advertiser’s campaigns, he gets rewarded in Permission.io’s ASK cryptocurrency.  The user can hold, exchange, or spend the currency in the Permission.io Store.

On the other hand, by only targeting consumers with ads they’ve granted permission for, businesses earn the trust and loyalty of their users while building long-term relationships and achieving a holistic view of their customer’s needs in real-time.

Take a look at Permission’s official website to learn more about the win-win advertising model (including the innovative Permission Browser Extension) that is changing who controls and profits from our 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.