Microsoft recently joined forces with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), America’s second-largest teachers’ union, to release a “National AI Safety & Privacy Standard.”
The “first-of-its-kind agreement” ensures that “tech companies cannot use student data to train AI, students can never be tracked, AI cannot make decisions without human oversight, and companies must give educators and parents transparency and plain-language answers about how their tools work,” AFT said in a press release. “U.S. school districts can incorporate these protections directly into their Microsoft customer agreements, making them contractually enforceable.” The union also pointed out that Microsoft would be in breach of contract if it violates the agreement.
But the partnership between Big Tech and the “notoriously leftist union” “should set off all sorts of alarm bells,” writes Tyler O’Neil, a senior investigative reporter at the Daily Signal. His latest article draws attention to critics’ concern over the “apparent absence of engagement with parent associations or parental rights groups” in the agreement-design process.
The U.S. Department of Education also expressed skepticism about the union’s motives. “While we’d like to believe that AFT’s motive is genuine, it’s hard to accept that the group who pushed to keep schools closed during COVID is now seeking a role in shaping AI policy out of concern for America’s children,” Savannah Newhouse, a department spokeswoman, said to the Daily Signal.
Paired with the lawsuits Big Tech has faced alleging that social media platforms deliberately exploit children’s attention for profit, these two entities don’t inspire confidence that they will “protect” children, argues Tina Descovich, CEO of the parental rights group Moms for Liberty. “Big Tech and Big Teachers Unions have proven continually they cannot be trusted to protect our children.”
Screen-time limits and data constraints aren’t bad ideas. But who gets to decide these policies matters. AFT is once again positioning itself as the guardian of “safety,” and there is a healthy and justified amount of skepticism and concern that should accompany that decision.
