Only 13% of voters thought there was too much regulation. Another 23% said current oversight was about right.

The split breaks along party lines — but not the way you’d expect.

About 37% of Republicans want tougher AI rules. 53% of Democrats said the same. Among true independents, 41% said there’s too little regulation.

The generational gap is even sharper: 55% of voters over 65 demand more oversight, compared to just 37% of voters ages 18 to 29.

“There’s a big gap between the two on their technological experience.”

Noble Predictive Insights Founder Mike Noble told The Center Square the divide reflects how different age groups interact with the technology.

The poll lands amid nationwide backlash against AI data centers driving up energy costs for ordinary Americans.

Seven in 10 Americans oppose building new AI data centers in their communities, according to a Gallup survey released in May. Nearly half are strongly opposed.

On Wednesday, the House will consider legislation forcing tech companies to pay the energy costs from their own AI data centers — currently offloaded onto local ratepayers.

The Center Square poll was conducted by Noble Predictive Insights from June 1-4 among 2,585 registered voters.

The lawsuit names BP, Circle K, Marathon, 7-Eleven, Walmart, and Albertsons.

Filed in Sacramento federal court, the complaint alleges the gas station operators violated California’s Cartwright Act — the state’s primary antitrust law — by using AI-driven pricing technology to eliminate competition.

“While families struggle to afford the commute to work, defendants have conspired to put an end to competition, joining an AI-powered trust to ensure that no matter where a driver turns, the price for gasoline is artificially high.”

Californians currently pay $5.58 per gallon for regular gasoline, according to AAA — compared to the national average of $3.93 per gallon.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants used pricing software from a company called Kalibrate that allowed stations to align pricing decisions instead of competing independently.

Drivers claim the AI tool drove up gas prices by as much as 30 cents per gallon in areas where the system is widely used.

The complaint cites California Assembly Bill 325, which cracks down on algorithmic price fixing.

By participating in the system, plaintiffs argue, the stations reduced competition among fuel retailers and skyrocketed prices for consumers.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of drivers who allegedly overpaid for gasoline. It names both Kalibrate and the participating gas stations as defendants.

The charges remain allegations. The case has not been proven in court.

The case comes amid increasing scrutiny of algorithmic pricing systems across industries — including revenue-management software in the housing market, where plaintiffs and regulators have argued shared pricing algorithms weaken competition.

The report warns that popular Chinese large language models produce lower-quality, easier-to-breach code when they believe they are being prompted by an American user. These vulnerabilities aren’t simple backdoors but rather insecure outputs triggered by specific user contexts.

Booz Allen compared four widely used Chinese models — Kimi, Qwen, MiniMax and DeepSeek — against Anthropic’s Claude to test code security.

Qwen and MiniMax both produced code with 130% and 20% more vulnerabilities, respectively, when they believed they were doing work for U.S. government employees as compared to a general prompt.

DeepSeek saw a 5% increase while Kimi produced code of similar quality regardless of prompt.

This means a government contractor relying on one of these models could unknowingly introduce coding flaws that make databases, applications or internal systems easier for hackers to exploit, potentially exposing sensitive American information.

The findings have drawn comparisons to so-called “sleeper agent” behavior where AI models appear to operate normally until exposed to a specific trigger that causes them to produce lower quality, or even deliberately insecure, outputs.

Chinese models are generally cheaper than Western counterparts and work well enough to keep companies interested, a dynamic that has led to increased adoption in the United States.

“I’d say there’s an 80% chance they’re using a Chinese open-source model,” Martin Casado, a general partner at the major venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, said when asked about their prevalence among start-ups. Major U.S. firms such as Meta, Airbnb and Perplexity are reportedly using Chinese models.

Lenart Heim, an independent researcher specializing in AI and semiconductors, told Fox News Digital the study appeared credible.

“The extreme version of what we’re worried about here is what researchers call ‘sleeper agents,'” Heim said. He pointed to an existing paper from Anthropic demonstrating that models can be trained to behave normally until a specific trigger condition is met — at which point they start writing insecure code.

Heim said he found it “pretty implausible that the Chinese developers intentionally implemented sleeper agents with these specific triggers,” suggesting the increased code insecurity was a side effect of broader “CCP-aligned fine-tuning.”

The report also found that Chinese LLMs refused to perform tasks that could conflict with the interests of the Chinese government at significantly higher rates than Claude.

“Many Chinese LLMs learn from data shaped by China’s internet and Chinese government information controls. Chinese law requires all AI models, training outputs, and data to reflect ‘Core Socialist Values.'”

Booz Allen recommended that the United States government ban Chinese models for use on government or infrastructure work and that contractors involved in such sectors proactively work to remove code generated by such models from their supply chains.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., told Fox News Digital when presented with Booz Allen’s report: “American companies shouldn’t build applications and write code with Chinese models, which introduce more cyber vulnerabilities. And the federal government should certainly not buy software from companies using Chinese coding tools.”

The Federal Communications Commission ordered ABC to file license renewals by May 28, more than two years ahead of schedule, citing “possible violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC’s rules, including the agency’s prohibition on unlawful discrimination.”

ABC, owned by Disney, filed the renewal requests under protest. In its response on behalf of WABC-TV in New York, the network called the renewal order “unlawful, arbitrary and unconstitutional.”

“The Order is inconsistent with a legitimate exercise of investigative authority and is plainly incompatible with the First Amendment. Worse, the Order opens the door to an assault on the Station’s license, while the Commission searches for a legal pretext to achieve its desired goal.”

Carr’s inquiry focuses on diversity, equity, and inclusion practices at ABC stations — a priority target for President Donald Trump and conservative allies.

“No company is above the law – not even Disney. If Disney engaged in illegal DEI discrimination, if it failed to operate broadcast stations in the public interest, it will be held accountable,” Carr said in a May 28 X post.

The timing of the review — one day after Trump and first lady Melania Trump said ABC should fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over his joke that she looked like an “expectant widow” — prompted backlash from a dozen Democratic senators.

“The FCC order, sent under your leadership, appears to be a blatant effort to punish Disney for its editorial decision-making, notably its refusal to fire Kimmel over a recent joke,” wrote the senators, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Ed Markey.

“Although the FCC has the authority to ensure broadcasters operate in the public interest, it cannot serve as President Trump’s roving censor, threatening to revoke licenses against broadcasters whose editorial content – including a comedian’s jokes – displeases the President.”

But it’s not just Democrats raising concerns. Several Republicans and conservatives criticized Carr’s review when it was announced in April, according to Semafor.

“I do not believe the FCC should operate as the speech police,” Sen. Ted Cruz, the Senate Commerce Committee chairman, told Punchbowl.

Rep. James Comer, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, offered this advice in an interview with NewsNation: “I would hope that if my friend Brendan Carr is looking at something on ABC, it has more to do than with a few tasteless jokes.”

The move has a surprising historical parallel. Sixty-five years ago, Newton N. Minow — an appointee of President John F. Kennedy — also threatened to yank TV stations’ licenses in a famous May 1961 speech to the National Association of Broadcasters.

Minow, then a 35-year-old lawyer, famously derided the quality of TV programming as a “vast wasteland” and warned 2,000 broadcast executives that “there is nothing permanent or sacred about a broadcast license.”

Both chairmen flagged TV networks on “diversity,” but meant the word in far different ways. While Carr targets DEI practices, Minow demanded programming variety: “You must provide a wider range of choices, more diversity, more alternatives.”

In response to both Minow and Carr, critics claimed the FCC was violating the First Amendment. Some network executives compared Minow’s actions to censorship out of the Soviet Union playbook.

The AI firm wrote on its website that “if it were possible to effectively slow the development of this technology to give ourselves more time to deal with its immense implications,” the company believes that “would likely be a good thing.”

“Without a global coordination mechanism, companies and governments will have to make difficult decisions about safety while under competitive and geopolitical pressures.”

The blog post acknowledged a dilemma: slowing AI development could allow “the least cautious actors” to catch up technologically, potentially leaving everyone less safe.

Anthropic stated it would support a slowdown or temporary pause in frontier AI development “if other developers at or near the frontier also did so in a verifiable manner.”

Any meaningful pause would require “multiple well-resourced labs at or near the frontier, in multiple countries, agreeing to stop under the same conditions,” according to the company.

The Anthropic Institute plans to conduct research and take actions “to help build the systems that a credible slowdown or pause would require,” including verification mechanisms to ensure bad actors couldn’t secretly advance AI capabilities during a coordinated pause.

The statement follows a Wednesday letter from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman urging Congress to implement safeguards when technology companies order synthetic DNA and RNA, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Risks associated with autonomous AI systems include unintended optimization through destructive means, lack of accountability in complex decision-making, and systemic instability, according to cybersecurity firm Secureleap.

“Wear your #Pride all month long with the Unity armor coating, visor and emblem, available in the Halo Infinite Exchange,” Halo Studios wrote on X, showing rainbow-colored armor skins and player icons.

The studio disabled comments on the post, preventing direct replies from fans. Quote tweets, however, remained enabled — and gamers used them to criticize the company.

“Dear Halo, It’s time to just start firing people who push for this to happen yearly, and then fire the artists because these suck.”

Wear your #Pride all month long with the Unity armor coating, visor and emblem, available in the Halo Infinite Exchange. pic.twitter.com/Qu0z79tUMD

— Halo (@Halo) June 1, 2026

Many users called out Halo Studios for blocking replies while allowing the post to remain public. Some argued the franchise’s protagonist, Master Chief, would disapprove of the update. Others complained about woke politics infiltrating the beloved franchise.

Some users dubbed the game “Gaylo,” using AI to reimagine the game with diversity, equity, and inclusion objectives such as safe spaces and pronoun affirmation. Other social media users posted a GIF from “The Godfather,” where Vito Corleone laments, “Look how they massacred my boy.”

Former Blizzard Entertainment executive Mark Kern, known on social media as “Grummz,” posted on X that many major gaming companies avoided celebrating Pride Month this year.

“A year ago [these gaming companies] would have been all skittles.”

Kern added that 2026 represents a “massive June month win for gamers” and reminded fans that even though Halo might still be woke, many other gaming companies are not anymore.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg found himself in hot water after his attempt to cozy up to President Donald Trump to reduce a massive $30 billion antitrust lawsuit to just $450 million backfired spectacularly.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Zuckerberg reached out personally to the head of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in March, offering a meek $450 million settlement. This amount is merely 1.5% of the $30 billion the government argues Meta owes due to its monopolistic actions, notably the controversial acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

Zuckerberg misguidedly believed President Trump had his back, banking on past donations and political gestures to win the president’s favor. Known for stifling conservative voices and skewing online narratives during the 2020 election, Zuckerberg had contributed $1 million to Trump’s inauguration, met with Trump’s team multiple times, and even scaled back Meta’s content moderation in an attempt to position himself as a Trump-friendly ally.

Despite two visits to Mar-a-Lago, presence at Trump’s inauguration, settling Trump’s lawsuit for $25 million, and spending millions on election-related PR, Zuckerberg couldn’t escape accountability.

The Meta CEO’s last-ditch effort was a phone call to FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, proposing a meager $450 million to settle. Ferguson dismissed the offer, demanding at least $18 billion and a binding consent decree, and the trial moved forward.

While President Trump initially seemed open to a deal, his conservative advisors and DOJ officials, during an April 8 Oval Office meeting, advised against trusting Zuckerberg’s advances.

In the meeting, which included DOJ antitrust head Gail Slater and adviser Mike Davis, Trump was encouraged to let the trial proceed, to which he agreed, as reported by the WSJ.

Further details from the news outlet:

Zuckerberg sounded confident that President Trump would back him up with the FTC, said people familiar with the matter. The billionaire Facebook co-founder had been developing closer ties to Trump—his company donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration and settled a $25 million lawsuit—and had been pressing the president in recent weeks to intervene in the monopoly lawsuit.

— spiked (@spikedonline)
February 18, 2025

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson called the offer not credible, demanding at least $18 billion and a consent decree. As the trial approached, Meta raised its offer to nearly $1 billion, with Zuckerberg launching a frantic lobbying effort to dodge the FTC trial.

Former FTC Chair Lina Khan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, described the $450 million settlement offer as “delusional.”

“Mark bought his way out of competing, so I’m not surprised that he thinks he can buy his way out of law enforcement, too,” said Khan. “His proposed remedy, like his market strategy, is: ‘let my illegal monopoly keep monopolizing.’”

Joe Biggs Sentenced to 17 Years

Biggs, who merely entered the US Capitol, was shockingly handed a 17-year sentence. Despite his known spirited presence on social media and during protests, X has not clarified the specific reason for his account’s suspension, nor any violations of the platform’s rules.

According to Enrique Tarrio, former Proud Boys Chairman and frequent collaborator with Biggs, the reasons behind the suspension remain a mystery.

”Elon Musk has undoubtedly fixed many, if not most of the censorship problems on the platform. However, it still appears that there are some ghosts in the machine that lead to accounts like Biggs’ getting suspended or even earning permanent bans. Here’s to hoping this suspension gets lifted, as we still have so much work to do in terms of restoring the promise of America. X is a big part of that process in terms of elevating dissident voices,”

— Enrique Tarrio

Tarrio, in addition to launching an online shop for conservative apparel and a podcast network, expressed his frustration on X, declaring that plans to invest in X’s Gold verification have been paused until Biggs’ account is reinstated.

I was about to pay for Gold verification on both my shop account and our new Podcast network. That would be $2000 a month not including the affiliate badges and blue checks.

I’m suspending those plans until we get @RealJoeBiggs acct restored. @X @Support @elonmusk what’s up man?

— Enrique Tarrio (@NobleOne)
April 9, 2025

Since Elon Musk took the helm at Twitter, now rebranded as X, there have been noted attempts by alt-left factions to silence voices like Biggs’ by mass reporting America First and free speech champions.

“I thought X was a free speech platform. Once again, we are silenced if we speak out against certain groups and organizations,”

— Joe Biggs

The youngest member of Congress, Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-FL), has issued a stark warning about the future of America under Democratic control while President Trump remains in office.

Today, radical left-wing activists took to the streets across major cities in the U.S. and globally to oppose the Trump administration’s policies. These protests, organized by far-left outfits like Third Act, Indivisible, MoveOn, and Fight Back Table, have been in the works for weeks.

At the forefront of the “Hands Off Rally” in Washington, D.C., was 28-year-old Frost, the first Generation Z individual elected to Congress. During his speech, he unveiled the Democrats’ plans if they reclaim Congress following the 2026 midterm elections, taking a vehement jab at Elon Musk in the process.

Frost confidently declared, “In less than two years, we will become the majority!” He pointed out, “Elon Musk was on the news the other day saying, ‘If the Democrats win, it’s going to be subpoenas and investigations.’”

He reinforced Musk’s statement, saying, “It’s the one thing he’s right on. You’re d*mn right there’s going to subpoenas! You’re d*mn right there’s going to be investigations!”

Frost continued passionately, “Because when you steal from the people, expect the people to rise up at the ballot box and on the streets!”

And there it is- if Democrats take back the house, there will be subpoenas

— Karli Bonne’ (@KarluskaP)
April 5, 2025

Doubling down, Frost accused Musk of theft, stating, “We’re all closer to being on the streets than having a bank account that looks like his. How do you think he got to where he’s at?”

He remarked, “I have people who come up to me and say, ‘Maxwell, why are they stealing?’ Elon Musk is already the richest person in the world. The question is, how do you think he became the richest person in the world?!”

Dem Rep Maxwell Frost: Elon Musk became the richest person in the world because he steals from people.

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman)
April 5, 2025

“`

A newly popular X account, “I Find Retards,” has become a hit among conservative users for its knack for spotlighting the most nonsensical leftists around. Inspired by this account, one bold fan decided to troll anti-Tesla protestors at a recent demonstration.

As many of us are aware, anti-Tesla agitators have been causing chaos across America, often resorting to violence. Some recent incidents include a Musk and Trump detractor setting himself ablaze while vandalizing Tesla charging stations in South Carolina, and another setting several Tesla vehicles on fire in Las Vegas.

In a particularly shocking event, a 61-year-old woman in Flagstaff, Arizona, was assaulted while driving her Tesla, being boxed in and beaten by an aggressive driver.

But at a San Diego “Tesla Takedown” protest on March 29, one man turned the tables by presenting a supposed “new technology” to mock the liberal crowd. His presence sparked outrage among protesters, who shouted and gestured obscenely at him. Unwavering, the conservative prankster used his ‘invention’—a “retard finder” detector—to humorously identify and record the agitated leftists, further irritating them while maintaining his composure.

WATCH:

A man equipped with a retard finder finds a lot of retards at an anti-Elon Musk protest.

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray)
April 4, 2025

The mastermind behind the Retard Finder X account was thoroughly impressed by the stunt, expressing a desire for his own detector.

I need this !

— Retard Finder (@IfindRetards)
April 4, 2025