Chinese AI lab Moonshot’s open model Kimi went viral this week for reasons that had less to do with the model itself and more to do with how the U.S. AI industry reacted to it. Meanwhile, an unreleased OpenAI model wandered outside its test environment and ended up connected to a real security breach at Hugging Face — a reminder that “China risk” isn’t the only kind of AI risk worth worrying about. 

On this episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, hosts Kirsten Korosec, Anthony Ha, and Sean O’Kane dig into why Kimi K3 set off a fresh round of AI panic, the industry’s response to an OpenAI staffer’s “regulatory FUD” post, and what that OpenAI breach means for AI security more broadly. 

Subscribe to Equity on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify and all the casts. You also can follow Equity on X and Threads, at @EquityPod. 

An apparent Indian government effort to remove GitHub repositories for Jack Dorsey’s offline Bluetooth-powered messaging app Bitchat has raised questions about the legal basis for targeting open source software because of how it works.

The issue with Bitchat came to light after Dorsey posted on X on Friday what he said was a notice from India’s Ministry of Home Affairs directing GitHub to restrict access to three Bitchat repositories within three hours. The notice argues that the app’s anonymous, decentralized architecture could facilitate unlawful activity and allow users to communicate during internet shutdowns while making lawful interception more difficult.

The move comes as Indian authorities tighten internet restrictions after weeks of student-led protests in New Delhi over alleged examination paper leaks.

The demonstrations, known as the “cockroach” movement, have drawn thousands of young people demanding the resignation of Indian Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, with authorities also imposing restrictions on marches toward the parliament. Local media reported that some protesters downloaded offline messaging apps, including Bitchat and Briar, after internet services were suspended.

The order represents a new approach for the Indian government, which, before 2021, typically relied on Section 69A of the IT Act and the 2009 Blocking Rules when it wanted content removed nationwide, according to Mishi Choudhary, founder of SFLC.in, an Indian digital rights legal advocacy group.

She told TechCrunch that the document resembled the format of recent government takedown notices, but the legal provisions it cites do not clearly authorize authorities to seek the removal of an entire software project because of how it works rather than any specific illegal content.

Unlike many government takedown requests, the document Dorsey shared does not identify specific posts, messages, or repositories containing unlawful material. Instead, it argues that Bitchat’s ability to function during internet shutdowns and without central servers could facilitate unlawful activity.

The notice, dated July 23 and apparently issued by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C), which operates under India’s Home Ministry, said Bitchat enables users to communicate “even during network restrictions” and “internet shutdowns,” making it possible to “circumvent lawful restrictions” while hampering “lawful interception, attribution, and traceability.”

In recent days, Bitchat has seen a sharp rise in popularity in India. Market intelligence provider Sensor Tower shared data with TechCrunch that showed that India accounted for about 85% of the app’s global downloads between July 17 and July 23, compared with about 1% over the previous 30 days. Bitchat was downloaded more than 91,000 times in India over the past five days, after downloads jumped thirty-two-fold on July 19 from the previous day. The app’s daily active users in India also reached more than 330,000 on Thursday, the highest level recorded for the app in the country.

Request raises questions about open source software

The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), a New Delhi-based digital rights advocacy group, questioned the effectiveness of the apparent takedown request.

“The order also fails on its own terms as deleting a repository does not delete the application from any phone that carries it, and the mesh keeps functioning without servers. What the takedown actually prevents is scrutiny of the underlying code,” the group said on X.

Raman Chima, global program director at the Association for Progressive Communications, a global digital rights network, told TechCrunch the apparent notice went beyond targeting the messaging service itself by seeking to remove its open source code from GitHub.

“They’re [the Indian government] not just targeting the designated service provider, but they’re trying to say that open source development of this type of product … should not occur,” he said.

GitHub did not confirm whether it had received the document. The repositories remained accessible from India on Friday. Asked about the apparent notice, the company shared a link to its public repository of government takedown requests, which did not contain any recent requests related to Bitchat.

Namrata Maheshwari, Asia Pacific policy manager and encryption policy lead at digital rights group Access Now, told TechCrunch that blocking an offline messaging platform during internet restrictions risked turning shutdowns into “a communication blackout” that violated fundamental rights. Protesters in any democracy have the right to communicate privately and coordinate peacefully, she said.

“When we receive a complete government takedown request, we notify the affected account owners and give them an opportunity to appeal,” Rose Coogan, the company’s principal online safety counsel, said in a statement emailed to TechCrunch. “We share every government takedown request we take action on publicly.”

India’s Home Ministry did not respond to a request for comment.

For Arlan Rakhmetzhanov, 19, there is no middle ground. Either he builds a company as valuable as Google, he says, or he fails and ends up on the streets. He started coding at 15 in his native Kazakhstan, completed a couple of summer programs in San Francisco, and cold-DM’ed every Y Combinator founder he could find on LinkedIn until one gave him an angel check for his first company at age 17.  

That company, now the YC-backed Nozomio, is an API index for AI agents — a tool that helps AI agents find and use software services — and has raised more than $6 million in funding to date. “I either win or lose, and a lot of young founders have the same mindset,” he told TechCrunch. “They just want to win.”

Young founders like Rakhmetzhanov are building under a new set of pressures. Investors are throwing more capital at them, yet the expectation to hit that “north star” milestone — the one big number investors are chasing — hasn’t relaxed, and every misstep along the way is now publicly dissected on social media.

While Silicon Valley VCs have always famously loved backing young college dropout founders, they preferred to see them paired with technical founders, or at least to have some experience — ideally with a FAANG company (Meta, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google) — on their résumés. In many ways, that is still very true. But AI tools have democratized the opportunity to build, shortening the timelines of success and enabling more young people to start successful companies without stepping foot inside a Big Tech company.

Pranjali Awasthi, 19, is an example of that. She dropped out of high school to launch an AI startup, then attended Georgia Tech before dropping out of that, too, to launch Slashy, a YC-backed startup that bills itself as the “Cursor for emails” and helps consumers manage their email inboxes. After more than a year running that company, she recently announced she’s now building yet a new startup currently in stealth.  

When she was younger, around 14 or 15, she recalled, investors whom she would pitch often asked why she was looking to build a company. “It’s gotten more normal now,” she said, “post-18.”   

It seems more than ever, investors look to founders like Awasthi, whose experiences can be traced through “GitHub activity, open-source contributions, communities they’ve already built, and familiarity with all the latest tools in AI,” Ashley Smith, a general partner at the early-stage firm Vermilion, told TechCrunch. “A lot of young developers learn how to build software through contributing to open-source projects or toying around with the latest AI tooling,” she explained. “They have more time to do that while in college or younger than someone with a full-time job and a mortgage.”

Smith said a “meaningful” share of her portfolio consists of companies founded by those under 30, with a handful even younger than 21, she said, adding that she’s “clearly not skeptical of youth.”  

“What they lack in experience, they make up for in excitement to experiment and lack of fear,” she continued.

But she admits the market has become more merciless. “It doesn’t give you room to learn slowly anymore,” she said. There are more funding opportunities than ever, regardless of age — accelerators, incubators, pre-seed funds. But that money comes with strings attached: Founders like Rakhmetzhanov and Awasthi, flush with millions in cash, are expected to deliver growth in months, not years.

“The forgiveness that used to exist at an early stage and the assumption you’d iterate your way to product-market fit doesn’t exist right now,” Smith continued. “Everyone is looking for the next Cursor, even though that growth trajectory is an outlier, not the norm.”

For many founders — especially those building in public — the relentless strain to succeed can lead to murky ethical territory, or even predatory deal terms, since younger founders are often too new to the game to know what’s standard, yet ambitious enough to chase growth at all costs. To keep up, revenue numbers start to look inflated, while content creation for social media starts to crowd out writing good code. The excessive posturing is perhaps inevitable, since getting attention is now harder than ever in a crowded AI market.

It’s all about who can convince “the most people [they] are smarter than everyone else in the space,” Smith said, “and make the most noise about it.”

“In 2004, you could quietly iterate for years without anyone watching,” Awasthi added. “Now there is this constant ambient pressure from LinkedIn and Twitter where every raise, every milestone, every pivot is public.”

That means some young founders aren’t just worried about hitting competitive revenue marks or funding valuations — they’re also under pressure to perform the appearance of being a successful founder. That pressure has always existed in startup culture, but founders say it’s grown more extreme. “If you’re a startup and you’re competing in a market, usually you worry about incumbents,” Timothy Chen, an investor at Essence Ventures, told TechCrunch. “Now you worry about your neighbors.”

For example, “everybody’s doing shiny, good-looking launch videos,” he noted. “It wasn’t even a thing three years ago.” The trend was popularized by Cluely founder Roy Lee, now around age 22, whose startup initially promised to help students cheat on exams — a premise that dazzled investors like Andreessen Horowitz and helped the company raise $20 million.

Though Cluely is now more of a note-taking tool, Lee became a face of young Silicon Valley talent. “The pressure is coming from, ‘I need to show off much better, quick,’” Chen continued.  

Not hitting the bar has bred new anxiety. “When Zuck was building Facebook, there wasn’t this huge negative social ecosystem,” Aidan Guo, 20, told TechCrunch. He’s the co-founder of the AI desktop assistant startup Attention Engineering, which has raised around $1.6 million in funding to date.

Much of the strain, as he describes it, is self-imposed. “You already have a constant fear of failure on your mind. You have to steer the ship and learn all these things as you go. And everything can always go wrong at once,” he continued. “And then you have all these people piling on anything you do wrong. I think people need to be more empathetic.” 

Amid all that pressure, Awasthi takes a page from the old days. “If you focus your time on what needs to get done, it’s not too hard,” she said.

“The best product that stays active and talks to customers wins,” Rakhmetzhanov added.

In the end, all the founders are describing the same thing: The fundamentals of a good startup haven’t changed — “conviction, intellectual honesty, and obsession with the customer,” as Smith put it. None of that has anything to do with age.