fbpx

Month: July 2023

Zurich Named As Best Airport in New European Ranking

2023 is shaping up to be a story of both great challenge and great promise for European travelers and airports alike. In our third edition of the European Consumer Airport Index, the Consumer Choice Center has refined and updated our rankings using data provided to us by airports, annual reports, online statistics, and our own independent research.

Several of the best-performing airports in our index remain at the top: Zurich, Brussels, and Frankfurt lead the pack as the top 3 airports in Europe for passengers.

We used several factors to assess airports ranging from their location and transportation services to the availability of consumer-friendly amenities like shops and restaurants. There’s also a focus on security waiting times, and the average caseload of flight delays.

“This index is a vital resource for travelers looking to get the most out of their experience flying in Europe. An awful airport experience can be a black mark on an otherwise incredible adventure, and we’re pleased to share our latest rankings with the world so they can be more prepared and fly smarter,” said Emil Panzaru, Research Manager with the Consumer Choice Center.

Read the full text here

Zurich is the Best Airport in New European Rankings

2023 is shaping up to be a story of both great challenge and great promise for European travelers and airports alike. In the third edition of the European Consumer Airport Index, the Consumer Choice Center has refined and updated the rankings using data provided by airports, annual reports, online statistics, and independent research. 

Several of the best-performing airports in the index remain at the top: Zurich, Brussels, and Frankfurt lead the pack as the top 3 airports in Europe for passengers.

Several factors were used to assess airports ranging from their location and transportation services to the availability of consumer-friendly amenities like shops and restaurants. There’s also a focus on security waiting times, and the average caseload of flight delays. 

“This index is a vital resource for travelers looking to get the most out of their experience flying in Europe. An awful airport experience can be a black mark on an otherwise incredible adventure, and we’re pleased to share our latest rankings with the world so they can be more prepared and fly smarter,” said Emil Panzaru, Research Manager with the Consumer Choice Center. 

Read the full text here

The special exemption of SpaceX operating in Malaysia is inconsistent with technological neutrality

The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) emphasizes the importance of the government supporting and maintaining technological neutrality as the best mechanism to allow companies to operate and invest in Malaysia.

Representative of the Malaysian Consumer Choice Center, Tarmizi Anuwar said: “The government should have to provide a level playing field for every investor who wants to invest in this country without giving privileges to any party. The special exception of SpaceX being granted a Network Facility and Service Provider (NFP/NSP) license for a period of 10 years with full foreign equity ownership is inconsistent. In general, CCC agrees with the policy of full ownership of foreign equity, but it needs to be a policy that can be used by all parties.”

In addition, Tarmizi commented on the exemption conditions from the Minister for the 49 percent threshold policy for foreign equity on NFP and NSP licensees, sending a signal to potential investors that the government’s policy can change according to the investors they like. 

“The government needs to adopt the principle of technological neutrality in investment policies for all parties fairly. In order to ensure that the country becomes a major investment destination at the regional level and has a high global competitiveness, the policies implemented need to be clear, open and consistent, and not practice favoritism.”

“If soon, other satellite providers such as Amazon’s Project Kuiper, HughesNet or Viasat are able to provide more competitive prices and better services, will the government impose the same exemption? An inconsistent policy will send a message that the government is trying to protect certain investors,” he said.

Commenting on Communications and Digital Minister Fahmi Fadzil’s statement regarding the installation of 10 Starlink kits to Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) in Kuala Pilah, Perak, Tawau and Sarawak to solve their internet problems, Tarmizi thinks the government needs to re-evaluate the priority and main purpose of installing these satellites.

“The main purpose of installing this communication satellite is to bridge the digital divide in rural areas. While all these universities have a fiber network and 5G. This installation is considered irrational because it is installed in educational facilities that already have access to high-speed internet. In addition, the price of Starlink is also much more expensive than fiber.” 

“Hence, the government needs to re-evaluate populated areas that really need and face internet access issues, due to geographical and infrastructure challenges.” he concluded.

Australia’s own media law isn’t helping news consumers either

In a news conference in Ottawa earlier this month, Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez sought to provide context for the tech industry’s reaction to the recently passed C-18, which outlines a process for media organizations to arrange deals with tech companies for ad revenue.

Since the bill was enacted, both Meta and Google have taken steps to remove Canadian news articles from their platforms, claiming that the bill is “unworkable” for their products. While Google has demonstrated a willingness to sit down with the government, Meta has thus far refused. In response, the Canadian federal government, without the support of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, has said it will remove all ads on both platforms.

Minister Rodriguez called the tech platforms “bullies” for removing news links and accused them of “threatening democracy” itself. Citing Meta and Google’s profits, NDP MP Peter Julian said it was “time for them to give back” by turning over some of their money to local and regional newspapers, and online publishers.

Bloc MP Martin Champoux suggested using yet more tax money to push advertisers to spend on traditional platforms. “The government should do more. Perhaps even more incentives to advertisers to leave Meta’s platform and return to traditional sponsorships,” he said.

In a separate interview, Prime Minister Trudeau kicked it up a notch by claiming that Facebook’s actions were an “attack” on Canada akin to WWII.

Since then, the government has already outlined its own concessions to soften the blow, but the point remains.

There are plenty of articulate critiques of C-18, but the most concerning part of this entire process is that the template they’re drawing from is also massively flawed.

In name, the law is about saving journalism. Practically, it grants permission to a cartel of news organizations and corporations to force extractive payments from (mostly US) tech firms that have significant online platforms. And large media companies stand to gain the most.

This regulatory playbook is a familiar one in the Anglosphere, as we know from Australia’s News Bargaining Code of 2021 and similar attempts in the US Senate and the State of California.

The Australian example is a key talking point for Rodriguez and Liberal supporters of C-18, but its success is rather opaque.

If anyone asks the Australian government or peeks at their reports compiled by the Treasury, they claim it a “success to date,” owing to the 30 individual agreements struck between news publishers and the tech titans of Google and Meta.

But the number of agreements is the only metric we have, and it’s not surprising to see large mega corporations topping the list, including US entertainment conglomerates like Paramount Global and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, but also Nine Entertainment, owned by the family of now-deceased Australian media tycoon Kerry Packer (a mini-Murdoch, if you will).

What about small, regional outlets that bills like the Australian News Bargaining Code and Canada’s C-18 portend to help?

At least two academic articles have examined this impact, and both concluded that large corporate media entities gained significantly while smaller newsrooms were unable to capture gains at the same rate. “It is yet to be seen how the NMBC contributes to maintaining a sustainable business model for public interest journalism, other than continued payments from platforms,” said one group of researchers.

The Australian Treasury report notes, “it is acknowledged that many smaller news businesses would face significant challenges in participating in negotiations with digital platforms.”

Chris Krewson, executive director of LION Publishers, an association of US local news publishers analyzing the law, sums it up more bluntly: 

He wrote that there’s “no evidence that the dollars that flowed actually meant more journalism,” later pointing out that despite the $200 million infusion of cash from Big Tech, Australian media outlets still struggled immensely during the pandemic, and local outlets especially found the task of even entering negotiations to be a “lengthy and expensive process”.

For those smaller publishers and media outlets struggling and unable to strike their own deals, the Australian government signals it may need to extract yet more money for future subsidies: “Ultimately, as noted earlier, small news businesses may be better assisted by other types of Government support.”

In that case, it seems Australia will need to dole out yet more subsidies, tax schemes, and government financing to support the journalism industry. Why should Canada be any different?

What C-18 and similar laws attempt to do is to organize, coordinate, and force a business model for a particular industry. But in doing so, it is giving an upper hand to large media conglomerates with a decaying business model that will now forever grow addicted to deals with tech firms.

One could even argue that Canada’s government is harming the open internet itself by forcing online firms to pay traditional media. This, all the while platforms like Substack, YouTube, Patreon, and many others are better serving news consumers who are directly paying media outlets they enjoy and benefit from.

In slowing the inevitability of bankrupt legacy media firms, the government cannot endorse bankrupt ideas to save them.

Yaël Ossowski is deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center.

Central and Eastern Europe would be hit hard by new rules on essential oils

Essential oil products generate hundreds of millions euros for several countries in Central and Eastern Europe. New rules threaten the industry.

New rules by the European Union’s Chemical Agency (ECHA) would significantly impact the commercialisation and use of essential oil products. 

This includes a wide variety of products consumers use, including everything from perfumes and other fragrances, to humidifier scents and insect repellents. The agency intends to adopt a new way of measuring harm caused by chemicals that doesn’t take into account the actual dosage that consumers will be exposed to.

It is unfortunate that the ECHA has chosen this exact moment to put overly restrictive chemical regulations in place. 

Following the European Green Deal’s footsteps and its vision of a toxic-free environment, the ECHA is replacing careful risk assessments based on actual exposure levels with a sweeping hazard-based approach grounded in hypothetical scenarios. The difference in practice between the two is radical. Where the first allows the use of a substance so long as it satisfies a safety threshold, the latter would prohibit compounds so long as something could go wrong.

The regulations will not spare even safe natural products from this effect, including steam and water-distilled (or manually pressed) extracts like essential oils. Under the current framework, policymakers classify them as complex natural substances. But all that would change with the hazard mentality, which would identify essential oils as mixtures of “more than one constituent substance” and restrict them as though they were volatile artificial materials, by legislation EU 2021/1902 on “toxic cosmetics”.

Impact in Central and Eastern Europe

The new ECHA guidelines will make it unfeasible for the sizeable Central and Eastern European essential oils industry to bring goods to the market. 

The businesses in Bulgaria’s famous Rose Valley harvest around two tonnes of rose oil yearly and earn 445 million euros for the country in exports of essential oils and toiletries. Similarly, the Tedre farm in Estonia produces 2.5 hectares of world-class raspberries and extracts raspberry oil based on a proprietary carbon monoxide method. Lithuania created 379.9 million euros worth of cosmetics exports from mint, chamomile, juniper, and spruce emulsions. 

Finally, Hungary benefits from 713.78 million euros of beauty industry exports. If only one part of a rose, raspberry, or mint product could be toxic or highly allergic, their goods will receive a harsh warning label at best. At worst, policymakers will make sure that they cannot commercialise these products at all. 

Firms in Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, and other Central and Eastern European countries are smaller than most international conglomerates and cannot pay the extra costs of compliance; instead, they will withdraw their goods from exchange entirely.

The last thing Central and Eastern Europeans need right now is needless red tape complicating consumers’ daily lives.  The ECHA’s overly cautious approach would only add fuel to the fire. Inflation, the general rise in prices across the economy, has hit Central and Eastern European countries harder than most, leaving most people unable to afford as much as they did before and devaluing their savings. 

Annual inflation rates are projected to be higher than the 2023 EU average of 7.1 per cent (6.1 in the euro area) in countries such as Bulgaria (8.6 per cent), Lithuania (10.7 per cent), Estonia (11.2 per cent), and Hungary (a whopping 21.9 per cent). Yet the hazard-based process will ultimately exacerbate inflationary pressures.

Convincing the EU to change course

As the insights of economics show, the lower supply coupled with the same demand results in higher prices, driving inflation forward and causing more suffering to ordinary buyers. For all its good intentions, the hazard-based mentality will deteriorate Central and Eastern European consumers’ purchasing power and living standards.

The way to stop the worst scenario from materialising is to convince EU regulators to change course. 

Some member states, Bulgaria among them, have already acted via the Permanent Representatives Committee. 

On June 30 this year, the Committee requested the European Commission re-evaluate the status of essential oils as “more than one constituent substance” four years into the new legislation. All Central and Eastern European states should support the request. 

Moreover, they should champion the reinstatement of a risk-based mentality as the only science-driven option that keeps consumers safe without sacrificing their economic well-being. 

Central and Eastern Europeans would have one less thing to worry about.   

Originally published here

Pentingnya Peran Pelaku Industri Vape untuk Mencegah Penyalahgunaan Produk

Rokok elektrik, yang dikenal juga dengan istilah vape, saat ini merupakan salah satu produk yang semakin banyak dikonsumsi oleh berbagai kalangan. Saat ini, khususnya kita yang tinggal di daerah perkotaan, bisa dengan mudah menemukan berbagai pengguna vape, dan juga pertokoan yang menjual berbagai produk rokok elektrik dengan segala variasinya.

Ada berbagai alasan mengapa vape atau rokok elektrik mengalami peningkatan konsumen. Beberapa diantaranya adalah variasi rasa rokok elektrik yang sangat beragam dibandingkan dengan rokok konvensional, harganya yang lebih murah, khususnya bagi perokok aktif yang biasanya mengkonsumsi rokok dalam jumlah besar, hingga kandungan vape yang jauh lebih tidak berbahaya bila dibandingkan dengan rokok konvensional yang dibakar.

Tetapi di sisi lain, dengan semakin banyaknya pengguna rokok elektrik, tentu muncul berbagai penyalahgunaan terhadap produk vape yang ridak semestinya. Dan tidak jarang, berbagai penyalahgunaan tersebut juga menimbulkan korban. Misalnya, kejadian yang terjadi di Amerika Serikat beberapa waktu lalu, di mana ada beberapa pengguna vape yang meninggal setelah menggunakan produk vape palsu. Pemilik usaha vape palsu tersebut akhirnya segera ditangkap oleh pihak yang berwajib (npr.org, 9/10/2019).

Adanya produk vape ilegal, sama seperti produk-produk ilegal lainnya, tentu merupakan sesuatu yang sangat berbahaya bagi konsumen dan harus segera diatasi. Jangan sampai, banyak orang menjadi mengalami sakit hingga meninggal karena menggunakan produk-produk yang berbahaya.

Berbagai bentuk penyalahgunaan ini tentu bukan hanya hal yang terjadi di Amerika Serikat saja. Di Indonesia misalnya, ada berbagai praktik penyalahgunaan rokok elektrik atau vape yang bisa kita temui di berbagai tempat, dan harus dapat segera kita atasi.

Salah satunya misalnya, konsumen rokok elektrik di bawa umur. Padahal, vape atau rokok elektrik, sebagaimana produk-produk lain seperti rokok dan alkohol, merupakan produk-produk yang diperuntukkan untuk orang dewasa. Anak-anak merupakan kelompok usia yang harus dilarang mengkonsumsi berbagai produk-produk tersebut, dan siapa pun yang terlibat dalam penjualan produk rokok elektrik kepada anak-anak harus diberi sanksi.

Contoh lainnya misalnya adalah konsumsi vape yang dilakukan oleh ibu hamil. Hal ini tentu juga bukan sesuatu yang tepat untuk dilakukan. Tidak seharusnya, vape atau rokok elektrik dikonsumsi oleh perempuan hamil karena berpotensi menimbulkan berbagai dampak yang tidak diinginkan bagi bayi yang dikandungnya.

Agar permasalahan penyalahgunaan tersebut bisa diatasi dengan baik, tentu aksi keterlibatan dari aparat penegak hukum untuk menindak pihak-pihak yang melanggar saja tidak cukup. Dibutuhkan pula peran aktif dan para pelaku usaha untuk terlibat secara langsung untuk mengatasi berbagai penyalahgunaan produk-produk rokok elektrik tersebut, yang tidak jarang dilakukan.

Berita baiknya, para pelaku usaha rokok elektrik di Indonesia bersedia mengambil langkah tersebut. Beberapa waktu lalu, asosiasi pelaku usaha vape, Asosiasi Personal Vaporizer Indonesia (APVI), menyatakan bahwa mereka berkomitmen untuk membantu pemerintah dalam mencegah penyalahgunaan berbagai produk vape dan roko elektrik (finance.detik.com, 4/7/2023).

Ada beberapa langkah yang akan dilakukan oleh APVI sebagai wujud komitmen asosiasi tersebut dalam membantu pemerintah melakukan pencegahan penyalahgunaan rokok elektrik. Diantaranya adalah, aturan asosiasi bagi apra anggota APVI untuk tidak menjual produk-produk tersebut kepada anak-anak, perempuan hamil, dan juga orang-orang yang tidak merokok. Selain itu, APVI juga berkomitmen untuk melakukan edukasi publik untuk memperkecil potensi penyalahgunaan produk-produk vape.

Tetapi pada saat yang sama, APVI juga mengatakan bahwa sangat penting bagi pemerintah untuk dapat bersikap objektif terhadap kajian-kajian yang ada di luar negeri mengenai produk nikotin alternatif seperti vape. Sebagaimana yang sudah disampaikan oleh lembaga-lembaga kesehatan dunia seperti Public Health England dari Inggris, vape atau rokok elektrik merupakan produk yang 95% jauh lebih tidak berbahaya bila dibandingkan dengan rokok konvensional yang dibakar (gov.uk, 19/8/2015)

Sikap objektif dari pemerintah terhadap berbagai kajian tersebut tentu merupakan sesuatu yang sangat penting untuk mencegah misinformasi mengenai vape dan rokok elektrik. Melalui hasil kajian tersebut, tentu diharapkan akan semakin banyak perokok yang berhenti merokok dan beralih ke produk alternatif yang jauh lebih tidak berbahaya untuk membantu mereka menghentikan kebiasaan merokoknya.

Tidak hanya dari sisi pelaku usaha, organisasi konsumen vape juga menyatakan komitmen mereka untuk mencegah penyalahgunaan vape dan produk nikotin alternatif. Aliansi Vapers Indonesia (AVI), yang merupakan organisasi konsumen vape, menyatkan bahwa mereka mendukung upaya APVI untuk mencegah peyalahgunaan produk-produk vape melalui berbagai kegiatan kampanye dan sosialisasi. Selain itu, AVI juga mengkampanyekan kepada para anggotanya untuk ikut turut menyebarkan informasi tentang hal tersebut (finance.detik.com, 4/7/2023).

Sebagai penutup, komitmen yang ditunjukkan oleh APVI dan juga AVI ini untuk mencegah berbagai penyalahgunaan rokok elektrik dan produk nikotin alternatif tentu sesuatu yang patut untuk didukung dan diapresiasi. Diharapkan, melalui komitmen ini, sosialisasi dan kampanye mengenai pencegahan penyalahgunaan tersebut dapat semakin masif, dan akan semakin sedikit orang-orang yang menggunakan rokok elektrik secara yang bukan semestinya.

Originally published here

PFAS ban could do more harm than good

News broke last month that 3M has agreed to pay out $10.3 billion in settlement payments in response to lawsuits claiming that their per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, contaminated drinking water. The funds are supposed to be used to filter PFAS from water supplies where it has been detected, and test for other sites of contamination. 

This is especially important for Mainers, where legislators have begun a process to ban PFAS in consumer products sold in the state. One might think that the 3M settlement proves Maine is on the right track, but it isn’t that simple.

Even the mention of toxic chemicals interacting with the environment is frightening, but 3M’s settlement is not like the example of DuPont, a multinational chemical company that released PFAS, which have contaminated groundwater, into a North Carolina river. The case looms large in the minds of everyday people, in much the same way as Norfolk Southern’s catastrophic train derailment in East Palestine this past February. 

The lawsuits for 3M stem primarily from communities that have been contaminated by the use of firefighting foam containing PFAS. This is an important distinction because when it comes to regulating PFAS and how it is both used and produced firefighting foam is a unique challenge. 

It’s a challenge because there really is no way to contain the foam after use. When these foams are used to put out jet fuel fires at military bases or airports, the top priority is rightly to put out the fire. The chemicals used to suppress the blaze leech into the ground, which is how water becomes contaminated. Shifting away from the regular use of these foams will be a difficult, but necessary step in protecting drinking water.

There are a variety of uses for PFAS that don’t represent nearly the same risk as firefighting foams, and those should not be restricted in the same way. While PFAS are often used for more trivial things like waterproof jackets and non-stick cookware, they are also used for necessary medical devices and the production of semiconductors. 

The Federal Drug Administration has continuously approved both drugs and devices that contain PFAS. Most people don’t seem to know that the medical community is heavily reliant on products using PFAS for the production of medical implants like vascular grafts, stent grafts, surgical meshes, catheter tubes and wiring, as well as heart patches. 

Today it is estimated that roughly 10 percent of Americans have implantable medical devices, many of which rely on PFAS and are approved by the FDA. In fact, the $72.2 billion implantable medical devices market is expected to grow significantly as the American population grows older on average. Those aging individuals are very likely to come in contact with numerous prescription drugs for inflammation, cholesterol and arthritis that contain PFAS.

For semiconductors, manufacturers say PFAS are a vital part of the production process, primarily because of their chemical resistance and surface tension-lowering properties. This makes the chips durable and resistant to liquids and erosion. Efforts to ban PFAS outright from all consumer products, like has been suggested in Maine, may seriously jeopardize chip manufacturing and ultimately make the chip shortage much worse before it gets better. 

This is where the PFAS debate gets geopolitical. You have states like Maine looking to ban PFAS, while the federal government is promoting domestic microchip production.

It may be that banning PFAS production in the United States doesn’t eliminate the demand for PFAS throughout the supply chain. Microchip producers may end up importing these chemicals to avoid a domestic chip shortage. This is no easy task, given that in 2019, the most recent year for which production data are available, the U.S. domestically produced 625 million pounds of PFAS and imported only 54 million pounds. A 571 million pound shortfall is a significant sum, much of which would likely be imported from China. Not ideal.

While protecting drinking water is a noble goal, and one worth pursuing, legislators must not sacrifice key medical necessities and semiconductor production in the process. Doing so would do far more harm than good.

Originally published here

FTC loses case to block Microsoft Activision $69B deal

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission cannot stop Microsoft’s proposed $69 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard, a California judge ruled on Tuesday.

The deal, originally announced 17 months ago, can now move forward by the July 18 deadline. 

In her ruling, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said, “Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision has been described as the largest in tech history,” and “it deserves scrutiny.”

“Microsoft has committed in writing, in public, and in court to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for 10 years on parity with Xbox,” she continued. “It made an agreement with Nintendo to bring Call of Duty to Switch. And it entered several agreements for the first-time to bring Activision’s content to several cloud gaming services.”

“The Court finds the FTC has not shown a likelihood it will prevail on its claim this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition, and “the motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore denied,” Corley added.

The Activision purchase will give Microsoft ownership of popular video game titles like Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Candy Crush.

The FTC wanted to block the deal because the trade regulator believed Activision’s incorporation into Microsoft would hurt competition in the video game industry.

In an interview with FOX Business, Stephen Kent at the Consumer Choice Center, said “Judge Corley showed a deep respect for consumer interest, namely the gamers who will be most impacted by Microsoft acquiring Activision-Blizzard. 

“Biden’s FTC under Lina Khan has shown no interest in consumer protection, as illustrated throughout the hearings and pointed out on the final day by Judge Corley herself,” he said. “President Biden should be taking note of how poor FTC Chair Lina Khan has been at her job, and how far she’s strayed from the mission of consumer protection.”

Read the full text here

Judge Strikes Another Blow Against Biden’s Activist FTC With Ruling in Microsoft-Activision Merger

A federal judge in California struck another blow against President Biden’s activist Federal Trade Commission chief, Lina Khan, by denying a government request to block Microsoft’s pending acquisition of gaming giant Activision Blizzard.

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of California’s Northern District said Tuesday the FTC failed to make a compelling case that the $70 billion deal between the two tech giants would harm consumer choice in the video game market. She denied the agency’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking the transaction until it could fight the merger at an internal court.

“The FTC has not raised serious questions regarding whether the proposed merger is likely to substantially lessen competition in the console, library subscription services, or cloud gaming markets,” Judge Corley wrote.

Consumer advocates praised the ruling as yet another rebuke for Ms. Khan, one of the more activist FTC leaders in recent memory. A Biden appointee, Ms. Khan has been crusading against what she has called “exploitative,” “collusive,” and “abusive” tactics in the technology industry, using the FTC’s antitrust oversight as her primary bludgeon. Another judge blocked the FTC’s attempt earlier this year to stop Meta from taking over a virtual reality fitness company, Within Unlimited.

“The FTC set out, it seems, to protect the business interests of Sony’s PlayStation, completely ignoring their duty to regulate in the interest of American consumers,” the media director for the Consumer Choice Center, Stephen Kent, said. “President Biden should be taking note of how poor FTC Chair Lina Khan has been at her job, and how far she’s strayed from the mission of consumer protection.”

Read the full text here

Euractiv

The value of social media for Hungary

As a former member of parliament in Hungary, I know firsthand how the Orbán regime has weaponised media outlets in the country to serve the purpose of government propaganda and its reelection campaigns. Many Europeans have seen the crass billboards attacking European institutions and demonizing refugees.

However, Orbán’s media leverage goes well beyond billboards that your average Hungarian can ignore: most of our principal news publications act as mouthpieces for the government, defaming the opposition or anyone who contradicts government-approved talking points.

I received this treatment myself when I ran for re-election when I had to experience the two very extreme cases of being ignored by the local outlets during my term as if I did not exist or, as the election neared, a full-scale smear campaign that was launched against me with no factual basis.

Only a few independent media outlets remain in Hungary. As a result, Hungarians wishing to speak truth to power have taken to social media sites.

Nowhere else could you even imagine directly messaging and tagging elected officials, organizing protests, and sharing experiences that unearth everyday corruption in Hungary?

The Orbán regime uses social media to its advantage through a network of paid influencers who echo Fidesz’s narrative.

Read the full text here

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN