fbpx

Month: February 2024

Taxing Vapes Will Put the Lives of 4.5 Million Vapers at Risk

London, 27 February 2024 – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) is concerned by reports of implementing a new levy on vapes and demands the government to conduct proper research into the consequences of a vape tax in its tobacco harm strategy.

In a statement, Mike Salem, the UK Country Associate of the CCC explained that “this tax not only puts off vapers economically, but it also sends a message that the government is punishing them for trying to quit tobacco. We should not be putting up barriers to those who are desperately trying to quit cigarettes; the government should instead be providing support for those who need it.”

The proposed tax would see a new and separate levy on vapes introduced on top of the VAT that already exists, which would directly affect 4.5 million vapers and indirectly some 6.4 million smokers.

Salem further stated that “The UK has been doing extremely well over the past few years in its effort to reduce smoking prevalence, but this is now being actively hindered by the current government. These measures will put our population and especially our children at more risk, as consumers will turn to the black market for cheaper alternatives. I urge the government to reconsider its position on taxing vapes and its wider strategy in reducing smoking prevalence so as to not harm our children and adults”. 

The CCC urges the government to consider the health of smokers and the support it can provide during the current economic downturn. Furthermore, in light of the recent government decision to ignore the recommendations from the Khan Review and the mismanagement of the joint announcement on the ban of disposable vapes between Westminster and the devolved administration, it also recommends that the UK Government conducts proper research and coordination with the devolved administration on tobacco harm reduction.

Pentingnya Riset Pelaku Pengguna Vape di Indonesia untuk Kebijakan yang Tepat

Vape saat ini merupakan salah satu produk yangs udah dikonsumsi dan digunakan oleh jutaan orang di seluruh dunia, termasuk juga di Indonesia. Kita, khususnya yang tinggal di daerah perkotaan, tentunya akan sangat mudah bisa melihat banyak pengguna vape di sekitar kita.

Di Indonesia sendiri misalnya, konsumsi vape atau rokok elektrik mengalami peningkatan dari tahun ke tahun. Pada tahun 2011 misalnya, prevalensi pengguna rokok elektrik di Indonesia sejumlah 0,3%. Angka ini mengalami peningkatan yang pesat pada tahun 2021 menjadi 3% atau setara dengan 6,2 juta penggguna vape yang ada di Indonesia (republika.co.id, 31/5/2022).

Semakin meningkatnya pengguna vape di Indonesia ini tentu juga membawa dampak yang signifikan terhadap perkembangan industri rokok elektrik yang ada di negara kita. Pada tahun 2022 lalu mislanya, industri vape di Indonesia mampu menyerap jumlah pekerja sekitar 100.000 pekerja. Angka tersebut tentu bukan jumlah yang sedikit (liputan6.com, 13/6/2022).

Semakin meningkatnya pengguna vape di Indonesia ini juga menimbulkan pro dan kontra dari beberapa pihak. Asosiasi kesehatan Ikatan Dokter Indonesia (IDI) misalnya, menghimbau masyarakat untuk tidak menggunakan vape karena produk ini dianggap memiliki tingkat bahaya yang sama dengan rokok konvensional yang dibakar (cnnindonesia.com, 24/9/2019).

Untuk itu, tidak sedikit pihak-pihak yang mengadvokasi agar pemerintah bisa melarang, atau setidaknya meregulasi secara sangat ketat, industri vape atau rokok elektrik. Di kawasan Asia Tenggara sendiri, sudah ada beberapa negara yang menerapkan pelarangan konsumsi dan juga distribusi vape, diantaranya adalah Singapura dan juga Thailand.

DI sisi lain, ada juga negara-negara yang mengambil langkah yang berbeda. Inggris misalnya, beberapa waktu lalu, justru mengeluarkan aturan yang berbeda 180 derajat dari langkah yang diambil oleh Singapura dan Thailand. Inggris justru menggunakan vape sebagai alat yang bisa digunakan untuk membantu warganya berhenti merokok.

Lembaga penyedia layanan kesehatan publik asal Inggris, National Health Service (NHS) misalnya, telah mengadvokasi hal tersebut. NHS sendiri menyatakan bahwa vape tidak 100% aman, tetapi roko elektrik tidak menghasilkan tar dan karbon monoksida yang merupakan dua elemen yang paling membahayakan dari rokok konvensional yang dibakar, dan karena itu dampak bahaya dari vape jauh lebih kecil bila dibandingkan dengan rokok (nhs.uk, 20/10/2022).

Kampanye yang dilakukan oleh NHS di Inggris sendiri sudah terbukti berhasil mengurangi jumlah perokok yang ada di negara kerajaan tersebut. Berdasarkan data dari Office for National Statistics misalnya, menunjukkan bahwa, jumlah perokok sudah berkurang di Inggris dari sekitar 14% di tahun 2020, menjadi 13,3% di tahun 2021 setelahnya (bbc.com, 6/12/2022).

Kembali ke Indonesia, fenomena semakin meningkatnya pengguna vape di Indonesia sendiri merupakan hal yang cukup menarik untuk kita lihat dan teliti. Tentunya, dari semakin banyaknya pengguna vape di Indonesia, ada berbagai alasan beragam yang dimiliki oleh para pengguna vape tersebut tentang mengapa mereka memutuskan untuk menggunakan rokok elektrik.

Berdasarkan survei tahun 2019 misalnya, 58% perempuan dan 71% lai-laki menyatakan bahwa mereka memilih untuk mengonsumsi vape karena produk tersebut lebih ringan bila dibandingkan dengan rokok konvesional yang dibakar (goodstats.id, 16/1/2023). Tentunya, bila rokok konvensional dilarang, hal tersebut akan membawa dampak yang signifkan terhadap banyak orang.

Di luar negeri, sudah ada penelitian yang berupaya untuk menjawab pertanyaan kira-kira apa yang akan terjadi bila vape dilarang. Di Inggris misalnya, sekitar sepertiga dari pengguna vape di negara tersebut akan beralih dan kembali menggunakan rokok konvensional yang dibakar bila rokok elektrik dilarang di negara tersebut (independent.co.uk, 7/4/2023).

Bila ini terjadi, tentu hal tersebut merupakan bentuk kemunduran dari upaya harm reduction dari rokok. Dengan demikian, tidak sedikit konsumen yang tidak memiliki pilihan selain menggunakan produk yang jauh lebih berbahaya seperti rokok konvensional yang dibakar.

Di Indonesia sendiri, riset seperti ini tentu sangat dibutuhkan, agar para pengambil kebijakan dapat mengeluarkan dan mengesahkan kebijakan yang tepat dan tidak kontra produktif. Sebagai salah satu negara dengan tingkat prevalensi perokok tertinggi di dunia, adanya upaya harm reduction dari dampak rokok tentu merupakan langkah yang sangat penting untuk dilakukan.

Dengan demikian, bila sudah ada penelitian mengenai dampak tersebut, para pengambil kebijakan bisa menimbang apakah misalnya, langkah kebijakan yang keras terhadap vape, seperti regulasi ketat hingga pelarangan total, merupakan sesuatu yang tepat. Jangan sampai, langkah yang diambil justru menimbulkan dampak yang lebih buruk.

Sebagai penutup, vape atau rokok elektrik saat ini merupakan hal yang menjadi bagian keseharian bagi jutaan masyarakat di Indonesia. Ada berbagai alasan dan sebab yang dimiliki oleh para konsumen untuk menggunakan produk tersebut. Untuk itu, adanya riset mengenai perilaku para pengguna tersebut merupakan hal yang sangat penting, khususnya bagi mereka para pembuat kebijakan agar bisa mengeluarkan kebijakan yang tepat.

Originally published here

Europawahlen 2024 und Fake News: Consumer Choice Center started ‘Consumer Champs’ Kandidatenbefragung um Transparenz zu wahren

Das Consumer Choice Center gibt den Start seiner Kampagne “Consumer Champs” bekannt. Die Kampagne befragt über 12.000 Europawahlkandidaten zu ihren Positionen. Diese Prüfsteine sollen als Orientierungshilfe für Wähler in allen 27 EU Mitgliedsstaaten dienen. 

Mit über 12.000 Kandidaten im Rennen hat sich Consumer Champs zum Ziel gesetzt, die erste Anlaufstelle für Wähler zu sein, die sich darüber informieren möchten, wo Kandidaten zu Fragen von entscheidender Bedeutung für Verbraucherrechte stehen. Es geht dabei um Themen wie Handel, Digitalpolitik, Nachhaltigkeit und Gesundheit. 

Das Herzstück der Kampagne ist eine interaktive Website, auf der Wähler Kandidaten in ihrem Land erkunden können, ihre Positionen zu wichtigen Verbraucherthemen verstehen und informierte Entscheidungen am Wahltag treffen können. Nur kurz nach Start der Kampagne haben bereits über 60 Kandidaten ihre Antworten eingereicht. 

“Unsere Mission ist es, die Werte und Standpunkte von Parteien und einzelnen Politikern auf europäischer Ebene ins Rampenlicht zu rücken. Wir wollen Wählern einen transparenten Einblick geben, welche Kandidaten für was stehen. Ferner wollen wir Misinformation und Fake News gegenbeugen, indem wir allen Kandidaten die Chance geben an einer zentralen Stelle ihre Positionen aufzuzeigen.” kommentierte Fred Roeder, Geschäftsführer des Consumer Choice Centers. 

Für weitere Informationen zur Kampagne “Consumer Champs” besuchen Sie bitte ConsumerChamps.eu.

Originally published here

Consumer Champs: A Beacon of Hope for Informed Decision-Making in the 2024 European Parliament Elections

The Consumer Choice Center’s ‘Consumer Champs’ campaign offers a beacon of hope for informed decision-making in the 2024 European Parliament elections by shedding light on candidates’ stances on critical consumer rights and choice issues, ultimately empowering voters to make choices that reflect their values.

In an era where the political landscape can feel like a labyrinth, the Consumer Choice Center (CCC) has launched a campaign to help voters navigate the maze. The ‘Consumer Champs’ initiative, designed for the 2024 European Parliament elections, aims to shed light on candidates’ stances on consumer rights and choice issues. With over 12,000 candidates running, making an informed decision can be a daunting task. The CCC is here to help.

The Birth of ‘Consumer Champs’

The ‘Consumer Champs’ campaign was conceived to address the growing need for transparency in the European political arena. By focusing on critical areas such as trade, digital freedom, and sustainability, the CCC is providing voters with the tools to make informed decisions. The campaign’s heart lies in its interactive website, which allows voters to explore candidates in their country and better understand their views on consumer rights and choice.

Read the full text here

Ottawa should follow Ontario’s lead and freeze beer taxes

On Friday, the province of Ontario announced it is freezing the 4.6 per cent scheduled increase in beer taxes, and will hold off on any tax increases until 2026.

This is great news for beer drinkers in Ontario, but because of similar policies at the federal level, the national excise tax on all alcohol is scheduled to increase by 4.6 per cent on April 1.

That tax, the escalator tax, is indexed to inflation and gives all Canadians every year an unwelcome April Fools gift.

Add this tax hike to the fact that taxes alone account for around 50 per cent of the price of beer, 65 per cent of the price of wine, and 75 per cent of the price of spirits. This is cruel punishment for the crime of wanting to enjoy an alcoholic beverage and socialize, or relax.

Rather than have the tax increase again this April 1, Ottawa should follow Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s lead and pause the escalator tax. The escalator tax removes policy discussion from the democratic process and eliminates consumers from the debate all together.

And by indexing taxation to inflation, it uncomfortably punishes consumers for inflationary pressures, and actually adds upwards pressure on inflation.

Ironically, having taxation automatically increase prices puts continued upward pressure on overall inflation, and the longer these inflationary times persist, the longer it will take for the Bank of Canada to begin cutting interest rates.

This is a vicious cycle where inflation indexed taxation fuels the problem of inflation, driving rates higher, making mortgages more expensive, and leaving everyone poorer in the long run, except the federal government.

And when we compare how alcohol is taxed in the United States versus Canada, it feels like we’re rubbing salt in the wounds of Canadian consumers.

For the average American, buying a case of beer has $4.12 in taxes associated with it. For the average Canadian, the tax paid on that same case of beer is over five times higher, at $20.31.

The federal tax rate on beer in Canada is 2.8 times higher than in the United States, while the average provincial tax rate is over six times higher than the average U.S. state tax rate.

Of course, there have to be taxes on alcohol, but do taxes really need to be this high? And do they need to be mandated to increase each and every year with an escalator tax?

In the announcement for Ontario’s pause, Ford said; “Our government is constantly looking for ways to make life more affordable for Ontario families by putting more money back into their pockets.”

Wouldn’t it be nice for Ottawa to do the same?

And what makes the prospect of a pause even more possible is the fact that Ottawa has shown an openness for giving consumers a break in the past. In 2022, Minister Chrystia Freeland’s office did the right thing and eliminated the excise tax on non-alcoholic beer, and last year the government capped the escalator tax at two per cent.

If there isn’t an appetite to follow Ford’s lead entirely, Ottawa could simply repeat what they did last year and again cap the escalator tax at two per cent. With general inflation currently sitting at 3.4 per cent, a two per cent cap would put downward pressure on the consumer price index, which is the Bank of Canada’s primary metric for deciding where its key interest rate should be.

Two per cent also happens to be the Bank of Canada’s target inflation rate, which begs the question: if it is good enough for the Bank of Canada, is that not good enough for any tax that is indexed to inflation?

Inflation has brought havoc across the Canadian economy over the past few years, and Ottawa has the opportunity to either pause or cap the escalator tax and give Canadians something to raise a glass to.

Originally published here

Why the Government Shouldn’t Regulate Youth Access to Social Media

Parents and politicians have been expressing concerns over youth online safety since online life began. Now, proposals for mandatory age verification are being brought before state lawmakers and are gaining serious ground. For instance, Florida’s Republican-led House recently passed legislation that requires “many platforms to prohibit anyone younger than 16 from creating an account” and requires social media companies “to terminate accounts for users in the state under 16.” Florida’s law feels reminiscent of the Parental Advisory warnings passed in the 1980s and the video game bans of the 1990s.

Such age-based restrictions ignore the fact that children develop at different speeds and that the purpose for online activities can vary greatly.

Take, for example, Malal Yousafzai, who began blogging about the injustice in her country when she was only 11 years old. Yousafzai narrowly survived a bullet to the head after being targeted by the Taliban for speaking out both online and offline about the suppression of children in Pakistan. In recognition of her fight for the right of all children to an education, Yousafzai became the youngest recipient in history, at the age of 17, to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

On the other end of the world, James Stephen “Jimmy” Donaldson, aka MrBeast, began YouTubing at the age of 13 in Charlotte, North Carolina. Today, MrBeast is one of the world’s most prolific and influential content creators with a staggering 235 million subscribers. Whether it is cleaning up the world’s oceans or providing support for children in need of medical care, MrBeast puts his money where his mouth is, to the tune of $100 million in 2023 alone.

Clearly, the internet is an empowering tool for some teens, and Florida’s bill seems stifling for the MrBeasts and Yousafzais of the world.

It should also be pointed out that some of the most innovative companies we benefit from today were created by teens who tested the bounds of the internet early on and unencumbered. Steve Jobs met Steve Wozniak when he was only 14 and after much exploration and tinkering, Apple Computer Inc. came to be when Jobs was just 21.

Mark Zuckerberg began toying around with computer programming at age 11 and went on to launch Facebook when he was 19. If only he knew how often in the future he would be grilled by Congress for all he accomplished and that one day he would be put on trial and blamed for the “online child sexual exploitation crisis.” Indeed, just this past week, Zuckerberg, representing Meta, along with X’s Linda Yaccarino, Snapchat’s Evan Spiegel, and Discord’s Jason Citron, faced accusations for endangering children via their social media platforms. It is worth noting, however, that the average user age of those on Meta and Discord is between 25 and 34, and the average age of users for Snapchat falls between 18 and 34.

Now, this is not to say these platforms do not pose any problems for children; truly, there are many concerns. But instituting greater government restrictions on internet users and social media sites is problematic on many levels, and below are a few quick reasons why.

What constitutes social media is evolving quickly and how one logs on can also vary widely. Given that consumers want frictionless transactions, companies are eager to comply. Platforms and apps now have single sign-on systems and syncing capabilities, and registering for new services is made easy when transferring data from an existing account. As such, parental consent will either be able to be easily bypassed or become an increasingly repetitive request (similar to cookie permission popups).

If there is an age restriction for site access or if parental permission needs to be granted, then there must be a means of proving it. Therefore, sensitive data will be collected to confirm the identity of both children and their parents, and there is no guarantee that that information can be kept safe. According to the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, for the past several years, the FBI has knowingly abused American civil liberties by misusing data through the collection of personal communications.

Critics of mandatory parental consent have argued that getting permission is sometimes easier said than done. We should not assume that every child has a stable household or supportive parents. Access to social networks can be crucial for those in foster care or student exchange programs, and those in need of support and community outside of the home. Moreover, depending on background and citizen status, you may have parents who still feel lost navigating digital protocols or insecure about uploading personal forms of documentation.

Rather than have politicians take on a nanny-state stance for social media use, parents and caregivers should be encouraged to play a greater part in their child’s online development. By placing the government as the gatekeeper, it downplays the purpose of parental involvement and authority and this is a concerning matter given that studies show strong “parenting mitigates social media-linked mental health issues”.

Equipping parents to help children safely navigate the online realm should be prioritized over the instituting of precautionary policies. Options for improving child safety online are readily available, and there are a variety of tools and techniques that can be leveraged. And, if parents are having significant concerns over their child’s online activities, the simplest (but potentially hardest) solution is to just prevent device use.

So, as debates over age and access proliferate, it would be good to consider all problem areas that may arise with stricter online protocols. And although there are some truly devastating drawbacks that have been associated with social media use, we must remember that not all youth use social media in the same way and parenting, not politics, is what is needed most today.

Originally published here

MANIFS D’AGRICULTEURS EN EUROPE : OUI, LES DIRECTIVES EUROPÉENNES SONT EN FAUTE !

A travers toute l’Europe, les agriculteurs expriment leur mécontentement… à juste titre.

Dans de nombreux pays européens, les agriculteurs protestent et ils ont raison de le faire.

Qu’il s’agisse des agriculteurs néerlandais qui protestent contre la réduction prévue du nombre d’éleveurs, des agriculteurs allemands qui s’opposent à la hausse prévue des taxes sur le diesel ou des agriculteurs français qui déplorent les marges globales sur leurs produits, les agriculteurs de toute l’Europe se sont soulevés contre l’excès de réglementation.

Je sais que de nombreux opposants aimeraient prétendre que les agriculteurs sont en fait motivés par l’assistanat, mais je pense que c’est une vision très partiale de la question. Oui, la plupart des agriculteurs reçoivent des paiements directs dans le cadre de la politique agricole commune (PAC), et oui, la PAC représente une grande partie du budget de l’UE.

Mais ce qui est souvent ignoré dans ce débat, c’est que les agriculteurs sont aussi considérablement gênés par les réglementations existantes qui les obligent à ne pas cultiver certaines parties de leurs terres. Qu’il s’agisse de la politique de gel des terres menée par Bruxelles pour maintenir les prix du marché à un niveau élevé, ou des règles de l’UE visant à maintenir les terres agricoles en jachère pour contribuer à la régénération des sols, les bureaucrates semblent souvent croire qu’ils connaissent mieux la profession agricole que les agriculteurs eux-mêmes.

En outre, la « négociation » du gouvernement français avec les chaînes de distribution pour éviter l’inflation des denrées alimentaires a essentiellement fait peser le fardeau sur les agriculteurs. Maintenant que les agriculteurs sont mécontents, le gouvernement français veut à nouveau résoudre le problème à l’aide de subventions. Il s’agit d’une boucle sans fin, qui n’est pas propice à l’élaboration d’une bonne politique.

Les agriculteurs ne veulent pas être dépendants des aides, mais le système réglementaire les rend dépendants de ces aides. Je dirais également que la PAC doit disparaître, mais pour qu’elle puisse disparaître, une grande partie du système réglementaire doit partir avec elle.

Prenons l’exemple de la stratégie « Farm to Fork« , une politique qui, heureusement, est relativement morte sur le plan législatif. Cette stratégie vise à rendre le système alimentaire plus durable d’un point de vue environnemental, mais elle aboutirait en fait à l’inverse, en augmentant les émissions de dioxyde de carbone avec les aliments biologiques (qui nécessitent plus d’énergie pour obtenir le même résultat) et en augmentant les prix de l’énergie pour les consommateurs. Récemment, la Commission européenne a également retiré la principale directive du programme, qui concernait l’utilisation durable des pesticides et aurait permis de réduire de moitié l’utilisation des pesticides d’ici à 2030.

La réaction politique aux manifestations des agriculteurs a été très révélatrice : ils tentent de détourner l’attention.

« Ne nous laissons pas devenir plus semblables aux Etats-Unis. » Tel est le message du ministre allemand de l’Agriculture, Cem Özdemir, concernant les manifestations d’agriculteurs qui secouent le pays depuis des semaines. Les agriculteurs se sont exprimés et organisés contre les hausses de taxes prévues sur les véhicules agricoles et le carburant diesel, dans un contexte de crise du coût de la vie qui pèse déjà sur le quotidien des Allemands.

« Il s’agit d’un clivage dangereux qui peut mener à des conditions similaires à celles des Etats-Unis, a déclaré M. Özdemir à la presse allemande. Les gens ne se parlent plus, ne se croient plus et s’accusent mutuellement de tous les maux du monde. L’objectif doit être de ‘garder le pays uni au centre’. »

Il est commode pour un membre du cabinet allemand de détourner l’attention des problèmes liés aux politiques de son propre gouvernement en pointant du doigt la polarisation politique américaine. En réalité, les deux questions n’ont rien en commun et les agriculteurs allemands ont raison d’être mécontents.

Sous la pression politique des manifestations, Berlin a fini par céder, par renoncer à l’augmentation des taxes sur les tracteurs et a promis de supprimer progressivement les avantages fiscaux sur le diesel sur une période plus longue. Toutefois, les agriculteurs ont promis de continuer à protester, car les suppressions progressives finiront par coïncider avec les mauvaises années de récolte et la faillite s’ensuivra pour de nombreux agriculteurs vivant au bord du gouffre financier. Cette situation a mis à rude épreuve une coalition gouvernementale déjà fastidieuse. En tout, 80% des Allemands qui n’ont aucun lien avec le secteur agricole expriment leur soutien aux protestations des agriculteurs.

D’une certaine manière, le ministre Özdemir a raison. L’environnement politique en Allemagne est fortement polarisé. Mais contrairement au croquemitaine américain auquel il fait allusion, la polarisation se fait entre sa coalition gouvernementale et tous les autres. La même chose se produit actuellement en France, en Pologne et en Roumanie, où les agriculteurs protestent contre les effets de la réglementation européenne et la diminution des marges sur leurs produits.

Pendant plus de dix ans, les gouvernements allemands et européens successifs ont poursuivi un programme vert dévastateur qui a entraîné une hausse des prix des carburants, de l’électricité et du gaz. L’Allemagne s’est rendue dépendante du gaz russe, puis a mis progressivement hors service des centrales nucléaires parfaitement opérationnelles, avant de décider que tous les contribuables devaient payer encore plus pour avoir le privilège d’avoir des coûts énergétiques parmi les plus élevés du continent. Par conséquent, les sociaux-démocrates et les écologistes sont devenus impopulaires et risquent d’être battus dans les urnes.

Les dirigeants européens peuvent aborder ce problème de deux manières. Soit ils reconnaissent que le secteur agricole est surréglementé et lui ouvrent la voie vers la fin de la dépendance aux subventions, soit ils comprennent que la sécurité énergétique et la réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre nécessitent l’utilisation de l’énergie nucléaire et constituent la base d’une nation industrielle prospère, soit (en bonus) ils font passer tous ceux qui ne sont pas d’accord avec eux pour des extrémistes d’extrême-droite.

Quelle voie choisiront-ils ?

Originally published here

‘Kids Online Safety Act’ is a Trojan Horse For Digital Censorship

Washington, D.C. – This week, a bipartisan cohort of US Senators unveiled a new version of the Kids Online Safety Act, a bill that aims to impose various restrictions and requirements on technology platforms used by both adults and minors.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. responded: 

“This bill is constitutionally dubious and would create new powers that should frighten not only every parent but also every user of digital platforms such as social media. In writing new federal rules to “protect” kids online, the real effect will be to significantly degrade the experience for all users while putting their sensitive personal information at risk.”

The Consumer Choice Center believes strongly that if Congress were to pass such a bill, lawmakers would be aligning with the idea that the government should have the final say over young people’s access to the Internet, thus diminishing the role of parents in their kids’ lives. 

“There are ways to protect kids online, but that begins at home with parental authority and supervision. It’s a false choice to accept the gatekeeping of an entire generation from technology that has become so integral to daily life and contributes to their development as responsible citizens,” added Ossowski. 

Privacy and consumer advocates are sounding the alarm about what this law would mean in practice. Rules emanating from Washington granting “duty of care” to government officials will erode parental authority and consumer choice online. The bill seeks to control “design features” and limit developers’ inclusion of personalized recommendation systems, notifications, appearance-altering filters, and in-game purchases for apps used by minors. It’s a crackdown not just on features that work functionally for certain apps, but also on features that make them fun for users.

“KOSA is fundamentally wrong,” concluded Ossowski. “We as a society should trust that parents have the ultimate right to decide whether or not their children access certain websites or services, not indifferent government officials sitting in Washington. No one knows what is in the best interests of their child more than parents.”  

Media inquiries and interview requests can be sent to Media Director Stephen Kent: Stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

***

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, D.C., Ottawa, Brussels, Geneva, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for  Consumer Choice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

Throwing Money at “TikTokers” Will Not Stop the Boats but Risks Further Chinese Influence

London, 15 February 2024 – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) is extremely concerned about hearing reports that the Home Office is intending to pay TikTok influencers to urge migrants not to cross the channel. 

In a statement, Mike Salem, the UK Country Associate at the CCC stated that this is a “grotesque waste of taxpayers’ money.” Salem further highlighted the contradictory nature of this campaign in using TikTok, an application that is now banned from UK Parliamentary devices over cybersecurity risks, to deter migrants from crossing the channel. He added: “There is no way to quantify and measure the effectiveness of these influencers and their videos.”

In his concluding remarks, Salem noted “I am surprised they are encouraging influencers to increase content on a platform they deem dangerous, and more dangerously to discuss British political affairs. The fact that the Home Office is paying influencers instead as a means to evade the ban on government use of TikTok says it all.”

The CCC has continuously warned of TikTok and its dangers to vulnerable users. The CCC believes in freedom of choice, but also in freedom from surveillance, especially from a regime that conducts mass espionage on its citizens globally and regularly commits human rights violations. It is abhorrent that the UK government is promoting individuals to post on that social media outlet, and we call on the government to withdraw these plans and review their decision-making process in allowing this policy to go this far.

Virginia youth social media law would cause online chaos and diminish parental authority

Richmond, VA – In the name of “safety” and the “best interests” of children, the Virginia Senate this week passed a draconian age-verification bill for online platforms which would require youth who want to use social media to provide exhaustive proof of their age and to seek parental consent. This legislation is not as common-sense as its backers would have voters believe. 

SB 359 outlines the restrictions on so-called “addictive feeds” that offer content to users, but lays out significant exemptions that could be used by platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat to evade regulation impacting their competitors.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. responds to the VA Senate’s passage: 

“The legislation, with its focus on “addictive feeds” that “connect users,” means a number of services would arguably be exempted, including YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat. This demonstrates that instead of trying to “protect kids” writ large, this is nothing more than legislative retribution against select social media companies, and has more to do with politics than positive discussion on online safety.”

This bill follows in the steps of last year’s adoption of SB1515, which holds websites of “harmful content” liable in civil courts if they allow minors access, similar to the so-called “porn ban” first passed last year in Utah. If the bill is passed by the House of Delegates, it would create a labyrinth of weaponized policies that prevent teens from engaging with friends and family online, would burden future social media upstarts, and create privacy risks. 

Yaël Ossowski added, “By requiring social media websites to collect sensitive photos, IDs, and documentation of Virginia minors, they are mandating enormous privacy risks that will be a cyberhacker’s dream. Not only does this bill make it more difficult for young people to begin to use the Internet and all the benefits it provides, but it enshrines into law the idea that governments should pick which social media networks young people can or cannot use rather than parents. This is gatekeeping a generation of people from the Internet.”

The Consumer Choice Center believes strongly that if Virginia were to pass such a bill, the state would be aligning with the idea that the government should have the final say over young people’s access to the Internet, diminishing the role of parents in their kids’ digital lives. 

“That is fundamentally wrong,” concluded Ossowski. “We as a society should trust that parents have the ultimate right to decide whether or not their children access certain websites or services, not government officials sitting in Richmond. No one knows what is in the best interests of their child than parents.” 

**

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe who want smart public policies that are fit for growth, elevate tech innovation, and protect lifestyle freedom. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, D.C., Ottawa, Brussels, Geneva, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for  Consumer Choice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org..

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