fbpx

Day: April 16, 2024

TikTok banni en Europe ?

Que signifie l’interdiction potentielle de TikTok pour l’Europe ?

La Chambre des représentants des Etats-Unis a récemment adopté un projet de loi qui obligerait le propriétaire du réseau de médias sociaux TikTok à vendre ses activités aux Etats-Unis à une entreprise américaine.

Selon ce projet de loi, soutenu par le président Biden, ByteDance aurait six mois pour vendre TikTok à une entreprise américaine, sous peine d’être interdit dans le pays.

Avec 170 millions d’utilisateurs aux Etats-Unis, TikTok est l’un des réseaux sociaux les plus populaires.

Les décideurs politiques et les régulateurs s’inquiètent de la sécurité des données des utilisateurs et du stockage des informations personnelles en Chine. Le fait que le Parti communiste chinois exerce une influence sur les grandes entreprises chinoises inquiète les observateurs nord-américains et européens quant à la sécurité de TikTok.

Un grand nombre de pays européens, ainsi que l’Union européenne elle-même, ont interdit l’utilisation de TikTok sur les téléphones des fonctionnaires et des bureaucrates, par crainte que les appareils ne soient compromis et que des informations essentielles ne soient volées.

« Il s’agit d’une question de sécurité nationale cruciale. Le Sénat doit s’en saisir et l’adopter », a déclaré Steve Scalise, chef de la majorité à la Chambre des représentants, à propos de TikTok sur le réseau social X. Karine Jean-Pierre, secrétaire de presse de la Maison-Blanche, a ajouté plus tard que l’administration Biden souhaitait également que « le Sénat agisse rapidement ».

Le P-DG de TikTok, Shou Zi Chew – qui, selon une source informée, est en visite à Washington cette semaine – a déclaré dans une vidéo postée après le vote que la loi, si elle était promulguée, « conduirait à une interdiction de TikTok aux Etats-Unis […] et priverait les créateurs et les petites entreprises de milliards de dollars ».

Même si la Chambre des représentants a adopté le projet de loi, son avenir est incertain au Sénat, où de nombreux législateurs ne sont pas convaincus de la nécessité d’une approche stricte à l’égard de TikTok. Les législateurs républicains, en particulier les plus proches de l’ancien président Trump, sont désormais plus indulgents à l’égard de l’application.

Une cession potentielle de TikTok aux Etats-Unis signifierait que Washington prendrait une mesure importante pour la protection de la vie privée des consommateurs. Bien sûr, ByteDance prétend qu’il s’agit en fait d’une interdiction, mais ce n’est pas le cas. Tout ce qu’il faut faire pour l’application, c’est de trouver une entreprise américaine qui garantira la protection de la vie privée des utilisateurs en vertu de la législation américaine.

Il est en fait ironique pour une entreprise chinoise de déplorer les actions des législateurs, alors que les réseaux de médias sociaux comme Facebook ou X sont illégaux en Chine depuis longtemps. En fait, TikTok lui-même est illégal en Chine, parce qu’il permet de partager trop d’informations que le Parti communiste chinois ne souhaite pas que ses citoyens voient.

Les gouvernements européens ont banni TikTok des applications des téléphones professionnels qu’ils distribuent, mais ils pratiquent également un double standard très atroce. Par exemple, le Parlement européen utilise TikTok pour transmettre des informations sur les prochaines élections européennes. C’est problématique, car si le Parlement européen dispose d’un compte officiel et actif, il signale à de nombreux consommateurs qu’il est sûr. Pour être cohérent, aucune des institutions ne devrait utiliser l’application, car si Bruxelles craint que TikTok n’espionne ses employés, pourquoi ne pourrait-il pas espionner les consommateurs ordinaires ?

Je ne suis pas du genre à réclamer une interdiction, mais lorsque la vie privée des consommateurs est menacée, c’est une bonne approche que de protéger l’intégrité de l’attente des consommateurs, selon laquelle ce qu’ils font avec l’application est purement lié à l’objectif de l’application.

Selon moi, il n’y a rien de mal à ce que les réseaux de médias sociaux utilisent des données précieuses pour faire de la publicité pour des produits, cela constitue leur modèle économique. Cependant, il est très différent, à mes yeux, de recevoir des publicités pour des bières artisanales sur Instagram et d’être activement soumis à des fuites de données au profit d’une puissance étrangère hostile.

Si les Etats-Unis finissent par adopter ce projet de loi, ils mettront l’Europe dans l’embarras. En effet, pendant que nous sommes occupés à imposer des amendes aux entreprises américaines et que nous nous préoccupons de la définition des « contenus illicites » sur les médias sociaux, mettant ainsi en péril le développement de nos propres acteurs technologiques, le gouvernement américain s’en prend activement aux pires délinquants.

Les médias sociaux sont amusants et utiles. Ils doivent également être sûrs. Au lieu de soutenir le fait que les débats politiques ou le partage d’articles de journaux constituent un problème, attaquons-nous au problème réel de l’ingérence étrangère et agissons au sujet de TikTok.

Originally published here

FDA Urged to Prioritize Access to Safer Alternatives

Consumer advocates spoke out against what they describe as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s “alarming neglect” in facilitating access to safer nicotine alternatives for millions of adult consumers during a House Oversight hearing today.

“Despite the bipartisan mandate of the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, the FDA’s performance has fallen short of expectations, leaving countless individuals without viable options to effectively transition away from combustible cigarettes,” the Consumer Choice Center wrote in a press note.

“With over 26 million premarket tobacco product applications (PMTA) languishing in bureaucratic limbo, the FDA has only authorized fewer than 50 granted to just a handful of firms, completely disregarding the 180-day review deadline set imposed by Congress,” said Consumer Choice Center U.S. Policy Analyst Elizabeth Hicks.

“Less than 10 unique devices are available on the regulated marketplace, all of which come from industry incumbents, not to mention the growing categories of nicotine alternatives such as heaters, pouches, toothpicks, and more.

Read the full text here

Influencers in Europe: what kind of regulation is needed?

Under the Belgian Presidency of the European Union, the European Council is seeking to clarify the rules applicable to online influencers. We’ve all seen them: people who pop up on our news feed, telling us a fantastic story about a new charger they’re using, a great holiday destination they’ve discovered or a tough new backpack they’ve tried.

That’s why many social media platforms have not only created tools to flag advertising content, but also updated their guidelines to restrict advertising that isn’t labelled as such.

In June, France introduced stricter regulations for online influencers to reduce risks to the public, this while questions remain over whether this is reconcilable with EU law, following a Commission opinion in August.

In December, the Italian competition authority (AGCM) tightened its rules on influencers, while Spain and Belgium are considering adopting national legislation on influencers. In this context, the adoption of rules at EU level would make it possible to avoid a fragmented patchwork of national regulations. Hence the Belgian Presidency’s idea to harmonise European rules in this area.

But what should these rules be? That’s where things get complicated…

Is there a need for compliance?

Let’s take the example of Capucine Anav, a French influencer who was nabbed by the regulator for advertising “anti-wave” patches to put on phones. On BFMTV, Anav explains herself rather poorly, claiming that she wasn’t aware of the specific rules, nor of the fact that these anti-wave patches are an unscientific farce.

Another example is Simon Castaldi, an Instagram influencer who forgot to put his “#sponsored” hashtags under his posts. He was then forced by the Répression des Fraudes (DGCCRF) to post that he had broken the rules on influencers. On television, he insisted that many influencers ignore the rules, as their popularity often arrives on their doorstep faster than they can learn the ethical guidelines of advertising.

Ultimately, two things can be true at once.

Influencers, if they can write invoices and think of clever ways to advertise products, can also think about understanding the laws surrounding their profession and act diligently when promoting products that appeal to a wide audience. At the same time, it also seems harsh to treat Instagram personalities with the same severity as we do marketing agencies, who produce content for major TV channels and have the resources to employ lawyers to ensure all content is compliant.

That said, the problem is not just compliance, but the need for compliance. For many decades, undisclosed advertising has been present in films. Remember Daniel Craig drinking a bottle of Heineken in the James Bond films? The mere fact that he drives an Aston Martin is also advertising. No one has made an issue of it, because these film studios bring in millions of euros in taxes and promote cities and countries through the films. What’s more, we’ve never taken consumers for fools, to the point of not understanding that Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta only mentioned McDonald’s in PulpFiction because the producers were paid to do so.

We don’t need to have the hashtag “sponsored” in front of us at the cinema to realise that we’re being advertised. In many cases on social media, we don’t need a detailed disclaimer either. Platforms should be able to decide how they want to manage their influencers on their platform.

Falsehoods

Still, there is regulatory responsibility in some cases, but it should be purely limited to the purpose of preventing allegations of false advertising – because if influencers promise a feature of a service or product that is not just hyperbolic, but factually incorrect, the company and the spokesperson should be able to be held accountable. For the rest, there is no reason for the regulator to take a close interest in the guidelines of the social media giants.

The influencer market has also shown the extent to which the government is content to manage systems and procedures from the past, not those of the digital age. By over-bureaucratising accounting and registration procedures for influencers, rather than offering easy digital reporting, the state is showing that it is lagging behind a model that increasingly allows people to have multiple and flexible income streams.

Influencers and advertising can be annoying. But unlike with government bureaucracy, we can simply opt to close the pop-up ads…

Originally published here

Vermont’s Pesticide Bill Ignores Key Data

It has only been six months since I wrote for Newsmax about a pesticide bill in New York state that will ban the use of neonicotinoid pesticides starting in 2029. In my op-ed, I laid out why New York’s bill was a bad idea, that it would hit vulnerable farmers and consumers and put the state at an economic disadvantage.

Unfortunately, since my piece was published, the state’s Legislature passed the bill anyway, disregarding the ongoing farmer protests in Europe, which bemoaned this exact type of overregulation.

The passing of the New York bill and its not being vetoed by Gov. Kathy Hochul isn’t the only thing that has happened since October. The Vermont House has passed what is almost a carbon copy of the New York bill, also set to go into effect in 2029, and also banning neonic-treated seeds for agricultural use.

The motivation for Vermont’s bill came from the same 2020 Cornell report that triggered the New York ban, even though the authors wrote, “While this risk assessment is intended to support evidence-based decisions, we make no recommendations or policy prescriptions.”

Vermont’s House also said that similar decisions in Canada and the European Union laid the groundwork for their ambitions, even though both Canada and the EU are offsetting the adverse consequences of the bans by paying more farm subsidies than the United States. The fiscal note presented to the Vermont House does not lay out how much this will cost taxpayers — unless, of course, the state expects farmers to just carry the costs themselves or put it on consumers who are already suffering from reduced purchasing power.

The main argument for these bills is that neonic insecticides harm bees. Not only is there no scientific evidence to support that, but it is also negated by the most recent Census of Agriculture, which found that bees are at record highs, with the U.S having added 1 million bee colonies since 2007.

The Washington Post reported that bee colonies are the fastest-growing livestock in the U.S, with a 31% increase in the past 15 years. If neonics, which have been in use since the 90s, were to cause bee population decline, they would be awfully bad at it.

As always, these bills have little to do with protecting birds or bees. They are the work of environmental campaigners who have the ideological view that agriculture needs no chemical input whatsoever. They argue for a switch to an all-organic model, seemingly ignoring that a shift to organics would not just explode consumer prices but also increase carbon dioxide emissions since organic farming requires more resources to achieve the same yield as conventional farming.

The Vermont Senate is currently considering the bill and will hopefully reject it not just on account of it being unscientific but also on the fact that Vermont farmers, who heavily rely on exports to other states, simply cannot afford it.

Originally published here

Misinformed Jon Stewart Applauds FTC Chair Lina Khan

It’s not often that the head of a U.S. federal agency is given the red carpet treatment on Comedy Central, but for Jon Stewart, it’s to be expected.

Lina Khan, chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), appeared on the revamped Daily Show featuring Stewart as host on Monday nights, to hype up the FTC’s work battling the “monopolies” of the current era. Khan was certainly in need of a pep rally, as even reporters at New York Magazine have taken note of her tumultuous tenure marked by mass resignations, continuous defeats in court and confused mission statement.

She championed efforts by the agency to scrutinize patents on medical inhalers, blocking ‘pharma bro’ Martin Shkreli from ever working again in pharmaceuticals and a tidal wave of lawsuits against Big Tech firms, namely Amazon, Meta and Apple.

Eager to add cases to the FTC’s docket, Stewart provided an anecdote about Apple allegedly blocking him from interviewing Khan on his now-defunct Apple podcast, The Problem With Jon Stewart.

Khan remained poised and professional in her response, but also revealed her ideology when it comes to modern business and competition.

“I think it just shows one of the dangers of what happens when you concentrate so much power and so much decision-making in a small number of companies,” she said.

The drawn-out interview reveals a contradiction in what the FTC is even supposed to do as a government agency. Is it about the consumer having choices and not being “bullied”? Or is the FTC just a bulwark against any and all corporate “bigness”?

To dissect her quote, there was no central decision to “concentrate” power or decision-making in Apple or any other tech company. Consumers voted to support these companies by buying their products and using their services to improve their lives. Because those companies now rake in billions and serve millions of customers, does that mean the FTC has to intervene?

The role of the FTC has never been to remedy concerns about higher prices, low wages or broader social ills. As stated in the eponymously named act signed by President Woodrow Wilson that created the agency in 1914, the FTC exists to prevent unfair competition and deception as it relates to commerce and to seek monetary redress when consumers are demonstrably harmed.

Stewart asks Khan to define monopolistic and oligopolist practices, and she downplays the traditional metric of “market share,” instead labeling “behavior” the most straightforward way to render judgment. That would explain her dismal win-loss ratio in both antitrust and mergers.

The FTC has struggled to demonstrate harm to the consumer under Lina Khan, because consumers are actually pretty pleased with the services she and Stewart loathe, like Amazon Prime. Khan is attempting to lead a revival of the Progressive Era antitrust movement, once spearheaded by former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who long crusaded against the “curse of bigness” in America and sought more active policing of private enterprise by the federal government.

This “New Brandeis movement” includes academics and government advisors such as Tim Wu and Lina Khan herself, who was a leading anti-monopoly voice as a staffer at both the FTC and the House Judiciary Committee, as well as a fellow at Columbia Law School. Stewart and his old colleague John Oliver might be vying for membership cards as well. Their primary target is tech companies and their innovations, ranging from artificial intelligence to algorithms, and digital app stores.

Antitrust authorities are carving out new theories about why innovations by tech firms are harmful to consumers — even if it can’t be proven. As she did on The Daily Show, Lina Khan labels companies as monopolistic even after her accusatory lawsuits are defeated in court.

It’s telling that when Stewart asks Khan if she’s “had success: with her antitrust cases, she only cites the layup Martin Shkreli case instead of what she’s staked her tenure on, which is breaking up Amazon, Meta and Google.

No questions from Stewart about Khan’s failed cases such as blocking Meta from buying a VR workout app, or her bizarre effort to jam Microsoft’s purchase of the video game company Activision-Blizzard. Her lawyers were in court armed with flimsy arguments about consumer welfare related to access to the popular Call of Duty series, and what kind of in-game skins Microsoft could make exclusive to Xbox. Embarrassing defeats.

Every week, there are vast new breaches of personal data that put millions of consumers at risk and should be promptly investigated by the FTC and other federal agencies. There is plenty of deception used by online ad firms, crypto scams and other companies that harm consumers and lead them to pay more, lose privacy or even their identities. This is met with little action from Khan’s distracted, ideological FTC.

Instead, she’s laser-focused on consolidation. Why do we have fewer companies in certain sectors of the economy, whether it be in telecom, airlines or meat-packing, as mentioned by Khan?

Once you increase the compliance costs to do business in any given industry with heavy regulation, the result is less competition. Large firms are best positioned to comply because compliance is very, very expensive. The more you regulate, the fewer firms can compete.

Originally published here

Farewell, Insulin? The Diabetes ‘Cartel’ Is Disrupting Itself, Proving Cynics Wrong

Diabetes affects nearly half a billion people worldwide, and the numbers are only going up with each generation. Recent research published by the American Diabetes Association and the CDC projects that by 2060 there will be at least 220,000 young people in the U.S. under the age of 20 with Type 2 diabetes. That’s a roughly 700 percent increase from just a few years ago. The disease poses one of the most significant known challenges to modern healthcare systems and has contributed to a new race for innovative, affordable solutions to weight gain and obesity. That race is led by Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, and it defies much of the usual cynicism about pharmaceutical giants. 

The impact of diabetes extends beyond individual suffering. It’s a condition with huge downstream economic effects – costing the United States a staggering $412 billion annually. Care for the condition accounts for about 10 percent of overall healthcare spending worldwide. As of 2023, people with diagnosed diabetes are responsible for one of every four dollars spent on healthcare in the U.S.

Insulin manufacturers frequently face criticism for escalating prices not making enough of the essential injections. Some U.S. states have even resorted to legal action, accusing insulin makers of maintaining artificial shortages. These companies are often vilified as the embodiment of greed, profiteers of patients’ misery.

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders knocked Novo Nordisk at the end of March, saying “Novo Nordisk did the right thing by recently reducing the price of its insulin products by some 75% in America – a company that made nearly $15 billion in profits last year, must now do the right thing with respect to Ozempic and Wegovy.”

The world’s largest insulin producers, Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, are spearheading the transition to make insulin injections obsolete for millions with developments of drugs classified as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1) such as Mounjaro/Zepbound and Ozempic/Wegovy. Eli Lilly was the first to commercialize synthetic insulin in 1982 and these companies are now actively betting on disrupting their own business models which made them global leaders in pharmaceuticals. 

These drugs work by essentially mimicking certain hormones produced by the human body, boosting feelings of fullness and satiety.

Patients crave less food and have even shown shifts in their overall food preferences. People taking the drugs were shown pictures of foods and demonstrated “less desire for salty, spicy, high-fat, sweet, and savory foods.” This was also the case with starch and dairy. Eating healthier becomes so much easier on GLP-1 drugs.

Beyond weight loss, GLP-1 agonists reduce the risk of stroke and heart disease. They even might mitigate dementia and Parkinson’s. Recently, the FDA approved Wegovy for treating severe cardiovascular conditions. Some reports even suggest that these drugs moderate alcohol consumption and addictive behaviors like gambling.

Will these myriad benefits help alleviate healthcare inflation? Presently, GLP-1 agonists come at a considerable cost, with an annual treatment cycle averaging $12,000 per patient in the U.S. Growing competition could reduce the sticker shock. More importantly, patients whose long-term health is greatly bettered by the drugs will enjoy lower healthcare costs. 

Thus, GLP-1 agonists have the potential to trim healthcare costs by a few percentage points of GDP. If realized, that’s a very different, more healthy world. Sheila Kahyaoglu of Jefferies Financial told Bloomberg that United Airlines alone stood to save $80 million annually on fuel costs if the average passenger shed 5 kilograms of body weight. Meal delivery services and fast-food chains are rapidly adapting, offering healthier options to accommodate customers embracing healthier lifestyles.

Perhaps the most misguided and longstanding accusation about pharmaceutical companies is that they aim to profit from perpetual illness rather than pursue the creation of curative drugs. The industry disruption we’re witnessing around diabetes management and weight loss should long stand as a reminder of just how wrong that cynical claim is.

Originally published here

John Oliver’s weird hatred for food delivery apps

On the latest episode of HBO’s Last Week Tonight, Oliver ripped into this branch of the sharing economyresponsible. We were told that the big players in this space — Grubhub, DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Postmates — are “leeches” that “undermine” the business of brick-and-mortar restaurants. Oliver equated their use of gig workers to slavery.

It’s yet more silliness.

The first of Oliver’s claims to be challenged is the notion that food delivery apps are a “parasite” middleman in the eatery-to-consumer relationship. Is the delivery app taking something away from restaurants or adding new, previously unrealized value? A little bit of both. Here, Oliver is getting at the commission fees charged by delivery apps, which reserve anywhere from 13% to 40% of the final billing for themselves, depending on what the restaurant agrees to when it registers with the app. 

Restaurateurs do operate in a tough industry, and margins can indeed be slim, even as tight as 5% for most in the business. The apps argue that they not only serve as a logistics and delivery service but also as a discovery platform for consumers looking to get some food. Top line: An exhausted parent enjoying a night home alone and eating delivery food was never a prospective customer for the restaurants downtown. Their potential market on any given night is driven by foot traffic, search engines, and word of mouth. Their business is built around consumers who have specific plans to eat out that night and enjoy being waited on. 

Delivery apps change all of that, and yes, they are disruptive. Consumers on delivery apps are usually looking for something specific. They want pizza, Peking duck, tacos, or a hoagie. In turn, the apps present local options ranging from corporate fast-food chains to locally owned restaurants. Those eateries now have a new potential market. It’s important to note that these apps also helped save many restaurants that would have otherwise lost all their business during the COVID-19 shutdowns.

However, in Oliver’s eyes, something evil and corrupt is happening when a delivery service brings a new customer and essentially charges a finder’s fee for locating that new customer. I’m reminded of James Bond’s words to Miss Moneypenny in GoldenEye, “What would I do without you?” To which Moneypenny rightly replies, “As far as I can recall, you’ve never had me.”

Gone are the days of needing to pay for junk mail flyers and door-hang menu campaigns to reach the consumer. Third-party apps cover that base easily.

But Oliver shovels so much luddite mud in a cleanly delivered monologue that any possible critic would be daunted about where to start. One throwaway falsehood is that the sharing economy is “the main source of income for many,” which is hardly true. According to the IRS, as well as internal data from relevant companies, 96% of Lyft drivers work elsewhere or are students in addition to driving. Ninety percent of delivery drivers for DoorDash worked less than 10 hours per week on the app. Most are making ends meet and covering troublesome bills, not looking to build a career.

Oliver’s worldview contends that when consumers are reaping new benefits, the consumers are somehow propagating an injustice. But what is a more virtuous basis for a business than providing what the community and consumers want? 

Oliver is a millionaire who can dine out any night he wants, wherever he wants, and can make time for doing so since his economic needs are met. The rest of us use delivery apps to fill potholes in our plans or holes in our pans. We choose these apps in the same way we choose dine-in restaurants — when it works for us. 

Originally published 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