fbpx

Author: Yaël Ossowski

Kids Online Safety Act May be a Threat to Privacy

The Kids Online Safety Act, recently reintroduced by a group of bipartisan US Senators, is being criticized as a potential gateway to digital censorship rather than genuine protection for minors online.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, a Washington, D.C. based consumer advocacy group, argues that the bill poses constitutional concerns and could grant excessive powers to regulate digital platforms. Ossowski suggests that rather than enhancing online safety, such legislation might compromise user experiences and jeopardize personal data security.

The Consumer Choice Center contends that enacting this bill would signify a shift towards government control over children’s internet access, diminishing parental authority. Ossowski emphasizes that safeguarding children online should start at home, with parental guidance, rather than relying on government intervention to dictate their online activities.

Read the full text here

‘Green bubble’ texts are not the FCC’s problem to solve  

When iPhone users see a green bubble pop up in their text messages, it has a way of dulling the experience. Emoji reactions, Facetime video calls, or even high-quality images over WiFi are immediately broken once a green-bubbled Android user slides into a group thread. 

This is the reality of Apple’s iMessage protocol, the default messaging app for its users. These consumers enjoy end-to-end encryption, high-quality image sharing, and a full range of emoji and message reactions all in tidy blue chat bubbles. Android users texting iPhones, though, have their messages carried over the limited SMS protocol with none of those features, yielding the green bubbles you may see in your chats. 

Rather than use similarly encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram, which remain more popular overseas, over 125 million Americans are plugged into the iPhone ecosystem. It’s no wonder, then, that social pressure exists for non-Apple users, particularly teens, who prefer iMessage over its competitors. 

To solve this, innovative developers have created Android apps to route around Apple’s strict “walled garden.” Some apps offer third-party relay servers running on Mac computers, allowing Android users to communicate on iMessage while breaking Apple’s proprietary encryption. 

The company Beeper found a way to reverse-engineer iMessage’s protocol without relays, giving Android users a direct connection with Apple’s servers and all iPhones. The app quickly became popular on Android devices — but Apple soon took notice. 

In December, Beeper announced it would abandon its service after Apple made protocol changes that blocked the app’s workaround. It’s a typical cycle for an innovative startup looking to disrupt an industry. 

But then came the politicians.  

That same week, a bipartisan group of senators and congressmen, including Big Tech foes Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, sent a letter to the Department of Justice demanding an antitrust investigation against Apple. Their letter claimed Apple’s de facto block on Beeper’s workaround “harms competition” and “eliminates choices for consumers.”  

On Monday, FCC Chair Brendan Carr called on his agency to investigate Apple’s iMessage based on Part 14 of the commission’s rules regarding accessibility, usability and compatibility. Carr claims the iMessage experience harms consumers with disabilities who may not be able to read the “low contrast” green bubbles coming from Android users. 

Add that to the growing list of grievances being brought against American tech firms by Washington. 

Is this truly a situation that warrants intervention by the nation’s telecom regulator and antitrust hawks in Congress?  

There are meaningful market solutions available to consumers. While Apple defends its iMessage protocol, the company has also pledged to upgrade how its tech interacts with non-Apple devices. 

This month, Apple announced it will soon upgrade its SMS and MMS messaging to what’s known as the RCS protocol (Rich Communications Services), allowing more multimedia features and functionality with other devices that would closely match the iMessage experience. 

This is unlikely to silence Apple’s critics, however, because this is about far more than blue and green chat bubbles. 

A growing number of public and law enforcement officials are advocating for outlawing messaging encryption altogether, which iMessage uses by default. The FBI has already battled Apple numerous times over its encryption protocol and routinely attempts to crack it. 

The same goes for rival companies that rely on Apple’s App Store to deliver their products to Apple users. 

In 2020, video game maker Epic Games sued Apple and won a partial victory, classifying Apple’s management of its App Store as “anti-competitive.” In 2023, Damus, an iPhone app for the decentralized messaging protocol known as Nostr, revealed Apple was threatening to delist their app if it allowed users to make Bitcoin payments for content instead of Apple Pay. 

At the same time, the Justice Department is likely to issue a sweeping antitrust lawsuit against the company, with the aim of breaking apart the hardware and software integrations that Apple has made so central to its product ecosystem. Apple is fighting a war on multiple fronts, and not every new conflict opened in good faith. 

Apple’s competitors and the federal government seem to be in lockstep on breaking the entire Apple user experience.  

Apple claims its “walled garden” approach exists to add simplicity and security for its users, and I gather most consumers with iPhones would agree. Apple created this garden, and consumers flock to it because they find value in it. It stands to reason that for outside developers and Apple’s competitors, the walled garden is a thorn in their side. 

These are real issues that impact consumers, and they deserve to be addressed. However, we must make distinctions between problems that are merely conflicts between rival companies competing for consumers, and those that require government intervention on consumers’ behalf.  

The switching costs and trade-offs for American iPhone users aren’t worth it to most. And that’s nothing will be or should be remedied by agency decree or legislation. The FCC would just be manifesting a solution in search of a problem when it comes to chat bubbles. 

If the U.S. wants to remain competitive on a global scale, we need our regulatory agencies to focus on calling balls and strikes to ensure fairness and competitiveness, not dictating the chat protocol between Android and Apple users. 

Opening up Pandora’s box of government meddling into a niche technology, whether that’s on your newsfeed or chat app, would be a step too far. It would be much more trouble than it’s worth. 

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.

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..

The FTC’s cheering of a failed merger shows its disdain for consumers

Since when do government agencies applaud business deals that fall apart, resulting in hundreds of layoffs and loss opportunities for consumers who depend on those products?

That’s what happened earlier this month, when the Federal Trade Commission issued a press release applauding the failed $1.7 billion acquisition of the technology firm iRobot by the ecommerce giant Amazon.

The FTC, as well as Democratic Senators and competition regulators in the European Union, were hostile to the deal as they claimed it would “harm” competition for robot vacuum cleaners, one of the main consumer products made by iRobot, including its signature Roomba, one of the first products of its type. UK regulators disagreed and green-lit the deal back in June 2023.

Once the termination of the deal was announced, iRobot said it would be forced to lay off 31% of its employees – over 350 of them – and likely pause new projects. Their CEO also stepped down amid a falling stock price.

In response to the news, the FTC gloated that the transaction fell apart:

“We are pleased that Amazon and iRobot have abandoned their proposed transaction. The Commission’s probe focused on Amazon’s ability and incentive to favor its own products and disfavor rivals’, and associated effects on innovation, entry barriers, and consumer privacy. The Commission’s investigation revealed significant concerns about the transaction’s potential competitive effects. The FTC will not hesitate to take action in enforcing the antitrust laws to ensure that competition remains robust.”

–Federal Trade Commission Associate Director for Merger Analysis Nathan Soderstrom

The failure of business mergers and acquisitions aren’t uncommon. Whether it be because of stockholder pressure, regulatory concerns, or mismatch of company cultures, deals like this fall apart all the time as often as they succeed. This cycle, caused by market forces, is healthy for innovation, better allocation of capital, and more options available for consumers in the market.

However, if the failure of a business deal and then a company comes at the hands of a regulator, that’s an entirely different matter. One that should leave us asking hard questions of the officials at these agencies, and whether they’re really looking out for consumers’ best interest.

The impact of such failures on consumers should not be lost.

With the failure of this acquisition, and without new innovative products or injections of capital, the maker of one of the first robotic vacuums purchased by millions of Americans and global consumers will likely end up a shadow of its former self. One more product will disappear from physical and online retail shelves, giving consumers less choice than they had previously.

There will still be plenty of options for consumers who want a robotic vacuum in their home, but the significant blow to iRobot means fewer consumers will be able to benefit from the new products and services that could have spawned as a result of this merger.

Armed with Amazon’s vast inventory, its capital, and its supply chain, as well as the current demand for artificial intelligence products consumers can use in their homes, we can only imagine what this partnership could have produced.

This leaves us asking an important question: had Amazon been allowed to purchase iRobot, would it have put other companies at a disadvantage? Would it have squelched competition in robotic vacuum cleaners? Would it have reduced choice and options for consumers? Or would it have led to significantly more innovations and products that we could have benefited from?

Put simply, we just don’t know. But neither does the FTC nor the EU regulators who also shot this deal down. Rather than increasing competition or denying an advantage, the FTC has managed to kill off the opportunities for an American company to grow and succeed, as well as the consumers who benefit from these products.

This has been a key mantra of the FTC during this administration, seeking to put halts on mergers and acquisitions for grocery stores, technology companies, and even healthcare firms, as my colleague Kimberlee Josephson eloquently puts here. These are robust and competitive sectors that are continuing to deliver innovation to consumers, and would benefit from having more not fewer companies.

Instead of a win for consumers as the FTC claims, all we have now is a failed business deal, a company in shambles, and an uncertain path for the open market of robotic vacuums. All in the name of “protecting the consumer”.

Since when should our regulatory agencies, which act in our name, cheer and applaud when deals like this lead to layoffs, declining revenues, and fewer options for consumers? That seems like not only poor in taste, but harmful to our own economic prospects and choices as customers.

If consumers aren’t scratching their heads yet, they definitely should be.

The EU’s AI ACT will stifle innovation and won’t become a global standard

February 5, 2024 – On February 2, the European Union’s ambassadors green lit the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). Next week, the Internal Market and Civil Liberties committees will decide its fate, while the European Parliament is expected to cast their vote in plenary session either in March or April. 

The European Commission addressed a plethora of criticism on the AI Act’s potential to stifle innovation in the EU by presenting an AI Innovation package for startups and SMEs. It includes EU’s investment in supercomputers, statements on Horizon Europe and Digital Europe programs investing up to €4 billion until 2027, establishment of a new coordination body – AI Office – within the European Commission.

Egle Markeviciute, Head of Digital and Innovation Policies at the Consumer Choice Center, responds:

“Innovation requires not only good science, business and science cooperation, talent, regulatory predictability, access to finance, but one of the most motivating and special elements – room and tolerance for experimentation and risk. The AI Act is likely to stifle the private sector’s ability to innovate by moving their focus to extensive compliance lists and allowing only ‘controlled innovation’ via regulatory sandboxes which allow experimentation in a vacuum for up to 6 months,” said Markeviciute. 

“Controlled innovation produces controlled results – or lack thereof. It seems that instead of leaving regulatory space for innovation, the EU once again focuses on compensating this loss in monetary form. There will never be enough money to compensate for freedom to act and freedom to innovate,” she added.

“The European Union’s AI Act will be considered a success only if it becomes a global standard. So far, it does not seem the world is planning on following in the EU’s footsteps.”

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, adds additional context:

“Despite optimistic belief in the ‘Brussels effect’, the AI Act has not yet resonated with the world. South Korea will focus on the G7 Hiroshima process instead of the AI Act. Singapore, the Philippines, and the United Kingdom have openly expressed concern that imperative AI regulations at this stage can stifle innovation. US President Biden issued an AI Executive Order on the use of AI back in October of 2023, yet the US approach seems to be less restrictive and relies upon federal agency rules,” said Ossowski.

“Even China – a champion of state involvement in both individual and business practices is yet to finalize its AI Law in 2024 and is unlikely to be strict with AI companies compliance due to their ambition in terms of global AI race. In this context, we have to acknowledge that the EU has to adhere to already existing frameworks for AI regulation, not the other way around,” concluded Ossowski.

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

Vermont can’t afford to import prohibitionist policies on flavored vapes

Banning products will not make them go away. It will only create incentives for illicit markets to offer them to adult or high school students alike.

In 2013, Vermont became a New England leader by loosening its laws on cannabis possession, making it the first to do so by a legislative vote. 

Reporting on these events for Vermont Watchdog, I noted how this move was praised by many social justice advocates after years of abuse of narcotics of all types, and the recognition by then-Gov. Peter Shumlin and lawmakers that prohibition was not an answer.

Now, a decade later, Vermont has a thriving cannabis industry that is both legal and safe, offering jobs and removing the stigma of both patients and consumers who want to responsibly enjoy cannabis.

On another front, while prohibition has fallen by the wayside for cannabis, state lawmakers are entertaining another kind of prohibition on flavors for adult vapers. Modeled after similar efforts in Massachusetts, S.18, which passed the Vermont Senate earlier this year, would outlaw any legal vaping products available in flavors like mint or menthol. 

Though earlier testimony has focused on the availability of such products to underage youth, it would be counterfactual for Vermont to install a flavor ban aimed at adults — presumably in order to deprive minors from accessing these products — while maintaining a legal regime for cannabis, which comes with its own risks for young adults.

The fact remains that vaping devices — much like cannabis products — are not available to anyone under 21 years of age. Completely cutting off adults who would like to switch away from traditional cigarettes by using more attractive and less harmful flavored vaping devices would be a ruinous policy that would only cause more harm.

There are an estimated 16% of Vermonters who are daily smokers. As a good measure of faith, why not incentivize these individuals to switch to less harmful nicotine alternatives? If the only nicotine alternatives available to adults who want to quit smoking are tobacco-flavored, how would this be any real incentive?

Banning products will not make them go away. It will only create incentives for illicit markets

to offer them to adult or high school students alike, without regard for a safe and legal system that exists for a similar product like cannabis.

If state legislators want to make an impact and reduce smoking, the best course of action is to offer adults a regulated and safe market of flavored vaping products, while maintaining a policy of zero-tolerance for any retail shop or convenience store that sells to youth. Whether that be stiffer penalties or loss of licenses, there can be no acceptance of young people gaining access to these products. Hence, we should view this as an appropriate issue of age-gating products, much like we do for alcohol, cannabis and other goods.

With adequate checks and administration, Vermont adults deserve a system where they can legally acquire their flavored vaping products, rather than stoop to using the black market either in-state or across the Vermont border. That is a certain way to provide greater consumer choice, uphold the rule of law, and ensure that kids will not have access to these products.

Originally published here

John Oliver’s backward solutions for freight rail fail the American people

Dressed up as comedy, John Oliver dedicated an entire segment of his “Last Week Tonight” HBO program to focus on the ills of America’s freight rail industry. 

A self-professed train aficionado, Oliver had choice words for our commercial railroads on the matter of dangerous cargo loads, labor concerns, and an overall lackluster attention to safety. However, he doesn’t compare the industry to the troublesome safety records of the trucking or pipeline industries, which also face similar issues in transporting hazardous goods. In the end, Oliver’s analysis points predictably toward government regulation as a would-be savior of the rail industry. 

As is usually the case in a John Oliver monologue on rather niche public policy, there is one blaring fact that Oliver neglects to mention: Unlike other industries, private train companies are required by law to carry anything and everything that customers may bring their way. It’s a policy known as the common carrier obligation. 

The common carrier obligation, a cornerstone of the freight rail industry, is often hailed as a mechanism to ensure fairness and accessibility to American railways. However, a closer look reveals that this regulatory mandate, intended to benefit the public, may inadvertently impose significant costs on consumers. The seemingly noble commitment to nondiscrimination and universal service is, in reality, a double-edged sword that hinders efficiency and drives up prices for the very consumers it aims to protect. 

In telecommunications, it is similar to the Title II classification we know as net neutrality, which would force Internet Service Providers to treat all internet traffic as equal while boosting the bureaucracy around its enforcement. This principle is rooted in the idea of promoting fair competition and preventing monopolistic practices. However, the unintended consequence of this method of regulation translates into a heavier financial burden on consumers. 

To maintain a level playing field and ensure fair treatment for all shippers, regulatory bodies often scrutinize rate-setting practices. This scrutiny stifles the ability of railroads to adjust rates in response to market conditions and operational costs. As a result, rail companies find themselves hamstrung by regulations, unable to adopt competitive pricing strategies that would ultimately benefit consumers by prioritizing efficiency and timeliness. 

Mandatory nondiscriminatory services mean that rail companies must accommodate a wide array of shipping demands, leading to potential congestion and logistical challenges — the same ones Oliver lamented in his segment. The government is already highly involved in rail policy. That’s the problem.  

The Reliable Rail Service Act (S. 2071), penned by Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), is just another example of a well-intentioned policy that risks stifling the very dynamism within the industry that it seeks to create. The fact of the matter is, it’s been over a hundred years and U.S. lawmakers have yet to try a regulatory scheme that reduces mandates and micromanagement of rail. It’s way past time to reassess the common carrier obligation imposed on rail companies.  

Simplifying or outright eliminating this requirement would empower rail companies to operate with greater flexibility and pursue the kind of safer practices that John Oliver no doubt wishes to see adopted. It’s harder to prioritize safe loads when the law requires rail companies to carry everything thrown at them.  

Baldwin and Marshall’s Senate colleagues should reject the Reliable Rail Service Act. Less central planning would go a long way toward improving the industry.  

Another pivotal piece of the puzzle is the regulatory structure for the Surface Transportation Board. The STB Reauthorization Act should be revisited to clarify the board’s role, emphasizing its position as a remedial agency tasked with dispute resolution and the promotion of a competitive environment. This revision would curtail the STB’s tendency to formulate its own policies and create a regulatory status quo that is more harmonious between government oversight and private sector innovation. 

A new year approaches, and with it a fresh opportunity for a paradigm shift within the U.S. freight rail industry. John Oliver was right to point out all the shortcomings of rail, but we have yet to try a 21st-century approach to regulation that sets the industry free to innovate. On our current trajectory, freight rail will continue to look and function like a relic of the past.  

Consumers have deserved better for a long time.  

Originally published here

EPA Could Drown Industries, Make Consumers Pay

Has air pollution improved in our lifetime?

The narrative is that our atmosphere and air quality are more pollutedthan ever, requiring drastic economic and societal reform to clean it.

But in the United States, the opposite is true.

According to the EPA’s data, air pollution — measured using the six most common air pollutants — has reduced 42 percent since 2000. This measure considers the molecular makeup of particulate matter, whether that be smoke, dust or soot.

These numbers may be increasing in some developing countries where air pollution is a measurable problem, such as China or India. Still, the United States has managed to take a different path.

While some of this is because of policing and permitting programs by federal and state environmental regulators, the overwhelming amount of reduction has been generated in cleaner and more efficient practices from industries themselves — including manufacturing, agriculture and energy — as a means of reducing their costs.

However successful we’ve been in reducing air pollution, a proposed rule that could upset that decline and put many industries and the consumers that depend on them at risk.

In January, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule limiting the amount of particulate matter from 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air to between 9 and 10, seeking to update the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

That rule is being examined by the Office of Management and Budget, leading to concerns that the drastic regulatory change would harm more than help.

In September, 23 Republican senators sent a letter to the EPA administrator urging him to reconsider, citing the economic cost and their belief that lowering the standard would “produce little to no measurable public health or environmental benefits.”

This decision follows the EPA’s reconsideration of the Trump administration’s stance on particulate matter in June 2021, where it opted to maintain the existing National Ambient Air Quality Standards of 12 micrograms per cubic meter. The proposed rule is awaiting approval after undergoing interagency review with the OMB.

The NAAQS rule is pivotal in regulating “major sources” of pollutants or significant modifications to existing sources such as power plants and manufacturing facilities. Under the current standard, the industry has thrived thanks to innovative approaches to resource utilization. The proposed change, however, could force manufacturers and power generators to curtail their operations significantly, leading to revenue losses and job cuts. More important, this would eventually raise costs or reduce choices for consumers who depend on those industries.

If implemented, the new particulate matter standard could grind manufacturing and industrial projects to a halt, affecting new and continuing initiatives. Compliance with the stricter standard would become a significant challenge for companies, jeopardizing manufacturing, power generation and other vital industrial activities.

Ironically, this move could hinder President Biden’s goal of reshoring manufacturing jobs and establishing the nation as a leader in energy transition technologies. Rather than fostering growth, the EPA’s rule risks stifling U.S. manufacturing, driving investment and jobs overseas.

The numbers tell a grim story. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, the proposed standard could threaten economic activity from $162.4 billion to $197.4 billion, putting 852,100 to 973,900 jobs at risk. Additionally, 200 counties may be unable to support industrial activity if the rule is adopted.

In essence, the EPA’s proposed rule is a solution in search of a problem. Punishing U.S. industry, which has excelled in achieving clean air standards, this move threatens to destabilize the economy and penalize consumers. The OMB must reject this rule, recognizing the potential for severe economic repercussions and the unnecessary burden it places on businesses and consumers.

Originally published here

Florida Youth Deserve Better Than Gatekeeping of Social Apps

Jan 22, 2024

Dear State Representatives and Senators,

As a consumer advocacy group engaged on a wide range of digital issues including privacy and technological innovation, representing both our members and consumers, we implore you to consider another path when it comes to protecting Florida youth online, specifically HB1.

In its current form, the law would be the most draconian age-verification process for online platforms in the nation, barring all users under the age of 16 who want to use specific social media platforms regardless of parental consent or preferences for their child’s online presence. 

This process would also require select social media companies to collect sensitive personal information that we do not believe should ever be in the possession of any private entities by government mandate. This is ripe for future abuse as well as data security threats that could carry real harm to young people beginning their lives online. It will be a pandora’s box of epic proportions.

What’s more, the law makes overly broad exceptions for apps that can demonstrate a “predominate” use case for private messaging services. There are better ways to approach this, such as specifying digital services that focus exclusively on messaging. The state of Florida would be creating an uneven playing field, choosing winners and losers in the social media space, and privileging certain apps arbitrarily based on what function consumers utilize most. 

A solution that better respects parental rights, defends American innovation, and allows online consumers and their parents to choose digital apps freely would not only be more adequate, but would also allow the best private sector solutions to emerge organically. 

Parents should not have their authority and decision-making power usurped by state law or institutions, no matter how noble the cause. Rather than gatekeeping an entire generation from enjoying social connections online, we implore you to provide another solution that works for parents, young online consumers, and the American tech innovators who provide value for each and every one of us in our daily lives.

In a free country with a vibrant competitive marketplace, we will lose our global competitive edge if an entire generation is kept from the keyboard and the online global village. The Consumer Choice Center trusts parents to make the right call for their kids under 16 when it comes to social media activity. We hope you will too. 

Sincerely yours,

Yaël Ossowski

Deputy Director, Consumer Choice Center

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