Originally posted to X.
Texas families don’t need more government telling them how to parent. They need more freedom, tools, and trust. But Senate Bill 2420 and its companion House Bill 4901—misleadingly named the App Store Accountability Act—head in the exact wrong direction. While the bill’s stated goal is to protect children online, it does so by inserting the state into decisions that should be left to families. SB 2420 would require app stores to verify users’ ages, assign minors to their parents’ accounts, and block access to apps unless parental consent is obtained. It even mandates sharing sensitive information across platforms to enforce these requirements. What’s presented as a safety measure is a sweeping government mandate that undermines parental rights, tramples privacy, and punishes innovation. Let’s be clear: protecting kids online matters. As a father of three, I understand the desire to shield our children from harmful content and bad influences. But that doesn’t mean we hand over the reins to government bureaucrats or force businesses into the role of digital babysitter. SB 2420 assumes that politicians know better than parents. That’s not just offensive—it’s dangerous. It takes control out of the hands of families and gives it to tech platforms acting under state orders. The bill would require app stores to determine who qualifies as a parent or guardian, decide what age is appropriate for each app, and share user data across platforms to verify compliance—all without user consent. That’s a privacy disaster waiting to happen. Texans should be deeply concerned about what this means for digital autonomy. When the government mandates age verification and app restrictions without consent, it opens the door to surveillance, data abuse, and censorship. Once the government starts dictating what apps your child can or can’t use, how long before it extends that power to adults? We’ve seen what happens when states try to micromanage the tech world. California’s heavy-handed regulations have led to less innovation, fewer choices, and higher compliance costs that only the biggest tech companies can afford. If Texas adopts this bill, we risk driving away startups, stifling competition, and consolidating even more power in the hands of Silicon Valley giants. Ironically, SB 2420 would hurt the very competition lawmakers say they want to promote. SB 2420 also distorts accountability. Instead of holding app developers responsible for harmful content or features, the bill targets app stores—the platforms that distribute them. That’s like punishing bookstores instead of the authors. It’s a classic case of misaligned incentives: pushing liability upstream to avoid tackling the real issues downstream. But perhaps most troubling is how this bill sidelines the most important players in a child’s life—parents. Every family is different. What one parent considers inappropriate, another may see as an opportunity to teach and guide. That’s the beauty of parental freedom. One-size-fits-all mandates erase those differences and enforce government-approved parenting. This isn’t about ignoring the risks kids face online. It’s about choosing the right response. We should empower parents with better tools, not replace them with regulations. Tech companies are already responding to consumer demand by offering advanced parental controls, app filters, and usage tracking—solutions that let families decide what works best for them. That’s the free-market approach that respects both liberty and responsibility. Lawmakers who care about protecting kids should focus on education, transparency, and innovation. They should encourage companies to compete on safety features and support digital literacy programs that help parents and kids make informed choices. But they shouldn’t centralize control in Austin and pretend that’s a substitute for real parenting. SB 2420 may be well-intentioned, but it’s the wrong solution. It’s terrible for privacy. Bad for innovation. And worst of all, it sends the message that government—not parents—should be in charge. Texans know better. We don’t need the state raising our kids. Let’s trust families. Let’s trust freedom.
0 Comments
Navigating Antitrust: A Consumer-Centric Approach with Tirzah Duren | Let People Prosper Ep. 1434/10/2025 Can the government really protect consumers better than markets?
In this episode of the Let People Prosper Show, I discuss this question and much more with Tirzah Duren, president of the American Consumer Institute, who brings a unique background in anthropology and economics to public policy. Together, we explore the future of antitrust regulation, the consumer welfare standard, and how artificial intelligence and content moderation intersect with politics, tech, and personal freedom. Tirzah offers a robust case for why consumer-focused policy—not government control—is the best path forward. For more insights, visit vanceginn.com and get even greater value with a subscription to my Substack newsletter at vanceginn.substack.com. (0:00) – Intro to antitrust, Tirzah’s journey, and why consumer focus matters (6:02) – Global insights and the role of anthropology in shaping policy (12:01) – Understanding how government disrupts market dynamics (15:11) – Why the consumer welfare standard is still the best antitrust tool (23:17) – AI’s promise, pitfalls, and how to regulate it wisely (32:43) – Federalism and AI: What role should states play? Originally posted with Logan Kolas at The Center Square.
Some Texas lawmakers insist that a small business carveout in HB 1709, called the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), will shield fledgling businesses from its Euro-style micromanagement of artificial intelligence. They are mistaken. TRAIGA is a sweeping attempt to regulate AI under the pretext of preventing algorithmic bias. In reality, it imposes excessive compliance burdens that stifle innovation, particularly among small businesses. It forces AI developers, distributors, and deployers to jump through bureaucratic hoops of paperwork, audits, and impact assessments. The bill’s so-called small business exemption – for firms earning less than $7.5 million annually – ignores how AI works in the real economy. Most small businesses rely on AI tools developed by larger firms – and even use those tools to compete against them. Since those companies must comply with TRAIGA’s mandates, they will pass compliance costs down the supply chain, increasing expenses for everyone and depriving small businesses of a tool they can use to stay competitive against larger businesses. A recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce report found that a quarter of small businesses in America already use AI to stay competitive. Whether it’s automated resume screening for construction, bid writing for utilities, AI-driven medical scheduling, or even simple Excel functions, TRAIGA could place everyday AI applications under costly regulatory scrutiny. TRAIGA’s compliance burdens will discourage AI adoption among smaller firms, widening the gap between startups and entrenched players. Some lawmakers may justify this by arguing that it only targets “Big Tech,” but the reality is different: When large AI firms are overregulated, small businesses that rely on them suffer. Texas is at the center of the AI revolution. Major AI infrastructure investments from firms like OpenAI, Oracle, and Microsoft bring advanced computational tools to startups and entrepreneurs. The Stargate initiative, backed by SoftBank and OpenAI, is expected to drive AI infrastructure development nationwide – starting in Abilene, Texas. TRAIGA threatens to undermine this momentum. If passed, the bill will limit access to companies’ AI tools, increase costs to cover compliance, or abandon Texas altogether. Worse, the bill’s vague and subjective language will create a chilling effect, causing businesses to avoid investing in AI out of fear of regulatory entanglement. California attempted a similar approach, and it backfired. The state’s AI bill was so convoluted and anti-innovation that even some of the most AI-hostile legislators had to backtrack. TRAIGA follows that same failed progressive model by punishing businesses not for actual harm but for hypothetical future harm – a dangerous “guilty until proven innocent” framework. Fortunately, there is a better path forward. Instead of suffocating Texas businesses with excessive regulation, the Texas AI Freedom Act (TAIFA) will ensure that AI innovation thrives. Filed by Rep. Brian Harrison, TAIFA takes the opposite approach of TRAIGA – it removes bureaucratic roadblocks and unleashes the power of the free market. Unlike TRAIGA, which burdens small businesses, TAIFA cuts red tape and fosters AI development by creating a temporary AI Advisory Council to identify and remove unnecessary regulations. It also focuses AI policy on performance and American ingenuity by establishing regulatory laboratories where businesses can test AI innovations in a free-market setting. Notably, the TAIFA alternative ensures the government does not use AI expansion as an excuse to grow its power. The U.S. is in the middle of an AI revolution, and Texas should lead it. TRAIGA would cripple AI growth in Texas, pushing investment to states with less burdensome policies. Worse, it could open the AI battlefield for China and other adversaries to dominate. Texas should not follow California’s failed example of overregulation. Instead, it must embrace policies that encourage innovation, competition, and entrepreneurship. The Texas AI Freedom Act does precisely that. TRAIGA shackles AI innovation. TAIFA unleashes it. Texas lawmakers must choose wisely. Originally posted to X.
America’s tech sector should be a powerhouse of innovation, growth, and opportunity. Instead, years of government overreach under the Biden administration stalled progress, prioritized bureaucratic control over consumer benefits, and handed competitive advantages to China and the European Union. With President Trump back in the White House and a Republican-led Congress, there is an opportunity to reverse the damage, restore the consumer welfare standard, and unleash American innovation. The Biden administration’s tech regulatory agenda wasn’t about fostering competition but punishing success. By weaponizing antitrust laws and pushing intrusive regulations, Biden’s Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice often went after companies because they were big. This abandoned the anchor of antitrust law known as the consumer welfare standard, which evaluates competition based on the benefits to consumers rather than the size of a company. A glaring example was the FTC’s push to unwind Meta’s decade-old acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, despite these platforms delivering clear benefits to consumers and small businesses. The DOJ’s demand for Google to divest its Chrome browser and Android operating system was another case of overreach, ignoring the competitive and rapidly evolving tech landscape. These lawsuits didn’t promote competition; they created regulatory uncertainty, discouraged investment, and weakened America’s position in global tech markets. The costs of these policies have been significant. Regulatory compliance in the tech sector costs companies billions of dollars, diverting resources from research and development to legal battles. While Washington bureaucrats were busy trying to dismantle successful American firms, China was pouring state subsidies into its tech sector, gaining ground in AI, semiconductors, and 5G infrastructure. Meanwhile, the European Union advanced its Digital Markets Act, a regulatory scheme that disproportionately targets American companies while leaving European firms untouched. The Trump administration can reverse this costly course and help America lead. That starts with restoring the consumer welfare standard, ensuring that antitrust enforcement is based on facts, not ideology. It also means the Senate should confirm regulators who use this standard as an anchor and understand the importance of competition in free-market capitalism to drive innovation. Tech is more than an industry; it’s a major part of the next economic revolution. It employs 9.4 million workers in high-paying jobs and supports millions more across sectors like healthcare, manufacturing, and logistics. For every tech job created, an estimated four additional jobs emerge in related industries. The Magnificent Seven tech firms make up one-third of the S&P 500 valuation, meaning millions of retirees, pensioners, and 401(k) holders rely on strong tech markets for financial security. Yet under Biden, misguided regulatory efforts created instability in financial markets, scaring off investors, hindering mergers and acquisitions, and reducing long-term growth. The Trump administration should restore confidence by ensuring tech companies can grow and innovate without fear of politically-motivated crackdowns. Another critical challenge is stopping foreign regulatory creep. While Biden’s administration targeted U.S. tech leaders, it did little to push back against the European Union’s heavy-handed approach, which puts American companies at a disadvantage. Meanwhile, China has continued its march toward tech advancement, using destructive subsidies and protectionist policies to temporarily boost its tech giants while restricting access to foreign competitors. Instead of weakening U.S. firms by following that flawed industrial policy, the Trump administration should focus on unleashing the tech sector with less government intervention. Many regulators fail to understand that tech is not a monolith. Companies like Amazon, Nvidia, Apple, and Tesla operate in vastly different markets, from e-commerce to AI to semiconductor manufacturing. Lumping them together under blanket regulations creates distortions that stifle competition rather than enhance it. The reality is that markets evolve. If overregulation had crushed Microsoft in the 1990s, the rise of Google, Facebook, and the iPhone may never have happened. Bad regulation assumes that today’s dominant companies will remain so forever, but history has shown that private-sector innovation drives prosperity. The Trump administration and Congress have a historic opportunity to undo the mistakes of the last four years and set the stage for America’s next great wave of technological innovation. Rolling back Biden’s antitrust overreach, confirming regulators who understand the consumer welfare standard, pushing back against foreign regulatory aggression, and creating a stable environment for growth will ensure the U.S. remains the global leader in technology. The choice is clear: America should lead the world in tech innovation by getting the government out of the way. In this conversation, Dean Ball and I explore the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) and its implications for society, economy, and governance. Dean is a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He shares his motivations for engaging with AI, his journey into the field, and the misconceptions surrounding it. We discuss the historical context of technological advancements, the impact of AI on labor markets, and the regulatory challenges that arise as states like Texas introduce new frameworks for AI governance. Dean emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to regulation that fosters innovation while addressing potential risks and the connection with energy abundance.
|
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|