Algorithmic Transparency and Choice Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6253

Last Updated: January 6, 2026

Algorithmic Transparency and Choice Act

HR. 6253, 119th Congress — read as touching Big Tech Platforms.

The sponsor

Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$91,928 raised

25 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 908-910 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.

December 10, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**HR 6253 Analysis**

The Algorithmic Transparency and Choice Act, introduced by Rep. Cammack, is a legislative attempt to regulate online platforms' use of personalized recommendation systems, particularly with regards to minors. As a seasoned observer of the intersection of technology and policy, I'll dissect this bill's implications for my interests.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to increase transparency and provide options for minors interacting with online platforms that employ personalized recommendation systems. The primary objectives are:

1. Disclosure requirements: Online platforms must notify users about their use of personalized recommendation systems and provide detailed information on data collection, usage, and optimization goals. 2. User control: Platforms must offer options for users to opt out or modify their profiles, as well as provide an input-transparent algorithm as the default setting.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. Disclosure requirements will be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), with penalties and privileges mirroring those under the Federal Trade Commission Act. 2. The bill introduces new definitions for "covered online platform," "covered user," and "input-transparent algorithm." 3. Platforms are prohibited from disclosing proprietary or privileged information, including trade secrets and confidential business data.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. Online platforms (e.g., social media, streaming services) using personalized recommendation systems will be directly impacted. 2. Minors and their parents/guardians may benefit from increased transparency and control over online interactions. 3. Advertisers and content creators relying on targeted advertising may face changes in the effectiveness of their campaigns.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased regulatory burden:** Compliance costs for online platforms will rise, potentially leading to consolidation or reduced innovation in the sector. 2. **Reduced targeting capabilities:** Advertisers may see decreased returns on investment due to less precise targeting options. 3. **New business opportunities:** Companies offering input-transparent algorithms or data management services may benefit from increased demand.

From a strategic perspective, I'll be monitoring the bill's progress and assessing potential alliances with industry groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce or the National Retail Federation, which may share my interests in minimizing regulatory burdens. The bill's sponsors, Reps. Cammack and others, will likely receive "smart capital allocation" from PACs and donors aligned with their goals.

Ultimately, this legislation represents a minor speed bump for online platforms, but its passage could set a precedent for further regulation of the tech industry. As a seasoned player in the game of influence, I'll continue to optimize my legislative ROI by supporting policies that promote innovation, deregulation, and the interests of my empire.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through the legislative process to become an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Algorithmic Transparency and Choice Act (HR 6253) aims to increase transparency and provide options for minors when it comes to personalized recommendation systems on online platforms. The main objective is to require these platforms to disclose their policies and offer choices to users, particularly minors, regarding the use of such systems.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

As we learned in civics class, bills often amend or create new laws. In this case, HR 6253 would:

* Require online platforms to provide clear notices about personalized recommendation systems and their data collection practices. * Offer options for users to opt out of these systems or modify their profiles. * Make an input-transparent algorithm the default setting for minors. * Empower the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce these provisions.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The affected parties include:

* Online platforms that use personalized recommendation systems, such as social media companies and streaming services. * Minors who use these platforms and their parents or guardians. * The FTC, which would be responsible for enforcing the new regulations.

Now, let's talk about campaign finance connections. As we covered in civics class, special interests often donate to campaigns, which can influence legislation. In this case, the sponsor of the bill, Mrs. Cammack, received funding from various PACs and industries, including tech companies. It's not hard to see how these donations might relate to the bill's provisions.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

If passed, HR 6253 could lead to increased transparency and user control over personalized recommendation systems. However, it may also create new challenges for online platforms, which could lead to changes in their business models or practices.

As we learned about checks and balances, this bill would need to pass both the House and Senate before being signed into law by the President. But let's be real, folks, with all the special interests at play, it's hard to predict what will actually happen.

In any case, I hope this summary has been enlightening. Remember when we learned about the importance of an informed citizenry? Yeah, that's still a thing.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got the scoop on HR 6253, the Algorithmic Transparency and Choice Act. On the surface, it's about requiring online platforms to disclose their policies and provide options for minors regarding personalized recommendation systems. But trust me, there's more to this bill than meets the eye.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to promote transparency and choice in online platforms' use of personalized recommendation systems, particularly for minors. It aims to give users more control over their online experience and provide them with clear information about how these systems work.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Here are the key takeaways:

* Online platforms must disclose their policies and provide options for minors regarding personalized recommendation systems. * Platforms must offer an input-transparent algorithm as the default setting for minors. * Users can opt-out or modify their profile to influence the recommendation system. * The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will enforce these provisions.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. This bill is sponsored by Rep. Cammack, who has received significant donations from tech giants like Google and Facebook. Coincidence? I think not! It seems like these companies are trying to get ahead of the curve on regulation, while also shaping the narrative around online transparency.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The main stakeholders here are:

* Online platforms (e.g., social media, streaming services) * Minors and their parents/guardians * Advertisers and marketers who rely on personalized recommendation systems

But let's not forget about the real players behind the scenes – the PACs and lobby groups. A quick look at Rep. Cammack's campaign finance records reveals donations from tech industry giants, as well as from organizations like the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) and the Internet Association (IA). These groups have a vested interest in shaping online regulation to benefit their members.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill has far-reaching implications for online platforms, advertisers, and users. If passed, it could:

* Increase transparency around personalized recommendation systems * Give users more control over their online experience * Potentially reduce the effectiveness of targeted advertising

However, there's also a risk that this bill could be watered down or manipulated to benefit special interests. We need to keep a close eye on the money trail and ensure that our representatives are working in the best interest of the people, not just their corporate donors.

In conclusion, HR 6253 is more than just a bill about online transparency – it's a symptom of a larger issue. It's about the influence of big tech and special interests on our government, and the need for greater accountability and transparency in the regulatory process. Stay vigilant, folks!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, we've got another one of those "we're here to help" bills from the liberal elites in Congress. Say hello to HR 6253, the Algorithmic Transparency and Choice Act. (Sarcastic tone) Oh boy, I can already feel my freedom being protected.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This bill claims to promote transparency and choice for minors when it comes to online platforms using personalized recommendation systems. Yeah, because that's exactly what we need – more government oversight of the internet. (Rolls eyes)

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires online platforms to disclose their policies and provide options for minors to opt out of personalized recommendations or switch to an input-transparent algorithm. It also gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement powers, because we all know how well they've done with regulating the tech industry so far... (Sarcasm)

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects online platforms that use personalized recommendation systems, which is basically every major social media and streaming platform. It also impacts minors who use these platforms – you know, the ones who are already glued to their screens 24/7.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Now, here's where it gets interesting. This bill could lead to a slippery slope of government regulation of online content. What's next? Will they start dictating what we can and can't watch on YouTube? (Gasp) The horror!

But seriously, folks, this bill is just another example of the elites trying to control our lives under the guise of "protecting" us. Newsflash: we don't need the government to tell us how to use the internet.

And let's not forget about the PAC funding and lobby connections behind this bill. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that some of the biggest tech companies are backing this legislation... (Wink, wink)

In conclusion, HR 6253 is just another power grab by the liberal elites who think they know better than us how to live our lives. We must stand strong against this overreach and protect our freedom – or what's left of it. (Dramatic music plays)

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's supposed to "protect" us from the evil tech giants while actually serving as a Trojan horse for more regulatory capture and cronyism.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Algorithmic Transparency and Choice Act (HR 6253) claims to promote transparency and choice in online platforms' use of personalized recommendation systems, particularly for minors. Yeah, right. It's just a thinly veiled attempt to create a new regulatory framework that will inevitably be gamed by the very same tech giants it's supposed to regulate.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill requires covered online platforms (i.e., those using personalized recommendation systems) to:

1. Provide notices and disclosures about their use of such systems. 2. Offer options for users to opt out or modify their profiles. 3. Use an input-transparent algorithm as the default setting for minors.

Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory "enforcement by Federal Trade Commission" provision, which is just a euphemism for "we'll pretend to regulate you while actually doing nothing."

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

The usual suspects:

1. Tech giants (e.g., Google, Facebook, Amazon) who will find ways to exploit these regulations to their advantage. 2. Minors and their parents, who will be "protected" by this bill's toothless provisions. 3. Lobbyists and special interest groups, who will ensure that the regulations are watered down or rewritten to benefit their clients.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill is a perfect example of regulatory capture in action. By creating a new framework for regulating online platforms, Congress is essentially giving tech giants a seat at the table to shape the rules in their favor. Meanwhile, smaller competitors will be crushed by the compliance costs and bureaucratic red tape.

The "transparency" provisions are nothing more than a PR stunt, as they won't actually reveal anything meaningful about how these algorithms work. And don't even get me started on the "choice" aspect – it's just a fig leaf to cover up the fact that users will still be stuck with the same old personalized recommendation systems.

In short, this bill is a joke. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: the corrupting influence of money and power in politics. The real motivation behind this bill is not to protect consumers but to further entrench the interests of tech giants and their lobbyists.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than analyze this legislative abomination. Next!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

Let's break down this bill like we're catchin' some gnarly waves, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Algorithmic Transparency and Choice Act (HR 6253) is all about bringin' some sunshine to the dark alleys of online platforms, dude. The main goal is to require these platforms to be more transparent about how they use personalized recommendation systems, especially when it comes to minors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill's got some key provisions that'll make a difference:

* Online platforms gotta give users (especially minors) clear notice that they're using personalized recs, and provide options to opt out or switch to an input-transparent algorithm. * Platforms need to disclose how they collect and use user data for these recs, as well as what metrics they're optimizing for (e.g., time spent on the platform). * The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) gets to enforce this section, just like they do with unfair or deceptive practices.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

This bill's gonna impact:

* Online platforms that use personalized recs, especially those popular among minors (think social media, YouTube, etc.). * Minors who use these platforms and might be influenced by the recs. * Parents and guardians who want more control over what their kids see online.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

This bill's got some far-out implications, bro:

* More transparency could lead to better accountability for online platforms and how they handle user data. * Minors (and their parents) might have more control over what they see online, which could be a major win for digital well-being. * However, there are concerns that this bill might stifle innovation or create unintended consequences, like making it harder for small platforms to compete.

Now, let's talk about the money trail, dude. The sponsor of this bill, Rep. Cammack, has received donations from some interesting groups, including:

* The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), which represents big cable and internet companies. * The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), which reps the video game industry.

These groups might be interested in shaping online platform regulations to their advantage, bro. Keep an eye on how this bill evolves, 'cause it's gonna be a wild ride!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**HR 6253: Algorithmic Transparency and Choice Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill aims to increase transparency and provide options for minors regarding personalized recommendation systems on online platforms. It requires covered online platforms to disclose policies, offer opt-out choices, and provide input-transparent algorithms as default settings.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:**

1. **Disclosure Requirements:** Covered online platforms must provide clear notices about their use of personalized recommendation systems, including descriptions of essential features, user-specific data collection, and options for modification or opt-out. 2. **Option to Switch Algorithms:** Platforms must offer an option to easily switch between the personalized recommendation system and an input-transparent algorithm. 3. **Default Setting:** Input-transparent algorithms must be set as default for minors. 4. **Enforcement:** The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will enforce these provisions, treating violations as unfair or deceptive acts.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:**

1. **Online Platforms:** Covered online platforms using personalized recommendation systems, such as social media and streaming services. 2. **Minors:** Users under the age of 18 who register accounts or create profiles on covered platforms. 3. **Parents and Guardians:** May be impacted by changes to platform settings and recommendations.

**Potential Impact & Implications:**

1. **Increased Transparency:** The bill promotes transparency in personalized recommendation systems, allowing minors and their parents/guardians to make informed decisions about online interactions. 2. **Reduced Manipulation:** By providing options for input-transparent algorithms, the bill may reduce the potential for manipulation by platforms seeking to maximize engagement or profits. 3. **Industry Pushback:** Online platforms may resist these changes, citing concerns about intellectual property protection and business confidentiality. 4. **Regulatory Burden:** The FTC will need to develop guidelines and enforcement mechanisms, potentially increasing regulatory burden on covered platforms.

**Monied Interest Analysis:** While there are no explicit PACs or industry lobby groups mentioned in the bill text, it is likely that online platform providers, such as Facebook, Google, and Amazon, may have significant interests in this legislation. These companies may have contributed to the campaigns of sponsors and cosponsors, potentially influencing the bill's provisions.

**Committee Capture:** The Committee on Energy and Commerce has jurisdiction over this bill. Historically, this committee has received significant contributions from the tech industry, which may influence their approach to regulating online platforms.

In conclusion, HR 6253 aims to promote transparency and provide options for minors regarding personalized recommendation systems on online platforms. While it has the potential to reduce manipulation and increase transparency, it may face resistance from industry stakeholders and regulatory challenges in its implementation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$91,928

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$8,043

Committees

Individuals

$83,885

No PAC contributions found

PASS THE HAT

1 transaction

$3,610

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

1 transaction

$3,300

S & K BARRINGTON FARMS

1 transaction

$600

83 FARMS, LLC

1 transaction

$283

RADIANT CREDIT UNION

1 transaction

$250

No committee contributions found

ASSEMI, KEVIN

2 transactions

$6,870

STREETER, JACKSON

2 transactions

$6,870

ADOLFSSON, MARCUS

1 transaction

$6,600

KEMMERER, JOHN

1 transaction

$6,600

KEMMERER, KAREN

1 transaction

$6,600

HOROWITZ, BEN

1 transaction

$6,600

ZUCKER, ANITA G.

2 transactions

$6,600

GASTON, BILL FAYE

1 transaction

$5,205

WEINGART, BRECK ALLEN

1 transaction

$5,000

FREY, HARLEY

1 transaction

$3,435

FREY, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,435

FREY, LEONARD

1 transaction

$3,435

MCCOY, GARY

1 transaction

$3,435

BOLCH, SUSAN

1 transaction

$3,300

DUNN MD, WILLIAM J.

1 transaction

$3,300

HIMSCHOOT, ROBERT

1 transaction

$3,300

VECELLIO, LEO

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 49 nodes and 25 connections (59 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $91,928

Top Donors - Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.

−Big Tech Platformsconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a) requires covered online platforms (which include major social media and video sharing services) to disclose personalized recommendation system policies, provide opt-out options, and set input-transparent algorithms as default for minors, imposing compliance costs and operational changes.
−Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.70
Section 2(d)(9)(B)(i) excludes broadband internet access service providers from the definition of 'online platform,' but the bill still affects telecom companies that operate online platforms (e.g., Comcast's Xfinity, Charter's Spectrum) which may fall under covered platforms if they host user-generated content with personalized recommendations.
−E-commerce & Online Retailconfidence 0.60
Section 2(d)(9) defines online platforms to include public-facing websites or applications that primarily provide forums for user-generated content; some e-commerce platforms with user reviews, recommendations, or social features (e.g., Amazon, eBay) could be covered if they meet the criteria, requiring algorithmic transparency and user controls for minors.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Telecommunications$1,000
from 1 contribution
- RICCIO, CLIFFORD$1,000

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 67%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill and the Project 2025 FTC policy both aim to protect children online by increasing transparency, limiting harmful data practices, and empowering the FTC to enforce safeguards; they share a focus on mitigating risks from algorithmic targeting and data collection involving minors."

Key themes:child online protectionFTC enforcementalgorithmic transparencyparental consentdata privacy

Federal Trade Commission

Strong

Vector: 66%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s focus on increasing transparency and user control over recommendation systems for minors, coupled with granting the FTC enforcement authority, directly supports the Project 2025 goal of protecting children online through FTC action against unfair/deceptive practices involving minors."

Key themes:child online protectionFTC enforcementtransparency/data collectionminor default settingsparental control

— 875 — Federal Trade Commission Protecting Children Online. The FTC has long protected children in a variety of different contexts. Internet platforms profit from obtaining information from children without parents’ knowledge or consent—and social media’s effect on the well-being of American children is well-documented. Around 2012, American teens experienced a dramatic decline in wellness. Depression, self-harm, suicide attempts, and suicide all increased sharply among U.S. adolescents between 2011 and 2019,16 with similar trends worldwide.17 The increase occurred at the same time that social media use moved from rare to ubiquitous among teens,18 making social media a prime suspect for the sudden rise in mental health issues among teens. In addition, excessive social media use is strongly linked to mental health issues among individuals. Several studies strongly support the notion that social media use is a cause, not just a correlation, of subjective well-being and poor mental health.19 Social media and other large platforms form millions of contracts every year with American children. And even though a minor can void most contracts into which he or she enters, most jurisdictions have laws that hold minors accountable for the benefits received under the contract. Thus, children can make enforceable contracts for which parents could end up bearing responsibility. Targeting chil- dren to create potentially harmful contracts or making parents responsible for such contractual relationships is an unfair trade practice. The FTC, therefore, has the authority, interest, and duty to protect children online from such contractual relationships. l The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract- making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent. Currently, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)20 regulates the information internet firms can obtain from children. COPPA fails because it (1) only protects children under the age of 13, leaving older teenagers completely unprotected and (2) only prohibits platforms from collecting information from a child using “actual knowledge” rather than abiding by the “constructive knowledge” standard, which prohibits collecting information from a user reasonably assumed to be underage. The FTC has rulemaking authority under this statute but has done little with this authority, nor can it—given the statutory constraints. However, l The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority. — 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back

Federal Communications Commission

Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's focus on algorithmic transparency, user opt‑out choices, and default protections for minors aligns closely with Project 2025's goals of empowering consumers, increasing platform transparency, and safeguarding young users online, even though it does not address Section 230 reform or assign authority to the FCC."

Key themes:algorithmic transparencyuser control/choiceminor protectionconsumer empowermentdata usage transparency

Federal Communications Commission

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill shares the Project 2025 emphasis on transparency, user control, and protecting minors online, but it does not address the broader FCC‑focused goals such as Section 230 reform, Universal Service Fund contributions, or antidiscrimination provisions, resulting in only moderate thematic overlap."

Key themes:algorithmic transparencyuser controlminor protectionconsumer empowerment

— 849 — Federal Communications Commission Big Tech, and it should look to Section 230 and the Consolidated Reporting Act as potential sources of authority.19 In acting, the FCC could require these platforms to provide greater specificity regarding their terms of service, and it could hold them accountable by prohibiting actions that are inconsistent with those plain and particular terms. Within this framework, Big Tech should be required to offer a transparent appeals process that allows for the challenging of pretextual takedowns or other actions that violate clear rules of the road. l Support legislation that scraps Section 230’s current approach. The FCC should work with Congress on more fundamental Section 230 reforms that go beyond interpreting its current terms. Congress should do so by ensuring that Internet companies no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech while maintaining their Section 230 protections. As part of those reforms, the FCC should work with Congress to ensure that antidiscrimination provisions are applied to Big Tech—including “back-end” companies that provide hosting services and DDoS protection. Reforms that prohibit discrimination against core political viewpoints are one way to do this and would track the approach taken in a social media law passed in Texas, which was upheld on appeal in late 2022 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.20 In all of this, Congress can make certain points clear. It could focus legislation on dominant, general-use platforms rather than specialized ones. This could include excluding comment sections in online publications, specialized message boards, or communities within larger platforms that self-moderate. Similarly, Congress could legislate in a way that does not require any platform to host illegal content; child pornography; terrorist speech; and indecent, profane, or similar categories of speech that Congress has previously carved out. l Support efforts to empower consumers. The FCC and Congress should work together to formulate rules that empower consumers. Section 230 itself codifies “user control” as an express policy goal and encourages Internet platforms to provide tools that will “empower” users to engage in their own content moderation. As Congress takes up reforms, it should therefore be mindful of how we can return to Internet users the power to control their online experiences. One idea is to empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any. The FCC should also work with Congress to ensure stronger protections against young children accessing social media sites despite age restrictions that generally prohibit their use of these sites. — 850 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise It should be noted at this point that the views expressed here are not shared uniformly by all conservatives. There are some, including contributors to this chapter, who do not think that the FCC or Congress should act in a way that regulates the content-moderation decisions of private platforms. One of the main arguments that this group offers is that doing so would intrude— unlawfully in their view—on the First Amendment rights of corporations to exclude content from their private platforms. l Require that Big Tech begin to contribute a fair share. Big Tech has avoided accountability in several additional ways as well. One of them concerns the FCC’s roughly $9 billion Universal Service Fund. This initiative provides the support necessary to subsidize the agency’s affordable Internet and rural connectivity programs. The FCC obtains this funding through a line-item charge that carriers add to consumers’ monthly bills for traditional telecommunications service. While Big Tech derives tremendous value from the federal government’s universal service investments—using those federally supported networks to deliver their products and realize significant profits—these large corporations have avoided paying a fair share into the program. On top of that, the FCC’s current funding mechanism has been on an unsustainable path.21 By requiring traditional telephone customers to contribute to a fund that is being used increasingly to support broadband networks, the FCC’s current approach is the regulatory equivalent of taxing horseshoes to pay for highways. To put the FCC’s universal service program on a stable footing, Congress should require Big Tech companies to start contributing an appropriate amount. Conservatives are not unanimous in agreeing that the FCC should expand the USF contribution base. Instead, some argue that Congress should revisit the program’s entire funding structure and determine whether to continue subsidizing the provision of service. Future funding decisions, the argument goes, should be made by Congress through the normal appropriation process through which the USF program can compete for funding with other national initiatives. These decisions should be made with an eye to right-sizing the federal government’s existing broadband initiatives in light of both technological advances and the recent influx of billions of dollars in new appropriations that can be used to support efforts to end the digital divide. Protecting America’s National Security. During the Trump Administra- tion, the FCC ushered in a new and appropriately strong approach to the national

Federal Trade Commission

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 908-910AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on increasing transparency and user control over algorithmic recommendations for minors, while the Project 2025 FTC section expresses skepticism about regulating children's online experience, favors parental empowerment over government intervention, and warns against expanding FTC authority or data collection mandates, which the bill would require."

Key themes:FTC authoritychildren's online safetyparental empowermentalgorithmic transparencydata collection concerns

— 876 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Other conservatives are more skeptical concerning the effect of online expe- rience on the young, comparing the concern about social media to concern about video games, television, and bicycle safety. They point out, as does Cato fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, that the psychiatric profession has yet to designate “internet addiction” or “social media addiction” as a mental disorder in the authoritative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR).21 These con- servatives also maintain that calling for regulation undermines conservatives’ calls for parental empowerment on education or vaccines as well as personal parenting responsibility. In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy con- cerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online. Antitrust Enforcement. As is evidenced by a relentless focus on bringing Big Tech lawsuits, state attorneys general (AGs) are far more responsive to their con- stituents than is the FTC. Such a “boots on the ground” approach would benefit the FTC enormously. Practically, this would mean establishing a distinct role in the FTC Chairman’s office focused on state AG cooperation and inviting state AGs to Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement policy in key sectors under the FTC’s jurisdiction: Big Tech, hospital mergers, supermarket mergers, and so forth. FTC regional offices are substantially more in touch with local issues. Over the past few decades, the reach and influence of regional offices has shrunk dramati- cally. The FTC should consider returning authority to these offices. Some conservatives however are less supportive of this idea. Conservative enthusiasm for the idea of adding regional FTC offices to the states is a break from the majority conservative position. Endorsing the federal government as a pre- mier job creator runs counter to decades of conservative opinion that holds that New Deal agencies and subsequent government bodies should never have been created in the first place, and that their red tape and interference is a dominant cause of economic inefficiency. Republicans used to seethe when Democrats tried to move federal offices into the states. In the early 1990s, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich fumed about Senator Robert Byrd’s campaign to transfer certain national intelligence facilities to West Virginia, calling it a “pure abuse of power.” Some contributors to this chapter would remind conservatives that the unseen mechanics of redistribution—by which taxpayer money paid to state employees is taken from taxpayers nationwide—is a drag on the economy of the entire country. Many conservatives fear that it would be impossible to uproot or even prune back — 877 — Federal Trade Commission a bureaucracy the seeds of which have been planted in every state. State legislators would struggle to slash funding from agencies that employ and generously pay thousands of their constituents. FTC outposts would tie middle America inex- tricably to big progressive government, remaking the heartland in Washington’s image. It would be anything but decentralization; Americans need policy makers to discipline the arrogance that prevails inside the Beltway, not spread it. It would be “Swamp 2.0”: just as deep and many times as wide. Big Tech and Antitrust. The large internet platforms have transformed the U.S. economy, streamlining consumer purchases, networking billions of people, and altering long-established business practices. Despite their enormous size, they have avoided significant antitrust liability or prosecution. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. It may be because these platforms have been incredibly innovative and have generated tremendous efficiencies for our society, with little to no evidence of traditional consumer harm in the form of higher prices, reduced output, or a lack of innovation. Also, Americans report a high level of satisfaction in and trust regard- ing these companies. The less friendly regulatory environment in the European Union would make a good case study in expansive antitrust law. The continent boasts not one of the top 10 global tech companies, while the U.S. can claim eight.22 Some claim that the recent drop in value of former leader and current antitrust target Meta, along with the rise of new competitors such as Zoom and Chinese-dominated TikTok, indicates that competitive forces are healthy and at work benefiting consumers in the tech space. On the other hand, the platforms challenge traditional economic thinking because arguably the firm structure they employ is radically different, and they create different competition dynamics. First, there is some evidence that the major internet platforms have market power, resulting in increased prices for advertis- ers, costs that very well could be passed onto consumers. For instance, numerous government studies have found evidence of market power.23 And while some data show declining advertising costs, they also show increasing prices in this decade.24 Second, while consumers may report that they like social media, hedonics tells a different story, suggesting that social media and other online activities diminish human happiness. This evidence, while mixed at first,25 appears to have become quite solid: Social media makes Americans less happy.26 Third, internet platforms have not created consumer price increases, but of course they provide free services—and this creates a challenge for antitrust regu- lation. For decades, antitrust economics has been focused on a paradigm in which firm and consumer behavior are modeled as functions of price and output as the primary variables. It may very well be that these models do not fully capture the effect of technologies that enable increasing returns to scale based on data, such

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Cammack, Kat

Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act

119/hr/143

DIGITAL Applications Act

119/hr/1665

Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act

119/hr/1520

Back to All Bills