Learning how to draw correct conclusions, relies on a person’s individual ABILITY TO CHOOSE. Reliable choices cannot always and constantly be deferred to a supplier of product, in all cases, and across all industries.

From the time of our own birth, our parents in our own home have a job to teach us how to make correct choices. Sometimes we make poorer choices than we do at other times. That’s OK most of the time. The younger age that one is, the less able he or she is to make a proper decision. And, then once more, the older one becomes, the same can become true. That is why kids under 18 cannot do what adults can. It’s also why some laws restrict (or should restrict) the activities of the old.

Being free to make choices though, even bad ones, has an evident “side effect” or “unintended consequence”. Each person makes decisions, usually hoping that the positive results of their choice will “slightly or mostly exceed the negative results” of that choice.

Here are some examples:
1. Eating much red meat, over time, can cause you to get cancer according to some US studies. But, positive benefits (such as protein intake and unique vitamin composition) usually outweigh the negative effects… depending on VOLUME – like most things.
2. You buy a ticket to a concert that advertises to your demographic (without guaranteeing you that you’ll have a good time there). Nevertheless, you make the choice to go – believing that the perceived value of the experience once there to exceed any potential negative results from that experience. But, maybe the concert will have contributed to premature hearing loss, as you never anticipated 50 rock concerts in your lifetime, to cause you to go deaf at a certain older age. Or, perhaps the venue is actually negligent by some security deficiency. That would be different.

Life is much about expectations, assessed risk, and choices. That is the way most people want to live. We want to make our own choices for ourselves. We don’t want overbearing controls on our activities.

So, what is a function of research? Researchers compile data, with the goal of achieving some statistical analysis. Some researchers use such data, to draw conclusions with a political ambition. Some researchers compile data in order to boost corporate sales in a business enterprise. And, still other researchers use data to teach persons and to share knowledge with family and friends. One could certainly do extensive research in order to project a belief about which type of research is most altruistic. But even that would not necessarily serve altruistic intent.

All human beings have a capacity to set volume. One person likes a little, and the other a lot. One person gets flustered, and the other not as much. So, is there a responsibility of our government to create any type of regulation at all? Well, yes, there is. And, there is.

But each business industry has a different size and a different set of regulatory definition. Just because a particular industry makes more money, that fact alone, does not necessitate a response of increased need for regulations.

Television and Radio have advertised products to generations of Americans. Their advertisements drive an expectation that the product will do what it claims to do. Unless the seller makes clear to the buyer that there are no refunds, exchanges, or guarantees that the product will match or exceed the buyer’s expectations, the seller cannot claim a guarantee of his desired result.
What happens, if the buyer expects a result that cannot be delivered? Is that the seller’s fault and the seller’s financial responsibility? No. Sometimes the buyer simply has unrealistic expectations for which THEY, with risk, are responsible for making. Perhaps that experience will reduce future sales though.

So it is also true with buying music, movie or other intellectual product. The seller has some reasonable legal leeway to offer refunds (perhaps, and if so, willfully). But, buyer is really obligated to make decision and do his or her own research before taking a risk and buying it. And, that’s it.

In the movie business, it’s clear that young children should not be lawfully permitted to enter an X-rated movie. Or, even an R-rated movie. But, the regulation is such that the movie industry must safeguard patrons. How does it do so in America today? Well, first with a ratings system. Second, exhibitors must restrict access to under-age persons. This is a reasonable partnership between a responsible government, producer, and responsible exhibitor.

Would it be fair, however, for a disguised (or older looking youth) to sneak in, watch a movie he should not have been given access to, and then turn around to sue the exhibitor for having breached the law? No. Because, there has been a deception that invalidates just cause.

So, how does this apply to Internet use today? It’s no secret that transactions of many kind take place on the Internet. Whether downloading music, buying books, make-up, shoes, clothing, food etc., how does a government protect under-18 persons especially? It becomes more difficult in some ways unavoidably. That is why the role of parenting is even more significant. And, it should be so, anyway.

Some Americans believe that kids ought to transact online. But, should they? What about adults who lack ability to draw their own conclusions about product? Is it the seller’s financial responsibility and fault that the buyer is not a savvy shopper? Very often not. But, we can regulate every industry according to unique and customized conditions that make sense for each industry. And we do that.

I’ve seen medicines advertised on TV that disclose all the negative side effects it can cause. After seeing just one of those, most people would steer clear you would think. In truth, so many patients trust their doctors to such extent, that they take the pill anyway. It’s coercive if you ask me. Or, people are either too desperate or just not very intelligent in making their own informed conclusive choices.

When we buy food, much of it contains toxins. We eat anyway, because otherwise we would starve. But, this is where education and morality matter. A food producer should never use toxic ingredients to begin with. And, FDA should never allow medicine to be produced that claims to do all that is disclosed on advertisements (adverse). One might say, “at least they’re being truthful”. That is true, but, the product is harmful.

Perhaps FDA ought not regulate Food as it does Medicine. Or, perhaps both should have the same regulations imposed on the respective Food industry, and “sibling”, the Pharmaceutical Industry.

So let’s look at political ads. Politicians make promises. Whether they do so using Internet Media, Radio, Television, Print, or other, politicians cannot be sued for making false promises, winning an election, and then failing to fix what he or she set out to do. That is with good reason. While campaigning, certain issues are on the forefront. But, then, as information comes in later, the politician might begin to see that other priorities matter more to him or her.

People are not product. So, a politician might talk a good game, but if you vote for him or her without any kind of insight – that’s your problem, not theirs. Unless laws are broken and/or sacred trust is violated.

A candidate could disclaim liability. For example, he or she could promise Americans all kinds of things, and conclude the advert by saying, “all of these promises are not the view of the broadcaster; and the politician has no interest in keeping the promises stated.” Again, that would be crafty and deceptive. But, in a way, also truthful. Despite a degree of deception, exhibitors are not liable for how you chose to vote. You are responsible for choosing how you vote. You cannot blame deceptive political adverts or propaganda for your choice. Watching propaganda, is like drinking strong spirits. You can either handle it, or you can’t.

The Internet also has media companies that host political ads – propaganda. When I was growing up, most ads were in Radio, Print, and TV. Media, in every shape and form, often protects itself from the views that it airs by stating clearly that, “they in no way endorse or necessarily agree with the views expressed therein.”
They want viewers to know, that the views presented in their (from morning to night) “channel” could be contradictory – depending upon which channel you’re tuned in to. And, that’s frankly a good thing often times. Otherwise, your choice would be reduced to a dictate. If you had one channel that told you who to vote for, from morning noon and night – with no other choices, you’d resent that or at worst become indoctrinated.

Fortunately, the Internet has huge research capacity. So much so, that you have hardly any excuse whatsoever for any mistakes that you make when choosing a candidate through honest ballot, honest procedure, and honest tabulature on election days and weeks to follow it.

And, US TV broadcasts channel content that undeniably endorse one political party ideology over another one, without disclaimer, actively competing against other broadcasters.

What about illegal activities on the Internet? There are those activities. For example, there’s theft through illegal download, of music and video. This is millions of dollars worth of lost US revenue every year that goes missing. What has our government done about it?

There’s also content which is dangerous to children. For example, pornography, that under age of 18 persons should not be able to access. On the “dark web” in particular, there are illegal transactions. Largely, everything else seems to be well regulated or of lesser concern.

So, we need not more regulation in most sectors. What we need are politicians to admit that they prefer certain voices in the media that support their own worldview.

But, they can take that view to the ballot box like everyone else, rather than to aim at restricting political campaigns in the Internet Media platforms or the exercise of free speech generally. As for tailored protections of industry product, we could benefit from modernization.
And laws already do exist for illegal transactions.

The Internet boosts freedom, allows everyone to make more informed choices, it does not restrict either capacity. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Our US economy depends on the Internet commerce; and, enables some people who dream about doing constructive work on it, to do so with their business on there. Instead of doing business in a fish-bowl that the government restricts and approves of [permitting only sharks and minnows], people can engage in activity that opens up our country to serious business partners around the globe. Trying to prevent that from happening would be protectionism at its worst.

Back to the truth in advertising, it’s good to get truth in advertising. But, for some products, knowing the truth about a product is not of much help.

That’s the sad reality. If you know that all brands of a particular product are harmful to you (for example you take your child to the cinema to find that all the movies showing are “R”-rated, there’s clearly a problem.)

Also true, if you knew what products go into soap, you might think it’s a poor choice to buy soap. That’s where education comes in. And, education is a privilege.

With many products, the benefits outweigh the negatives. Intelligence gaps are a culprit for some chaos. If you compare the power of the Internet to a powerful rocket, you would not hand it to a child. And that’s why some chaos occurs. But, it has been inevitable.

The government must ensure a basic fair playing field – for example reducing online crime transactions and fighting any lacking in cyber security. Those are the basic and most important of safety and sensible framework.

However, the government should not restrict Media that is presenting political messaging, simply because elected persons’ objectives are being challenged. It’s very dangerous to all of us, when our government challenges our Media for broadcasting political speech.

Back to the example of Medicine, many adverts will tell you that you can expect a long list of unpleasant side effects. That one side effect alone should negate one’s determination to use the drug all together. Medicine is more absolute in that way, than many other aspects of our lives.

In reality, the drug company has complied with the truthful disclosure in order to lawfully effect the transactions. And, the doctor is not liable for giving you a “bad medicine”. And the pharmaceutical manufacturer is theoretically “off the hook”. Well, the revenue over 10 years of such activity is immense, but your personal health has suffered. But even the best doctor can make mistakes.

Contrary to medicine, the benefits of free-speech political messaging outweigh the negative consequences of either censorship or one-sided indoctrination. Fortunately, we have channels too, that are dedicated to specific types of music, specific political slant, conspiracy theory, theology, and more. This way we can choose for ourselves and base decisions on informed conclusions.

It’s not the product producer’s fault, rather the government’s fault if there is not sufficient real alternative and diversity of product available online.

So, while truth in advertising is important, it’s even more important for the American consumer to draw correct correlations and conclusions about their private expenditures. Some people make false connections between events; and, thereby present a great challenge for a government that wants to help. But, a government that seeks to insulate its people too much, forgets the principle of freedom.

Freedom, AND safety, cannot always be guaranteed simultaneously. That is particularly true with intellectual property. A person who seeks a refund while blaming a book for their bad day, or similarly, an album that makes them feel sad, should not be able to seek refund. Broadcasters of sexual material similarly have no obligation to the customer for unsatisfactory experiences. But, prostitution and illegal sex trafficking are different phenomena.

The latter two: different than the prior examples and some of the others that I mentioned, require unique rules. So, for government to act on such, we ought to prioritize industry specific regulations (and not simply go after their own foes, premised on their own political agendas or party-line).

If anything, voters are more informed than ever before – and we want to keep it that way. Even, if there are some unintended consequences. And, while that position can be of discomfort to some politicians, the citizenry has benefited hugely – thanks to the success of Internet and online Media.