Two Dozen Daily Newspaper Editorials Oppose Prop 24

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Oct. 30, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Editorials in 24 daily newspapers urge readers to vote no on Proposition 24, the deceptive "privacy" initiative on California's November ballot. This overwhelming super-majority of opposition encompasses newspapers that span the political spectrum, and includes editorial pages that historically lean liberal, moderate and conservative.

Major dailies opposing Prop 24 include the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Orange County Register, the Long Beach Press-Telegram,  the Bakersfield Californian, the East Bay Times, the Riverside Press-Enterprise, the San Bernardino Sun, the Los Angeles Daily News and the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat.

Another eight weekly news publications and one news magazine have written editorials opposing Prop 24, bringing the total of vote no editorials to 33.

The Mercury News wrote, "Prop. 24 would allow companies to charge higher prices to consumers who choose to protect their privacy. That's just wrong on principle. It also places a higher burden on lower-income consumers who do not have the means to pay a premium for a superior product. Voters should reject Prop. 24." https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/15/editorial-prop-24-privacy/

The San Francisco Chronicle stated, "this is a complex, legalistic 52-page initiative crafted behind the scenes, including participation of the companies that are the supposed targets of regulation… If Prop. 24 really were as restrictive and airtight as advertised, is there any doubt that those who are exploiting our personal information as a commodity would be pouring tens of millions into defeating it? Their silence is telling… There is sufficient doubt about Prop. 24 to make the decision clear. Vote no." https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Chronicle-recommends-Vote-no-on-Prop-24-a-15598736.php

The Bakersfield Californian wrote, "To say the 52-page proposition is mind-boggling to the average voter is an understatement…What's troubling is that Mactaggart wrote Prop. 24 in consultation with the tech industry, negotiating with such giants as Google and Facebook…Prop. 24 is not needed. Vote NO." https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/our-view-endorsement-prop-24-vote-no-on-confusing-consumer-protection/article_34c512fa-ebd0-11ea-97b8-67f69d9e7e0d.html

The San Diego Union-Tribune wrote, "We are open to strengthening online privacy, but the lack of support from groups that should back this — from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to the ACLU to the Consumer Federation of California — gives us great pause. We recommend a no vote on Proposition 24." https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/2020-10-15/vote-no-on-prop-24-california-internet-privacy-election-2020

The Orange County Register said: "[Prop 24] won't bother the tech giants or other large companies, such as banks and insurers... Never again will tech giants be threatened by a start-up company in somebody's garage…Vote No on Proposition 24." https://www.ocregister.com/2020/08/20/no-proposition-24-an-overly-complicated-and-misguided-measure/

The weekly San Francisco Bay Guardian stated, "Prop. 24 sounds good – until you take a minute to look into it. The measure claims to promote consumer privacy, but it actually gives the tech industry tremendous latitude to collect and sell your personal information. It would, for example, allow companies to block you from certain apps unless you opt in and give up your privacy." http://www.sfbg.com/2020/10/01/endorsements-fall-2020/

The New York Times weighed in against Prop 24 this week, in an opinion piece written by Editorial Board member Greg Bensinger.   He wrote, "in what appears to be a concession to business interests, Prop 24 would not make opting out of data collection the default — meaning consumers would have to go through dozens or hundreds of websites to register their preferences on data harvesting, say opponents. An opt-in default for data collection should be a baseline for consumer privacy protections." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/opinion/california-prop-24-privacy.html

Many voters are complaining on social media that it is difficult to decipher Prop 24's lengthy, complex, and confounding 52 pages of legalistic language. Newspaper editorial boards have taken the time to read and research the initiative, and with near unanimity they have concluded that voters should reject Prop 24.

For a complete list of newspaper editorials opposing Prop 24 link to prop24no.org/no-on-prop-24-coalition/

SOURCE Consumer Federation of California

Related Links

http://www.consumercal.org