Is social media good or bad for democracy?

A recent internal memo from a departing Facebook employee may force us to do a deep dive on this issue. And it should – but not for the memo’s allegations that Facebook focuses primarily on protecting democracy and removing fake accounts from Western countries.

Rather, the memo sets out to explain how Facebook – and presumably other social media companies – have become self-directed global state departments trying to triage fraud by the wealthy, politically powerful or simply evil groups creating fictitious accounts trying to sway public opinion and stomp out groups with other views. These bad actors weaponize Facebook and other social media to ridicule those who challenge incumbents – thus twisting the concept of democracy and the value of the media as a town square for dialogue.

All of this was exposed in detail by data scientist Sophie Zhang in her internal memo posted on her last day of work. In it she described her job as tracking down fraudulent accounts and said she was fired for wanting to spend more time on protecting democracies in non-Western countries. The Buzzfeed article that reported the memo quotes a former colleague who lauded Zhang’s integrity and passion for her job of tracking down bots attempting to influence elections.

The fallout from the Zhang piece remains to be seen. She likely will be sought by the State Department, government investigators and private and political organization given her unarguably deep experience, moral judgment and strong skill set in investigating fraud using social media.

But her revealing memo raises the bigger issue of the huge expectations and complex job social media companies now face. Facebook must monitor some 2.6 billion users, along with sophisticated efforts by governments around the world to misuse the platform. For me, the surprising thing isn’t that Facebook failed to remove all disinformation in Honduras or Bolivia or Azerbaijan, it’s that one company is now expected to moderate political discourse across the entire globe, accurately determining in real time what statements are valid and what is not. Even with Facebook’s reach and resources, that is simply not a reasonable expectation.

An even bigger point for Americans is that we are lucky to have Facebook and other major social media companies based in our country. Our cultural affinity and history favoring diversity and different viewpoints, our First Amendment, our melting pot of people and ideas, and our Constitution and history favoring choice in elections should require that we protect and help Facebook and other social media companies as they do the best they can to preserve and expand American – and even global – democracy.

President Trump’s focus on TikTok’s Chinese ownership is the other side of this coin. The Chinese are everything we are not with their Uighur detention centers, social monitoring and rating of every citizen and total control of speech. They have proven that totalitarianism may be effective at controlling the aftermath of a pandemic – although their restrictions on speech and crackdowns on dissent allowed COVID-19 to spread in the first place. But I choose individual liberty and want a choice besides the one communist candidate China offers for each position.

As Americans, we face a quandary. How do we recognize the value to democracy and support our top social media companies which now dominate the world? For one, we should agree that democracy is a foundational principle and fraudulent accounts should be rooted out. More, we need transparency by social media companies in what they expect and allow – along with what they won’t tolerate. This does not necessarily require government action. Eli Lehrer, president of the R Street Institute – a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public policy research organization – suggests big tech companies follow the comic book industry of the 1950s and develop a voluntary code. Another idea is for a multilateral, democracy-loving advisory board where each country gets input – but not control.

Although Buzzfeed headlines Zhang as a whistleblower, she has not spoken publicly yet and only circulated an internal memo. She came across as seriously diligent and concerned with her job of ferreting out fraudulent misuse of Facebook’s platform to subvert democracy. She noted that Facebook had made efforts to control misinformation: she removed 672,000 fake accounts spreading disinformation about the pandemic, and took down 10.5 million fake reactions and fans from high-profile politicians in Brazil and the U.S. in the 2018 election. She said she was overwhelmed by her inability to address government-organized misuse occurring on Facebook in smaller, non-Western countries.

Democracy is the cornerstone of our culture and nation. And social media companies give voice to those with different ideas. Think about the reach President Trump has on Facebook and Twitter!

We should spend less time trying to cut down the size of these American crown jewel companies or removing their legal protections for user-generated content – and more time figuring out how they can operate within principles protecting democracy and the free flow of ideas by real citizens.

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association (CTA)®, the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,000 consumer technology companies, and a New York Times best-selling author. He is the author of the book, Ninja Future: Secrets to Success in the New World of Innovation. His views are his own.

Sex-trafficking victims in California are suing Salesforce, claiming the company helped the now-defunct website Backpage, a classified ads website, in enabling prostitution. Whatever your view on the harm to the plaintiffs, this suit could hurt American innovation. By holding Salesforce accountable for the actions of its customer, the suit opens the door for other innovators to be held responsible when users post illegal content ? a dangerous precedent in today?s internet era.

The question of who is responsible for online content is a difficult issue. Intermediary liability protection is the common-sense idea that internet platforms are not responsible for content posted by users. Enshrined in Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, this law allowed American companies to be the innovators of the internet. In fact, the internet as we know it functions because of Section 230. Without Section 230, any site hosting user-generated content would have to screen every submission to avoid lawsuits.

On a practical basis, doing this in real time would be impossible due to the sheer amount of content created: Twitter alone hosts 350,000 tweets per minute; 200 billion tweets per year. Similarly, YouTube would be liable for any of the content its 1.9 billion monthly users might upload. If any single user post could lead to legal action against the social media platform, that platform would shut down.

Today’s internet experience would be virtually impossible.

And so Section 230, the cornerstone of today?s innovative internet, was considered inviolable ? until 2018, when Congress was approached by groups representing victims of sex trafficking (and quietly backed by Hollywood studios, the hotel industry and others who saw the chance to weaken online competitors that were taking their customers and disrupting their businesses). While some groups advocating for sex-trafficking victims opposed it, many of these proponents pushed FOSTA/SESTA into law, which allows trial lawyers to sue social media sites that ?facilitate? sex trafficking ? and, although undoubtedly well-intentioned, the bill takes aim at Section 230.

Though (oddly), the Salesforce lawsuit doesn’t invoke FOSTA/SESTA, the law’s hastily written language was so broad and vague it could potentially impose liability to any website with a comments section. And immediately, internet services began pulling down popular forums featuring consumer-generated content. Other websites eliminated sections or imposed broad filters. Congress made the internet experience less rich for users and more difficult for entrepreneurs, all while doing very little to protect actual victims of sex trafficking.

For all the damage done to free speech online, FOSTA/SESTA has had little upside. Backpage was seized by the FBI before the bill was signed into law, proving that FOSTA/SESTA was not necessary to take down wrongdoers. More, FOSTA/SESTA forced sex traffickers underground, making it harder for authorities to identify and rescue victims.

Fortunately, our nation knows how to choose freedom over fear and innovation over regulation. Consider the successful SOPA/PIPA protests of 2012, which pushed back against overbroad copyright laws that would have crushed the burgeoning digital economy. Thanks to the protests, websites with user-generated content continue to flourish today.

Section 230 is the legal foundation of the internet ? not a shield for criminal liability. But it remains an important protection to encourage entrepreneurs and innovators to start internet businesses. We can’t allow misguided rulemaking and ruinous litigation to discourage that. We must keep the internet open for innovation.

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,200 consumer technology companies, and a New York Times best-selling author. He is the author of the new book, Ninja Future: Secrets to Success in the New World of Innovation. His views are his own.

From January 9-12, thousands of tech experts, innovators, media professionals, politicians and business leaders from around the world pour into Las Vegas for CES 2018. It’s an incredibly exciting time: Attendees get to see the most innovative technologies and trends that will change the face of industries across the globe, from health care and entertainment to automobiles and home appliances.

I’m always proud of CES – proud of the innovators who have traveled a long road to get to the floor; proud of all my behind-the-scenes colleagues who dedicate months to putting the show together; and proud the show inspires thoughtful conversations and partnerships that lead to life changing products, new businesses and jobs.

But CES also makes me proud to be an American. Our nation’s tech industry is the envy of the world. When you combine induced, indirect and direct impact, the U.S. tech sector accounts for over ten percent of our GDP and 15.3 million jobs. It has produced brands and companies that are known and needed all over the world. And nowhere is that more obvious than at CES.

The reason our country can host a show like CES is because we have a legal and policy framework designed to allow our tech industry to flourish. From our education system that encourages originality and ingenuity, to our openness to immigrants and their innovative ideas, to a pro-business regulatory framework that lowers barriers to entry for entrepreneurs, to the First Amendment and its protection of ideas, no matter how controversial, our system rewards those who have the creativity to solve a problem and the courage to make their idea a reality.

If policymakers want to preserve our global leadership and support this vital industry, they must act at this crucial moment. With the start of the new year comes the start of a new legislative session, and the opportunity to prioritize policies that can strengthen the framework that has allowed the tech industry to flourish. As Washington gets down to business in 2018, here are some ways they can do this:

• Promote fair and free trade. We can’t mistake American ingenuity for isolationism. For instance, threats to impose tariffs on Chinese goods or hinder trade with China – a crucial trade partner of the U.S. tech industry – would harm, not help, tech innovation. Our supply chain is global and must be kept open.
• Protect innovative tech companies from crushing liability costs. One of the cornerstones of internet freedom are the “safe harbor” and “fair use” principles in domestic law. These laws allow users and entrepreneurs to innovate, free from ruinous nuisance lawsuits and should be added to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). But Congress is questioning these principles and considering changes that would seriously compromise the free, open flow of information these companies now help to sustain. This in turn would hurt small businesses across the country, many of whom rely on the internet to market their products internationally. By upholding these safe harbor laws and other copyright protections, federal leaders can maintain a strong economy and secure a stable internet for future innovators. Not only should these principles be enshrined and protected in domestic law, they should become a template for our trade agreements. We have a chance to do so now with a digital chapter in NAFTA that embodies these principles.
• Pursue immigration reform that opens our borders to the world’s best and brightest. Right now the future of immigration policy is unclear, but it is obvious that we need to attract the best and brightest if we want to maintain our global lead in innovation. More than 50 percent of our country’s billion-dollar startups were created by immigrants according to the National Foundation for American Policy. While we are closing our borders, other countries are copying our strategy of attracting the best and brightest.
• Invest in infrastructure. The rise of the Internet of Things, smart cities and self-driving vehicles means that the world as we know it will change significantly over the course of the next several decades. By getting a head start on infrastructure investments, including 5G broadband and highway construction, federal leaders can help smooth this transition and pave the way for new levels of connectivity. Simply allowing utility companies to lay broadband in every federally funded roads project is an easy bipartisan start.
• Focus in on patent reform. Many of the startups at CES have horror stories about patent trolls – companies that threaten patent lawsuits in hopes of collecting money out of court. Patent trolls are undermining the strength of our patent system and bleeding $80 billion annually from our economy. Too many businesses are dragged down by their lawsuits and threats. Congress must act to protect innovators and ensure we maintain the best intellectual property protection system in the world.
• Pursue a business-friendly regulatory framework. President Trump has taken the lead on this, spearheading major reform soon after his inauguration. Congress must continue his efforts, creating policies that encourage innovation and lower barriers to entrepreneurship.
• Protecting freedom of speech across the board. We’ve seen many attacks on freedom of speech this year from all across the political spectrum. Financial freedom is important for innovators, but low taxes and limited regulatory interference mean nothing if innovators don’t have the intellectual freedom to try out new ideas without fear of legal repercussions. It’s high time we act to protect this first and most vital of our freedoms.

There’s no denying it’s been a challenging year politically, no matter your perspective. But with the new year comes a renewal of opportunity. Washington must put aside petty partisan arguments and work together to protect the framework that has led to our flourishing. And by doing this, we can protect the creativity and ingenuity of American innovation for generations to come.

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,200 consumer technology companies, and author of the New York Times best-selling books, Ninja Innovation: The Ten Killer Strategies of the World’s Most Successful Businesses and The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream. His views are his own. Connect with him on Twitter: @GaryShapiro

The Supreme Court has a chance to help banish patent trolls back under the bridge where they belong. In the fall session, the Court will hear Oil States Energy Service v. Greene’s Energy Group – a case that has massive implications for the future of patent law and U.S. innovation.

Patent trolls (sometimes called non-practicing entities, or NPEs) don’t actively create any goods or provide any services. Instead, they go after those who do, filing bogus patent infringement lawsuits. Ultimately, their goal is to frighten businesses into settling outside of court, collecting as much money as they can.

More than 80 percent of trolls’ victims are small and medium-sized businesses, and the cost to defendants to fight a patent-infringement lawsuit can easily reach $1 million. That’s why it’s often more cost-effective to simply pay off the trolls.

“Trolls often aggressively push for extortionate settlements that far surpass the value of the [intellectual property] because they know many companies will choose to settle, rather than get embroiled in an expensive and drawn-out lawsuit,” Ira Blumberg, a former patent-troll lawyer, explained: “Their actions can wreak havoc on tech companies of all sizes.”

Patent trolls cost the U.S. economy $80 billion each year, or about $1.5 billion a week. The billions of dollars wasted in this way are funds that can’t be invested in research and development or in hiring the innovative talent needed to develop new products and grow the U.S. economy. In fact, a Harvard Business School study found that companies that settle with or lose to trolls lower the amount of money they invest in R&D by 25 percent on average.

Fortunately, there’s a way to help thwart the trolls, provided the Supreme Court upholds the ruling of the Federal Circuit Court in Oil States Energy Service v. Greene’s Energy Group. The case involves inter-partes review (or IPR) – the process used by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office to determine whether a patent under question was issued based on merit. If not, the patent can be rescinded. The process is similar to a trial: Lawyers make their case to the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB), and three highly qualified administrative patent judges hear their case and come to a decision.

This process is expensive, but it’s considerably less costly than going to court. Startups and small businesses cannot afford the millions that a patent lawsuit costs, but some of them can afford to challenge a bad patent via an IPR proceeding. If the Supreme Court fails to uphold the Federal Circuit Court’s ruling, American small businesses would no longer have an accessible avenue to challenge dubious patents.

The PTAB has a solid track record of fair rulings. A troll might take the case to the Federal Circuit after not getting the result they hoped for in an IPR, but the court rarely reverses the PTAB’s ruling. A study from Law360 looked at Federal Circuit appeals in 2016, and found that the court affirmed 75 percent of the decisions made by the PTAB and overturned just three percent. (The other 22 percent were remanded back to the PTAB).

Oil States Energy Service, a multinational oil and gas company, however, wants to end IPR and hand decisions about patents back to the courts, arguing that IPR is unconstitutional and that these cases should only be heard in a court of law with a citizen jury. If the Supreme Court decides in Oil States’ favor, trolls will be able to continue extorting small businesses and those businesses will have no realistic way to fight back. That means that American entrepreneurs will be forced to waste money on frivolous troll lawsuits rather than investing in R&D and creating jobs.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court cut off one avenue that trolls use to shake down innovators by requiring that patent cases be brought in the court where the defendant is located. This should discourage trolls from concentrating cases in favorable venues like the Eastern District of Texas. The decision was a significant step in the right direction. The Supreme Court should again rule in favor of entrepreneurs in the Oil States case.

Despite the court’s focus on patent issues, however, Congress must ultimately take a stand and act to strengthen our patent system to stop trolls for good. The House passed legislation in 2013 that would help prevent patent trolls from continuing to harass companies, but the bill died in the Senate. Since then, the problem, already bad, has only worsened: Patent troll suits have spiked 500 percent over the last ten years, and 2015 was the second-highest year on record for patent lawsuits, with trolls making up 66.9 percent of suits. Every delay allows the problem to grow and prevents tech companies from investing their money in creating jobs and innovation.

The tech industry accounts for seven percent of the U.S. GDP and supports 6.7 million U.S. jobs, but trolls continue to slow innovation with frivolous lawsuits. The Supreme Court should take advantage of this remarkable opportunity to challenge the trolls and defend American ingenuity by upholding IPRs. Our innovation economy depends on it.

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,200 consumer technology companies, and author of the New York Times best-selling books, Ninja Innovation: The Ten Killer Strategies of the World’s Most Successful Businesses and The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream. His views are his own. Connect with him on Twitter: @GaryShapiro

Five years ago this week, Americans opened their internet browsers and saw darkness.

Google, Wikipedia, Reddit, the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) and other major websites had banded together and gone dark to make a then-obscure piece of legislation infamous. Wikipedia shut down completely for 24 hours and a black band masked the Google logo.

These internet giants and other online sites joined millions of Americans in protesting the 2012 Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) legislation in a historic grassroots movement. More than four million people signed Google’s online petition linked to the blacked-out homepage. Eight million people looked up how to contact their representative when prompted to by Wikipedia. Tumblr alone produced 87,000 calls to representatives. The vast numbers led most congressional sponsors to rescind their support of the bill.

SOPA and PIPA were well intended but ill-advised attempts on the part of Congress to protect the American copyright industry. But the legislation was so broad that it had the potential to harm or eradicate entire websites or online services, instead of specifically targeting individuals who uploaded illegal content.

The New York Times called the SOPA/PIPA protests a “coming of age for the tech industry,” and at CTA, we were proud to help lead this vital growth. It was a bipartisan and cross industry effort: venture capitalists and law professors, computer scientists and human rights advocates, progressives and tea partiers teamed together to fight the bills. Still, the bills progressed through Congress and appeared to have the momentum necessary to become law.

The 2012 CES proved to be one of the turning points. We invited two legislators — Republican Congressman Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Ron Wyden — to Las Vegas to explain how the bill would jeopardize the freedom of the digital world. Both policymakers made strong, smart and passionate cases, and the press and attendees listened. Within days, the tide had reversed, and members of Congress ceased their support of the harmful bills. Weeks later, SOPA and PIPA were history.

We did this because we believe innovation, not an overbroad law, is the best way to grow the economy and fight piracy. History has proved us right. In five years since SOPA/PIPA failed, we’ve seen many instances of market disruptions and many more cases of technological innovation. Spotify, the now-ubiquitous Swedish streaming service, intentionally developed free streaming as a legal competitor to illegal piracy. It worked: piracy has dropped significantly. In 2013, less than 10 percent of daily web traffic in North America came from peer-to-peer file sharing compared to 31 percent in 2008.

Even more exciting, streaming services also led to significant revenue growth for the music industry. The Recording Industry Association of America, one of the major supporters of the SOPA/PIPA legislation, reported an 8.1 percent increase in overall revenues from the first half of 2015 to the first half of 2016. This was due in large part to paid subscriptions to streaming services.

Other content industries have experienced massive growth as well. Video streaming programs such as Netflix, Amazon and Hulu continue to thrive. U.S. consumers spent 22 percent more on subscription video streaming services in 2016 than in 2015.

The combination of audio and video streaming takes up a whopping 71 percent of evening home entertainment in North America, and this number should only grow in the coming years. Once at odds on the floor of Congress, the innovation of the tech industry and the creativity of the media industries now mutually support and sustain one another’s growth.

New technologies will lead to the same market disruptions that the internet prompted for the media industry. Will Congress support new technologies or stifle them? And how will legacy industries evolve to thrive in this changing technological landscape?

This year at CES 2017 in Las Vegas, innovators from around the globe came to exhibit technology that will change our world as we know it. Augmented and virtual reality technology will profoundly affect the media landscape, creating a more immersive and personalized experience. Drones have already changed the face of the retail industry, with Amazon making its first drone delivery in time for the holiday season. Self-driving cars will revolutionize the auto industry, decrease traffic deaths and bring increased mobility to the elderly and those with disabilities. In dealing with the challenges that will inevitably arise, will Congress choose to preserve old models and technologies, or will it embrace the new and allow American ingenuity to lead?

Five years ago, members of Congress sided with progress over fear. The resulting explosion of innovation proved them right. As other new disruptive technologies emerge, we urge policymakers to heed the lessons of SOPA and PIPA and allow new innovations to prosper, thrive and move our society forward.

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,200 consumer technology companies, and author of the New York Times best-selling books, Ninja Innovation: The Ten Killer Strategies of the World’s Most Successful Businesses and The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream. His views are his own. Connect with him on Twitter: @GaryShapiro

Have you ever used the internet to search for photos of a potential vacation spot? Or perhaps you’ve Googled some pictures of furniture you wanted to buy? Who hasn’t, right?

But if Getty Images gets its way, you may have far fewer viewing options. That’s because Getty recently wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging its members to turn a failed copyright claim into an antitrust issue.

Getty’s main contention — not antitrust-related at all — is that internet-search results display images without authorization from the copyright holder, and thus infringe copyright. But the courts haven’t agreed.

One reason we have the internet is that the Supreme Court back in 1984 held that making a home recording of a movie for personal playback without prior authorization is a “fair use” under the copyright law.

When the internet came into being, this consumer “fair use” determination opened the door of the internet to consumers, rather than limiting it to businesses and government exchanging data among themselves.

The courts ruled that consumers could also participate by searching for text and images. What this meant for online images and Google’s search engine was decided 10 years ago in the court of appeals copyright case Perfect 10 v. Amazon. In that case, image search and display as carried out by Google was determined to be not infringing.

Getty’s letter complains about enhancements that Google made back in 2013, to better allow consumers to compare the images in their search results. The letter claims that it is “anti-competitive” for Google now to allow users to inspect a variety of images more closely, to choose the best one, while the high-resolution images themselves remain only on the provider’s — not Google’s — site. (Would they have complained if Google had downloaded and offered these itself? Of course.)

A proprietor might consider this option to compare as “anti-competitive,” but for a consumer, comparison is the essence of competition.

The evolution of image search reflects a better understanding of what users want and an effort to give it to them. Google, Yahoo and Bing’s search engines all use a variety of signals to determine relevant and useful search results, including images. Dumbing down search is a bad deal for consumers, and is neither required by nor consistent with sound competition policy. And even though these searches are lawful, Google and other search engines provide a simple tool to opt any image out of search. Getty’s letter acknowledges, but dismisses, this fact — because as everyone knows, it is image search that drives business to Getty and its competitors.

Getty is a major player in its field, and its image collection is even bigger after recently locking up more content in the stock-photo market through an exclusive licensing deal with Corbis, once a rival stock-image company. But concern about new entrants (such as Adobe) is classic incumbent behavior, especially when threatened by innovation. (Google does not compete in the stock-photo market, and is not a rival player in this area.)

Search drives traffic to all photography websites, not just Getty’s. Making search work better for users and creators is not a violation of copyright law, and we should be very cautious before we start claiming that facilitating competitive search is an antitrust violation.

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,200 consumer technology companies, and author of the New York Times best-selling books, Ninja Innovation: The Ten Killer Strategies of the World’s Most Successful Businesses and The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream. His views are his own. Connect with him on Twitter: @GaryShapiro

The future is positive, a dream. Focus on the future. Use science to stay ahead.

Those words didn’t come from a tech-sector legend ? not Steve Jobs or Bill Gates ? or newcomer like Mark Zuckerberg. That wisdom about nurturing the previously unimaginable and embracing what technology offers came from a visionary of a different sort.

I heard Shimon Peres share this insight during my visit to the Peres Center for Peace in June, just three months before the former Israeli president and prime minister died. He saw innovation and technology as improving the world ? a force for good that can break down borders, both national and political.

Peres’ vision stands in stark contrast to Lord Jonathan Sacks’ dystopian commentary calling computers and radical Islamists the “two dangers” of this century, defeated only by “an insistence on the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life.”

On the contrary, I believe innovation and technology will help defeat terrorists and sustain and enhance human life.

Innovation and technology have extended our lives ? most children born in the early 1900s didn’t live past the age of 50, but the average U.S. lifespan is now almost 79 years. Artificial intelligence is helping doctors make complex diagnoses. 3D printing is producing low-cost prosthetics for children and those who otherwise couldn’t afford care. Drones are delivering blood and emergency medicine in developing countries. The rabbi should explain his point that “Every new technology?benefits the few at the cost of the many” to the paraplegic patients learning how to walk thanks to virtual reality.

While Sacks decries the idea of self-driving cars, this innovation can save tens of thousands of lives a year in the U.S. alone. More than 35,000 people died on our roads last year, and the federal government estimates over 90 percent of crashes are caused by human error. Eliminating the great majority of automobile deaths and serious injuries would certainly meet Sacks’ goal of preserving “the sanctity of human life.”

The rabbi also frets technology will threaten “the dignity of the human person.” Apparently, he hasn’t considered the dignity self-driving cars will deliver to seniors and persons with disabilities, providing them with previously unimagined freedom and independence. The ability to read road signs or react quickly to traffic will no longer be needed to travel alone by car.

Similarly, Sacks fears doctors will be replaced by robots with artificial intelligence. However, if health care models remain unchanged, the U.S. may face a shortage of 124,000 physicians by 2025. Virtual care solutions ? wireless health devices and telemedicine technology ? will increasingly allow Americans to see doctors only when necessary.

Tech-enabled remote care also would remove much of the burden of traveling to see a doctor, reducing congestion on roads and easing the strain on caregivers. With 10,000 Americans turning 65 every day, this developing technology is a mitzvah ? a gift or miracle, which will provide life and good health. Innovations in healthcare technologies could help resolve an emerging healthcare crisis ? they need to be embraced, not feared.

I understand Rabbi Sacks’ dual concerns about the growing use of technology threatening both our jobs and our connections with one other. But every major innovation from the wheel to the factory to the car to the internet radically affected how people work. Certain jobs were lost, yes, but new jobs were created.

More, people lived longer as they ate better, stayed healthier and gained greater access to knowledge. Innovation and the myriad benefits it brings allow us to ascend the Maslow hierarchy of needs, from survival with food and shelter to love and satisfying relationships.

The issue remains whether our love affair with technology and fascination with “things” mean we’re sacrificing our humanity ? choosing the devices in our hands over the people in our midst. Look around a restaurant at dinner and witness seas of quiet people looking at devices. But are devices worse than alcohol, drugs, gambling or anything in excess?

As parents, we should set limits and an example. As adults, we should enjoy the five-sense experience of the people around us, and let these wonders of technology be tools for living rather than our near total life experience.

As President Peres explained to me in June, big data will deliver a new age of being able to predict ? and predictability will change and improve the world. I recall him saying, Four thousand years of commandments will keep the morality. Sixty-eight years of Israel will keep innovations coming. His goal for the Center for Peace is to become a center of innovation.

Technology is changing our lives for the better ? enhancing our security, removing human error from our roads, reducing trips to the doctor and cutting our workload. In doing so, it improves the sanctity and dignity of human lives. And that is a blessing, not a curse.

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,200 consumer technology companies, and author of the New York Times best-selling books, Ninja Innovation: The Ten Killer Strategies of the World’s Most Successful Businesses and The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream. His views are his own. Connect with him on Twitter: @GaryShapiro

This century has produced a new lexicon that didn’t exist a generation ago: Broadband. Apps. Connectivity. Streaming video. Social networks. The on-demand economy.

The new millennium has also produced a startling number of successful American companies with worldwide reach: Airbnb, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Lyft, Netflix, Pandora, Snapchat, Twitter, Uber, Yahoo, Yelp.

With so many American innovators leading and improving the global economy, it would seem natural for American policymakers to do everything possible to allow these companies to flourish. Instead, we see far too many examples of our politicians actively discouraging or burdening new services from the country’s leading American companies. With good intentions, but flawed logic, politicians are jumping in to regulate these new companies, slowing the pace of innovation.

In July, Democratic New York Mayor Bill de Blasio was forced to table a plan to limit the growth of ride hailing companies like Uber and Lyft in New York after riders launched a public campaign to stop the proposal. Ride hailing services give New Yorkers and visitors access to quick, clean and affordable transportation options and help expand the city’s economic growth by creating more job opportunities. So why are city regulators trying to slow their expansion and limit consumer choice?

Ride hailing companies continue to face pressure from courts and politicians who say drivers should be treated as employees rather than independent contractors. Labor unions are pushing this view, while ignoring that many ride hailing drivers are drawn to the flexibility of being independent contractors. (Meanwhile, taxicab drivers in many cities are also considered independent contractors, a fact that is rarely mentioned in these debates.)

On-demand economy services like Airbnb that link homeowners with those looking for places to stay are also under attack, as hotel unions join with the lodging industry to regulate, and in some cases ban, these services. The city of San Francisco is considering a measure that would cap Airbnb stays at 75 days, a move that Airbnb says will cost the city $58 million in tax revenue over the next 10 years. Why would city leaders seemingly ignore the potential good that immense amount of revenue could do?

Our nation was built on a foundation of freedom — freedom to contract with each other for goods and services, freedom to innovate and create new products, freedom to start a new business and maybe even fail at it. The government should only impose itself on industry if there’s a compelling public interest.

Rather than force new services to fit the framework of old rules, innovative startups offer regulators a chance to revise outdated rules to reflect a new reality. Ride hailing services naturally weed out bad drivers and poor service, especially when compared with the legacy cab drivers who aren’t rated on or accountable for the quality of their service. Government can and should require driver screening and insurance, but it’s the dynamic feedback nature of the wireless service that safeguards the public and benefits drivers.

Home-sharing services like Airbnb give users more options when they travel and provide extra income for homeowners. Government can and should collect hospitality taxes after some threshold of rentals, but cities benefit from the influx of tourism whether visitors stay in hotels or not. Recently, my family took a holiday in New York City, where Manhattan has few hotel options for families with children. Thanks to Airbnb, we rented an apartment for a third of the comparable hotel price.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans enjoy new services and experiences thanks to the ever evolving tech economy — whether it’s making a living from eBay or Etsy, figuring out where to eat or stay from Trip Advisor or Yelp, or enjoying new music from Pandora. Politicians need to get out of the way, let these businesses thrive and intervene only when there’s a demonstrated, compelling need — and even then, do so as narrowly as possible. The public is voting with their apps and their finger taps. Politicians would be wise to listen to the sounds of the page clicks. It’s what their constituents want.

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,000 consumer electronics companies, and author of the New York Times best-selling books, Ninja Innovation: The Ten Killer Strategies of the World’s Most Successful Businesses and The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream. His views are his own. Connect with him on Twitter: @GaryShapiro

Each year, CEA (the Consumer Electronics Association) inducts a new group of inventors, engineers, business leaders, retailers and journalists to our Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame. And it’s not lost on us that we celebrate innovation and disruption tonight in New York City, where New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has fired the most recent shots against creative disruption and the sharing economy in his ongoing attack against Airbnb.

The term “sharing economy” refers to platforms that make it easy for anyone to become an entrepreneur by offering up an unused resource for sale or rent, be it an empty bedroom, a parked car or a skill. While still a fledgling industry, the sharing economy will have a substantial impact on our nation’s overall economic success — enhancing competition and consumer choice, lowering barriers to entrepreneurship and boosting consumption overall — but that depends on regulatory atmospheres at the federal and local levels that promote, rather than stifle, innovation and entrepreneurship.

More Choices, Greater Efficiency

The sharing economy includes new platforms for existing providers of different goods and services (like transportation, lodging or cleaning) that let consumers compare prices and features before they buy. For example, some people may choose not to purchase a vehicle because they find their needs are met through ridesharing, while others who might decide to buy a new car using their supplementary income from ridesharing. There are also platforms for selling unique items (Etsy) or offering specific, freelance labor services (oDesk, TaskRabbit) ? production and exchange opportunities not previously available to consumers.

Lowering Barriers to Entry

Suppliers in the sharing economy ?- sometimes referred to as “micropreneurs” — have backgrounds as varied as the goods and services available. Peer-to-peer businesses allow for flexibility in hours and payment for skills or basic services that may not constitute full-time employment. More, these jobs eventually may act as “on ramps” to full-time, sole proprietorships or other entrepreneurial activities.

Growing the Pie

The peer-to-peer businesses enabled by these new platforms can draw on underused human capital: People supplement their full-time jobs with extra work as Airbnb hosts or Lyft drivers, for example, or professional providers can find additional work via platforms like Uber and Kitchit. Technological change that generates more output from the same capital, or that facilitates a more efficient use of labor, increases productivity. This kind of productivity-enhancing, technological change typically contributes to long-term economic growth — a “bigger pie” — that can often boost other industries as well.

The 2014 Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame induction celebrates the promotion of technology, the delivery of consumer products in new, exciting and profitable ways, and the importance of ensuring that innovation and entrepreneurship can thrive. But when this innovation threatens legacy businesses such as broadcasters, hotels, or taxis, these entrenched industries use their heft to influence regulation and enforcement to block competition. CEA stands with Airbnb and the countless other disruptive innovators that fuel the sharing economy and, in turn, drive our greater economic growth.

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,000 consumer electronics companies, and author of the New York Times best-selling books, Ninja Innovation: The Ten Killer Strategies of the World’s Most Successful Businesses and The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream. His views are his own. Connect with him on Twitter: @GaryShapiro.