Comment from Savage, Sandra

To the Federal Trade Commission: I support transparency in AI systems. I do not support this proposed statement as written, for three reasons. First — this framework is selectively applied. The Commission has never proposed truth enforcement for cable news, social media, search engines, or talk radio — all of which influence consumer decisions at massive scale and have demonstrably spread false information. Fox News settled a \$787 million defamation case after its own hosts privately acknowledged broadcasting claims they knew to be false. No FTC action followed. Social media algorithms amplify misinformation to billions daily. No equivalent oversight exists. The Commission owes the public a principled explanation for why AI specifically warrants content-level regulation that no previous information medium has faced. Without that explanation, this statement appears designed to target a medium that particular interests find threatening — not to protect consumers neutrally. Second — "who defines accuracy" is the most important question this statement never answers. The statement prohibits AI outputs steered by "undisclosed ideological objectives" but never addresses what happens when scientific consensus conflicts with current political positions. Is an AI reflecting peer-reviewed climate science engaging in ideological distortion? The statement's silence on this is not neutral — it is an open invitation for future enforcement to define inconvenient facts as bias. Every comparable democracy has explicitly avoided placing government in the role of AI truth arbiter for exactly this reason. This proposal is a dangerous international outlier. Third — perceived AI bias deserves a more honest explanation. Many Americans perceive AI as biased. Before acting on that perception, the Commission should consider an alternative explanation: AI may feel biased simply because people are accustomed to information that was curated before it reached them — selected by algorithms optimized for engagement, filtered through ideologically consistent media choices, and delivered by hosts whose job is narrative, not accuracy. When information arrives without that curation, it feels unfamiliar. Unfamiliar feels wrong. Wrong feels like bias. That is not an AI problem. That is an information environment problem. And regulating AI outputs to match expectations formed inside curated information ecosystems does not protect consumers — it protects the ecosystems. What I support instead: Require AI companies to clearly and prominently disclose their methodologies, guardrails, and values. That transparency remedy — which the statement itself acknowledges — is sufficient, appropriate, and does not require the Commission to become an arbiter of correct answers. Respectfully submitted 7/13/2026 [Your Name] [Date] [City, State]