Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for your data, your rights, and your family's safety online.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares internet privacy approaches across parties — but there's much more to explore.
Every time you open an app, search for something online, or walk past a security camera, data about you is being collected, stored, sold, and analyzed — usually without your knowledge and almost always without meaningful consent. The United States is the only major democracy without a comprehensive federal privacy law. Instead, Americans rely on a patchwork of outdated, sector-specific regulations that leave enormous gaps. Data brokers operate in a $200 billion industry built on harvesting and reselling your personal information. Tech companies design addictive products that exploit children's psychology for profit. Government surveillance programs sweep up millions of Americans' communications without individual warrants.
The three major approaches to internet privacy in America today reflect fundamentally different philosophies. Democrats favor stronger regulation and FTC enforcement but have been unable to pass comprehensive legislation despite years of hearings and proposed bills. Republicans generally oppose broad federal mandates, arguing that regulation stifles innovation and that consumers should drive privacy standards through market choice. The Common Good Party proposes what every other wealthy democracy has already adopted: a comprehensive federal privacy framework with opt-in consent, strong enforcement, algorithmic transparency, and real protections for children — modeled on the EU's GDPR but adapted for American values and business realities.
This page breaks down each approach honestly — what it gets right, what it misses, and what it would actually mean for your data, your family, and your rights online. No spin, no talking points, just the policy.
How the three approaches stack up on the issues that matter most to your privacy and digital rights.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal privacy law | Support but haven't passed one | Oppose broad federal mandates | Comprehensive GDPR-style law |
| Data broker regulation | Some disclosure requirements | Industry self-regulation | Federal registry, one-click deletion |
| Consent model | Opt-out (you must ask to stop) | Opt-out or none | Opt-in (companies must ask first) |
| Children's protection | Expand COPPA, KOSA bill | Parental responsibility focus | Full under-18 protections, ban targeted ads to minors |
| Right to delete | State-level (CCPA) | Generally oppose mandates | Universal right, enforceable federally |
| Algorithmic transparency | Proposed audits, limited action | Oppose regulation of algorithms | Mandatory audits, opt-out of algorithmic targeting |
| Section 230 | Narrow immunity for amplification | Remove immunity if platforms censor | Tie immunity to algorithmic transparency |
| Big Tech antitrust | FTC enforcement, some bills | Selective enforcement, political bias focus | Structural breakups, digital markets regulator |
| Surveillance reform | Some limits, reauthorized 702 | Divided — security vs. liberty wings | Warrant requirement, end bulk collection |
| Enforcement | FTC with limited authority | State attorneys general, minimal federal | Dedicated federal agency, private right of action |
Sources: Electronic Frontier Foundation, Brookings Institution, FTC reports, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
Democrats have championed several privacy-related bills, including the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA), the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), and expanded FTC rulemaking authority. Their approach generally favors giving the Federal Trade Commission more power to regulate data practices, requiring companies to disclose what data they collect, and establishing some consumer rights around data access and deletion. They've also pushed for algorithmic accountability — requiring companies to audit their AI systems for bias and discrimination. On surveillance, Democrats have supported some reforms to FISA while ultimately voting to reauthorize Section 702 in 2024.
Democrats correctly identify that the market has failed to protect consumer privacy. The ADPPA framework, had it passed, would have been the first comprehensive federal privacy law and would have established important baseline protections. Their focus on children's online safety through KOSA reflects genuine urgency — teen mental health has deteriorated significantly alongside social media adoption. Supporting FTC enforcement authority is sensible, since the agency is currently forced to use outdated legal frameworks to address modern data abuses. Democrats have also been stronger on data breach notification requirements.
Despite controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House at various points, Democrats have failed to pass comprehensive privacy legislation. The ADPPA stalled partly because of disputes over whether federal law should preempt stronger state laws like California's CCPA — a legitimate concern, but one that has paralyzed action. Their consent model remains largely opt-out, which puts the burden on individuals to navigate complex privacy settings rather than requiring companies to ask permission first. On surveillance, Democrats' decision to reauthorize Section 702 without meaningful reform undermined their credibility on privacy as a civil liberty. The Democratic approach often proposes the right things but lacks the political will to deliver them.
For more on the current regulatory landscape, see the full privacy explainer.
The Republican approach to internet privacy emphasizes limited government intervention, industry self-regulation, and consumer choice. Most Republicans oppose comprehensive federal privacy mandates, arguing they would impose excessive compliance costs on businesses — particularly small businesses — and stifle innovation in the tech sector. Instead, they favor transparency requirements, voluntary industry codes of conduct, and enforcement through existing consumer protection laws. On Section 230, Republicans have focused primarily on preventing platforms from removing conservative content, framing content moderation as censorship and proposing that platforms should lose liability protections if they engage in political viewpoint discrimination.
Republicans are correct that poorly designed regulation can harm small businesses disproportionately — GDPR compliance costs in Europe have fallen most heavily on small companies that lack the legal departments large corporations have. Their concern about regulatory capture is legitimate: the largest tech companies sometimes support regulation precisely because they know it will create barriers to entry that protect their market position. The libertarian wing of the party raises valid concerns about government surveillance and the potential for a federal privacy agency to become a tool for censorship. Some Republicans have been strong advocates for Fourth Amendment protections in the digital context.
Industry self-regulation on privacy has demonstrably failed. Tech companies have had decades to self-regulate, and the result has been an ever-expanding surveillance economy that harvests personal data at an unprecedented scale. The Cambridge Analytica scandal, repeated data breaches affecting hundreds of millions of Americans, and the exploitation of children's data all occurred under self-regulation. Consumer "choice" is a fiction when terms of service are 30,000 words long and essential services require accepting invasive data collection. Opposing federal privacy standards means that Americans' rights depend entirely on which state they live in — a resident of California has meaningfully different privacy rights than a resident of Alabama.
The Republican focus on Section 230 as a political censorship issue misidentifies the real problem. The actual threat is not that platforms remove too much content — it's that their engagement-maximizing algorithms actively amplify divisive and harmful content because outrage drives clicks. Framing moderation as censorship makes the underlying problem worse, not better.
For a deeper analysis of the self-regulation track record, see our privacy explainer.
The Common Good Party proposes a comprehensive federal privacy framework built on four pillars. First, an opt-in consent model: companies must get your explicit permission before collecting, using, or selling your personal data — not bury consent in unreadable terms of service. Second, a federal data broker registry with one-click deletion: every data broker must register, disclose what data they hold, and honor deletion requests through a single federal portal. Third, full protections for children under 18: banning targeted advertising to minors, prohibiting addictive design features for young users, and requiring platforms to default to maximum privacy settings for minor accounts. Fourth, algorithmic transparency: companies that use algorithms to recommend content must disclose how those algorithms work, submit to independent audits, and give users the right to opt out of algorithmic targeting entirely.
Unlike the Democratic approach, the CGP plan doesn't accept opt-out consent as adequate and doesn't let federal preemption disputes paralyze action — the federal standard would serve as a floor, not a ceiling, allowing states to go further. Unlike the Republican approach, it doesn't pretend that market forces and self-regulation will protect your data when decades of evidence prove otherwise. The CGP plan creates a dedicated Digital Rights Agency with real enforcement power and the technical expertise to keep pace with a fast-moving industry. It also includes a private right of action — meaning you can sue companies that violate your privacy rights, not just hope the government will do it for you. On surveillance, the CGP plan requires a warrant for any query of surveillance databases involving American data, closes the Section 702 backdoor search loophole, and ends bulk metadata collection.
This is not experimental. The EU's GDPR, enacted in 2018, has established the global standard for data protection and has been adopted as a model by dozens of countries. Since GDPR took effect, Europeans have gained meaningful control over their data — the right to access it, correct it, delete it, and transfer it. GDPR has imposed over $4 billion in fines against companies that violated users' rights. The UK's Age Appropriate Design Code has driven platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram to change how they treat young users globally. Canada, Japan, Brazil, and South Korea have all passed comprehensive privacy laws. The United States remains the outlier — the only major democracy still relying on patchwork protections written before smartphones existed.
Critics argue that regulation kills innovation, but the evidence doesn't support this. The EU tech sector has continued to grow post-GDPR, and many American tech companies now offer GDPR-level protections to their European users while denying those same protections to Americans. If they can do it in Europe, they can do it here.
Policy debates about "data governance" and "algorithmic accountability" can feel abstract. Here's what the Common Good privacy plan would look like for real people in real situations.
Want to understand how our full policy platform would affect your life? Explore all 50 issue positions.
Explore the Full PlatformCommon questions about how the three approaches compare on internet privacy.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full privacy explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into internet privacy policy with these pages.
Every other wealthy democracy protects its citizens' data. America can too. Read the full plan and see which approach actually gives you control over your own information.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.