The framing being used is that what we currently do is "pro-transparency." We make laws to "inform" consumers and then trust that the market will sort the rest out. Cory rejects this as a workable tactic, because transparency, even real, full transparency, just becomes noise that people filter out when making decisions. He argues that if you want good outcomes you need legislation other than forcing transparency.

The flip way to argue that is that one way to get good legislation is that some level of transparency is in place so that people can make informed opinions on what is good.

I don't think I disagree with the conclusion but my point is that we don't have real transparency and a lot of these transparency laws actually obscure information to confuse the consumer. So I guess the issue I'm taking here is that these laws he is attacking aren't real transparency.