Merger of wealth tech giants blocked – International Adviser

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has halted the merger of FNZ and GBST.

The two retail wealth software firms have a large footprint in the UK sector, the watchdog warned.

FNZ acquired GBST in November 2019, andthe M&A deal has been under scrutiny ever since.

In its phase 2 provisional findings, the CMA said that greenlighting the merger could result in lessening competition within the UK retail platform space.

This could lead to UK consumers who rely on investment platforms to administer their pensions and other investments facing higher costs and lower quality services, the regulator added.

The merger would create the largest supplier in the UK, holding nearly 50% of the market.

Before striking the deal, the two firms were competitors in the space, where customers viewed them as close alternatives, the CMA said.

If FNZ and GBSTwere allowed tocombine, there would only be one provider that could keep up with their offering, according to the watchdog:a firm calledBravura.

The competition regulator has also set out a list of options available to FNZ to mitigate its concerns, which include selling part or the entirety of GBST.

Martin Coleman, chair of the CMA inquiry group, said:The evidence weve seen so far consistently points in the same direction that FNZ and GBST are two of the leading suppliers within this market and compete closely against each other.

Thats why were concerned that their merger could lead to investment platforms, and therefore indirectly millions of UK consumers who hold pensions or other investments, facing higher fees and lower quality services.

Were now inviting comments on our provisional findings and possible remedies.

View original post here:

Merger of wealth tech giants blocked - International Adviser

Is TikTok a Good Buy? It Depends on Whats Included – The New York Times

In addition to recreating TikToks algorithms, an American acquirer would also need to work quickly to preserve TikToks other valuable asset: its creator culture. As my colleague Taylor Lorenz has written, TikTok is home to a large, vibrant community of creative talent, some of whom make a full-time living from the app. Those people are attracted to TikTok partly because the platform gives them a way to reach a mass audience. But theyre also attracted to it because TikTok has cultivated an aura of cool through advertising, striking partnerships with music festivals and other popular events, and hosting exclusive parties for TikTok creators at industry events like VidCon.

Already, Facebook is reportedly trying to poach popular TikTok creators for Instagram Reels, its new TikTok clone, by dangling six-figure deals in front of them. And if TikTok is acquired by Microsoft a company not historically known for its youth appeal creators could sense that its time to move on.

TikTok could try to lower the risk for an acquirer by striking multiyear exclusive deals with its most popular American creators, the way that platforms like YouTube and Twitch have done. It could also accelerate its plans to let popular users earn money from the platform. But without a firm grip on its A-list talent, TikToks acquirer wont be assured that the platform isnt losing its edge.

Hank Green, a YouTube star and chief executive of the education company Complexly, who has more than 600,000 followers on TikTok, said that a TikTok acquisition could make creators more skeptical of the companys motives.

One of the things about TikTok is theyve been able to make lots of changes really fast, and people are open and receptive to that, Mr. Green said. If you see that change as coming from outside the ecosystem, that can feel like a foreign change.

Many of the people I spoke to agreed that even with the potential pitfalls and unresolved questions, the opportunity to buy TikTok is a once-in-a-decade deal for the right acquirer. Popular, growing social networks are exceedingly rare, and TikTok has already made itself a fixture of American culture in a way that few other apps ever have.

TikTok is compelling, not just because of its large and growing user base, but also because of its platform potential to expand into e-commerce and livestreaming, said Connie Chan, a partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. Video is a fantastic way to sell things and short videos are perfect for product discovery.

See more here:

Is TikTok a Good Buy? It Depends on Whats Included - The New York Times

Microsoft’s takeover would be a win for TikTok and tech giants not users – The Conversation AU

In what seems to be a common occurrence, Chinese video-sharing app TikTok is once again in the headlines.

After months of speculation about national security risks and users data being harvested by the Chinese Communist Party, US President Donald Trump has announced plans to ban TikTok in the United States any day now.

In response, a deal is being negotiated between TikToks parent company ByteDance and US software giant Microsoft. If successful, Microsoft will take over the apps operations in the US and potentially also in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

A US ban would not be unprecedented. India barred TikTok last month, alongside dozens of other Chinese-owned apps and websites.

According to reports, ByteDance has agreed to sell some of its TikTok operations to Microsoft. The deal, which is unlikely to progress before mid-September, would appease US regulators and could be seen as a way forward for TikTok in Australia.

Microsoft has indicated any takeover would include a complete security review and an offer of:

continuing dialogue with the United States government, including with the president.

Moving ownership to a US company could help address concerns surrounding the perceived influence of the Chinese government over TikTok. But there will need to be strong oversight to ensure existing user data is transferred entirely to Microsofts control.

While Microsoft has pledged to ensure TikTok data are deleted from servers outside the country after it is transferred it would be difficult to prove copies had not been made before control was handed over.

Whats more, a Microsoft-owned TikTok may not appeal to everyone. Some may think Microsoft is too closely tied to the US government, or may consider it a monopoly holder in the personal computing market.

Also, it would be naive to think foreign governments will not be able to covertly access US-stored user data, if they are so inclined.

Should the deal go ahead, it may open an opportunity for the Australian and New Zealand governments to align with a US-supported initiative.

Australia is still deciding how to proceed, with the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media due to hear from TikTok representatives on August 21. The committee has been tasked to look at the influence of social media on elections and the use of such platforms to distribute misinformation.

TikTok wont be alone though Facebook and Twitter are both due to attend. It is, however, unlikely the Microsoft acquisition will have much influence on the proceedings as the deal is still in the early days of discussion.

Microsofts acquisition may introduce fresh concerns about the US governments influence over TikTok. Although, this is perhaps more politically palatable than potential Chinese government influence over the app given the Chinese Communist Partys unsavoury record of privacy abuses.

Perhaps the only winner from the deal would be ByteDance itself. A product that is increasingly disliked by foreign governments will only become harder to sell with time. It would make sense for ByteDance to cash out its asset sooner rather than later.

The deal would also likely earn it a significant payout, given TikToks millions of users.

Read more: TikTok tries to distance itself from Beijing, but will it be enough to avoid the global blacklist?

Despite ongoing allegations, there is no solid evidence of a threat to either national security or personal data from using TikTok. Many of the concerns hinge on data sovereignty specifically, where data are stored and who can use and access them.

TikTok has responded to allegations by stating its user data are not stored in China and are not subject to Chinese government influence or access.

That said, while TikTok user data may well be stored outside China, it is unclear whether the Chinese government has already secured access, or will seek to do so later through legal channels.

Read more: China could be using TikTok to spy on Australians, but banning it isnt a simple fix

There are, however, other potential issues that may be driving the USs concerns.

For instance, in 2018 an unexpected consequence of sharing fitness tracker data through the Strava website inadvertently revealed the locations of secret US military bases.

Thus, services such as TikTok which are meant to be relatively benign (if used ethically) can, under certain circumstances, present unexpected threats to national security. This may explain why Australias defence forces have banned the app.

Read more: Strava storm: why everyone should check their smart gear security settings before going for a jog

Threats from the US against TikTok are not new.

The countrys Secretary of State Mike Pompeo indicated TikTok was being examined by US authorities in early July. And suggestions of a national security review go as far back as November last year.

However, in regards to Trumps most recent threat, one contributing factor may be the personal feelings of the president himself.

There are theories much of the new hype over TikTok could be a reaction from Trump to an ill-fated political rally in Tulsa.

A number of TikTok users reserved tickets to the Trump rally and didnt show up, as a protest against the president. The rally saw only a few thousand supporters attend, out of hundreds of thousands of allocated tickets.

Continue reading here:

Microsoft's takeover would be a win for TikTok and tech giants not users - The Conversation AU

The Tech Giants Are Dangerous, and Congress Knows It – The Atlantic

By the time the subcommittee called the CEOs, it had amassed deep knowledge and uncovered a damning paper trail. With many of their questions, members seemed to know the inner workings of the companies better than their executives. Asking about anticompetitive practices, Cicilline reduced Googles Sundar Pichai to mumbling incoherently about kettlebells; using specific examples, the subcommittee members Pramila Jayapal and Joe Neguse prodded Amazons Jeff Bezos into admitting instances of his companys anticompetitive behavior.

Ever since the election of President Donald Trump, which revealed the rampant manipulation of social media, the backlash against Silicon Valley has often felt shapeless. Because these companies have tendrils extended into seemingly every aspect of American life, the complaints against them have sprawled. They have been criticized for an insensitivity to privacy, their role in the proliferation of misinformation, their cozy relationship with China, their creation of addictive products, their tax-avoidance schemes, and so on. With such a boundless litany of attacks, the companies have benefited from their critics failure to focus their arguments.

But where Zuckerberg suffered a barrage of disconnected complaints, these hearings got to the nub of the problem: The internet has allowed the creation of a new style of monopoly. Nobody escapes the pull of these dominant firms, which have the power to pick winners and losers, in both the economy and the realm of information. The long, familiar list of complaints about the tech giants was distilled to its most essential elementthe danger that concentrated market power poses to competitive capitalism and democracy.

Franklin Foer: What Big Tech wants out of the pandemic

Like every other occasion in Trumps Washington, the hearings featured instances of partisan sniping. But what made the proceeding so distinctive is the broad agreement they evinced. Hardly any member was willing to defend the companies with anything close to conviction. Even when Trumps devoted defender Jim Jordan launched into conspiracy theories about how Google aims to strangle conservative opinion, he was mouthing a version of Cicillines argument. The companies, Jordan was saying, have become omnipotent gatekeepers with the power to invisibly shape the flow of information however they please.

Invoking a dusty name, several Democrats on the committee spoke reverently about the Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who led the anti-monopoly movement of the early 20th century. By conjuring his ghost, they were aligning themselves with an older, more pugilistic strand of antitrust than has been practiced in Washington the past few generations. They were signaling a broader revolt against the long-dominant Chicago school of political economy, under which the governments worries about monopoly narrow to a standard called consumer welfare. In that paradigm, regulators and courts sought to punish only monopolies that raised prices, which meant that they rarely took any action at all. (And the standard seems antiquated in an era when many tech companies give their products to consumers for free.) But todays hearings represented a return to Brandeisian worries about corporate behemoths, about how they use their size to hurt small businesses, how concentrated economic power can so easily distort the functioning of democracy.

The rest is here:

The Tech Giants Are Dangerous, and Congress Knows It - The Atlantic

Tech CEOs antitrust hearing what awaits the tech giants? – TechHQ

This week, a house panel is inquiring about the state of competition among Silicon Valley giants such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. The CEOs of the infamous tech behemoths will testify at a virtual hearing on Wednesday.

This antitrust investigation fits into a bigger picture of tech giants criticized for their anti-competition practices favoring their own products, monopolizing the market, and choking off competition through the acquisition of startups before they have a chance to take off, creating an imbalance in the tech-verse.

The high-profile hearing proceeds as the industry continues to reel from a widespread backlash against large tech corporations, known as Techlash, that gained momentum in 2018. Recurring issues regarding data privacy, consumer rights, and the power of tech giants in influencing political outcomes, have added fuel to growing weariness and skepticism towards big tech practices.

The hearing will mark the first time Amazons Jeff Bezos (with a net worth of US$171.6 billion) will testify before Congress, but also the first time for all four CEOs will testify at the same congressional hearing. The event is expected to be the first step taken towards laying a blueprint for antitrust regulations in the tech world.

Since last June, the Subcommittee has been investigating the dominance of a small number of digital platforms and the adequacy of existing antitrust laws and enforcement, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler and Antitrust Subcommittee ChairmanDavid Cicillinesaid in a joint statement.

Given the central role these corporations play in the lives of the American people, it is critical that their CEOs are forthcoming. As we have said from the start, their testimony is essential for us to complete this investigation.

Californian consumer tech leader Apple is being investigated for the way it manages its apps store after claims were made that the iPhone maker gives preference towards its own apps over third-party entities. Many app developers have called out the firms ironclad control of its App Store, accusing the firm of applying rules inconsistently, particularly for apps that compete with Apples own products. Ultimately, this can lead to higher prices and fewer choices for consumers.

For its part, social media giant Facebook is involved in seemingly endless controversy, but the hearing will focus on allegations over data privacy and its acquisition of large entities such as Instagram and WhatsApp. Taha Yasseri, asenior research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute said, one company owning four of the most popular social networking and communication apps, at best, can be described as a data monopoly.

Combined, the data from multiple platforms can lead to an extremely high level of precision in modeling our traits and behaviors. This amount of power should be regulated. said Yasseri.

However, Facebook haswon a temporary halt to a demand byEU investigators to turn over vast amounts of data, potentially frustrating efforts to build an antitrust case against the US tech giant. Facebooksued the Brussels-based commission on July 15, citing the exceptionally broad nature of the EUs orders.

Tech titan Google will likely be questioned over its unparalleled dominance on the ad and search market, while Amazon will be scrutinized on whether it promotes its own brands ahead of small sellers on its platform, and whether it capitalizes on data from smaller sellers for the benefit of its own business.

Analysts said the hearing marks the initial steps for antitrust laws to be rewritten, ensuring the rules are updated and set for the tech industry today. The hearing could see, for example, Amazon change the way it develops private label products.

So I mean, if you think about the core of anti-trust law, its not illegal. Its not forbidden to become a dominant company or a monopoly, Peter Choi, Vontobel quality growth analyst, toldYahoo Finance. Its more about the way you obtain that dominant position. And do you misuse that to sort of, you know, gain leverage in an adjacent market.

See the original post:

Tech CEOs antitrust hearing what awaits the tech giants? - TechHQ

How the new Nasdaq-like tech board in Hong Kong will benefit investors and tech giants – CNBC

A pedestrian takes a photograph in front of an electronic ticker board and a screen displaying stock figures outside the Exchange Square complex, which houses the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, in Hong Kong, China, on Monday, Feb. 11, 2019.

Justin Chin | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Hong Kong launched a new, Nasdaq-style technology board this week the Hang Seng Tech index which tracks 30 of the largest tech stocks listed in the city.

Analysts say that's likely to lead to more money coming in for those 30 stocks in Hong Kong, adding to a booming year for Chinese tech companies and the Hong Kong market.

There were a few mega initial public offerings in Hong Kongthis year as U.S.-listed Chinese tech giants flocked home for secondary listings. Some examples included gaming giant Netease and e-commerce firm JD.com.

More are likely to return, following tensions between the U.S. and China that led to a U.S. bill that could essentially ban many Chinese companies from listing on American exchanges, analysts predicted.

That spells good news for the Hong Kong market, they said.

Under the new tech index, its constituents are reviewed quarterly and would allow tech companies that are listed in Hong Kong to be included if they meet certain requirements.

Currently, the top five firms listed on the index areAlibaba,Tencent,Meituan Dianping,XiaomiandSunny Optical. Together, they have a combined weighting of more than 40%.

Here's what the new index could mean for investors and the listed companies themselves.

Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and other fund products will probably be launched to track the new index, and that will spur more inflows into the stocks under the index, Morgan Stanley said in a report this week.

More investors haveinrecentyears flocked to such passive investingby putting money into such funds, as opposed to individual stock-picking.

The new index is likely to draw some interest away from the tech-heavy Nasdaq in the U.S. and lead to more turnover at the Hong Kong stock exchange, said Citi analysts in a note on Monday. They also flagged that more index-linked funds could be issued.

The following stocks will likely to enjoy the most inflows, compared to their own daily average trading volume in Hong Kong, according to Morgan Stanley.

For investors looking to decide what funds to get into that track the indexes in Hong Kong, it's worth noting that the new tech index would have achieved higher returns than the main Hang Seng composite index,according to back-testing data by the Hang Seng Indexes company.

That data showed the tech index would have returns of 36.2% for 2019 and 45.5% as of July 17. That compares to 10.95% and -2.44% respectively for the main Hang Seng index.

Alibaba, JD.com and Neteasewill likely benefit from more inflows as mainland investors would now be able to buy these stocks.

Mainland investors currently access Hong Kong-listed stocks via the Stock Connect Southbound channel. The stock connect is a program which links the exchanges of Hong Kong, Shanghai and Shenzhen, and allows investors to trade selected securities on the participating platforms through their home exchange.

However Alibaba, JD.com and Netease are not included in the Southbound initiative becausethey all have secondary listings. Their primary listings are in the U.S.

Morgan Stanley pointed out that mainland investors would now be able to invest in funds that track the new tech index via a scheme between Hong Kong and the mainland that would allow them to do so.

CNBC's Saheli Roy Choudhury contributed to this report.

See the original post:

How the new Nasdaq-like tech board in Hong Kong will benefit investors and tech giants - CNBC

Lawmakers accuse tech giants of using privacy as a weapon to hurt competition – CNET

Tech CEOs swear in to testify to Congress.

In the last few years, onlineprivacy and cybersecurity have become a public concern, with tech giants like Facebook, Google and Apple backing a national law on data privacy regulations. But lawmakers at an antitrust hearing on Wednesday accused the tech companies of being disingenuous with their support for privacy -- arguing that they've used it as an excuse to snub out their competition.

The CEOs of tech giants Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google faced a five-hour series of questions from the House Judiciary's subcommittee on antitrust, specifically on whether or not they engaged in anti-competitive behavior.

Subscribe to the CNET Now newsletter for our editors' picks of the most important stories of the day.

Members of Congress gave several examples of times tech giants took actions that would directly benefit themselves while harming their competitors, like Google announcing it would phase out third-party tracking cookies by 2022 or Apple removing parental control apps shortly after it launched its own "screen time" feature.

Now playing: Watch this: Congress seeks answers from Amazon on use of internal...

6:14

In both of those cases, the companies said the actions were taken to protect the privacy and security of their users, but House members argue that it was specifically to boost their own profits.

"You're using privacy as a shield, and what you're really doing is using it as a cudgel to beat down competition," said Rep. Kelly Armstrong, a Republican from North Dakota. "It's a great word that people care about, but not when it's utilized to control more of the marketplace and squeeze out smaller competitors."

The lawmaker was referring to a 2015 decision from Google to stop allowing third parties to buy YouTube ads, forcing them to buy directly from the company itself. At the time, Google said it was for privacy reasonsand CEO Sundar Pichai defended the change on Wednesday.

"It's a service we provide to our users, we obviously want to make sure we protect the privacy of our users there," Pichai said.

Rep. Lucy McBath, a Democrat from Georgia, called out Apple for removing parental control apps that were in direct competition with Screen Time, a feature the tech giant rolled out in 2018.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said it removed the apps out of a security concern, not to gain a competitive advantage.

"We were concerned, congresswoman, about the privacy and security of kids," Cook said. "The technology that was being used at the time was called MDM, and it had the ability to take over the kid's screen, and a third party could see it and so we were worried about their safety."

Read more:What is Tor? Your guide to using the private browser

Lawmakers and privacy advocates were skeptical of the tech giants' defense.

For example, by phasing out third-party tracking cookies, Google, with its widely popular set of services like YouTube, Google Maps and Android, would have a competitive advantage through its first-party tracking.

Essentially, it would be providing privacy from others, but not from Google itself, experts said. All while benefiting their own profits.

"Because Google knows who you are when you register an account or connect to their software via phone or browser, they don't need cookies to predict your behavior or know who you are," said Liz O'Sullivan, technology director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. "Google has GPS, they have your email, your search history. All of that is way more valuable than a simple cookie. So eliminating them won't even be a drop in the bucket in protecting privacy."

Gabriel Weinberg is a direct competitor to Google, as the CEO of DuckDuckGo, the privacy-focused search engine. In 2018, he called out Google for owning the domain name Duck.com, which was redirected to the search giant.

At the time, Weinberg said it frequently confused DuckDuckGo users, and also raised issues with how difficult it was to add the search engine into Chrome.

"Google and Facebook routinely engage in privacy-washing, a deliberate attempt to use privacy to help their brand, but not actually deliver it to users," Weinberg said in a message after the hearing. "It misleads people into a false sense of privacy, and also is a primary contributor to the powerlessness people feel when they find out they aren't really getting what they were promised."

See the rest here:

Lawmakers accuse tech giants of using privacy as a weapon to hurt competition - CNET

Billionaire bosses to feel the heat over tech giants’ massive wealth and power – The Guardian

Some of the richest men in history representing the most valuable companies ever created will be grilled by Congress on Wednesday , as US authorities get increasingly serious about whether tech giants Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Alphabet have become too powerful.

The extraordinary hearing will see Amazons Jeff Bezos, Apples Tim Cook, Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg and Google owner Alphabets Sundar Pichai called to account for the market dominance of their companies dominance that many say was achieved through anti-competitive business practices.

When the US House judiciary committee gavels into order its upcoming antitrust hearing the four star witnesses will represent more than $275bn in combined personal net worth and more than $4.8tn in market value.

Wednesdays hearing follows more than a year of investigation by the House antitrust subcommittee, whose chair, representative David Cicilline, began a broad inquiry into the market power of the tech giants after the Democrats retook control of the House in 2018.

The House investigation, along with separate moves by the Federal Trade Commission and justice department, represents the first time that federal regulators have taken a hard look at the tech industry since the Microsoft case in the 1990s. Over the intervening decades, a new generation of tech behemoths have come to dominate even more aspects of the economy with little if any scrutiny from regulators in the US.

The issues at question are complex and important; the questioning at congressional hearings often is not. When Pichai last testified before the House, one congressman asked him a question about his granddaughters iPhone, giving Pichai a chance to point out that, dominant as Google may be, it is not responsible for Apple products.

Heres a preview of some questions these titans of technology should face on Wednesday:

Amazon is not only the largest retailer in the world, but the largest cloud computing company as well. The company has grown even larger by running a marketplace where third-party companies can sell their products, for a fee. Many critics argue that Amazon should not be allowed to both run the marketplace and compete within it, comparing the situation to Amazon being both player and referee an unfair advantage over the other team. Why should it be allowed to maintain this advantage?

For years, third-party sellers that use Amazons marketplace have suspected that Amazon uses sales data to launch competing products under its own private labels. Last year, an Amazon executive testified under oath that Amazon does not do this; but in April, the Wall Street Journal reported that it was standard operating practice. Did Amazons executive lie?

Amazon is a provider of cloud computing services, and some of its customers are also its competitors. Does it ever use data from its cloud customers to inform decisions about competing products?

Amazon is also an investor. Has Amazon ever used its role as a startup investor to inform the development of competing products?

The coronavirus pandemic has led to a surge in demand, driving Amazons business to near peak holiday season levels. Have Amazon executives discussed taking advantage of the pandemic to move into new markets or extend its dominance of existing markets?

There are 900m iPhone users in the world, and the only way they can download apps to their phones is through the App Store, which Apple controls. Apple gets to decide which apps can be in the store, and takes a substantial cut of their sales. How does that gatekeeping affect consumers?

Apple has repeatedly copied features from third-party apps, incorporating them into its operating system and rendering them obsolete. Why should that practice continue to be allowed?

Last month, the developers behind the email app Hey went public with a chilling complaint: that Apple was requiring it to use its in-app payment tools and fork over a 30% commission or the app would be booted from the App Store. Why does Apple deserve such a large cut of other companies revenues?

Earlier this month, many major US tech companies said they would stop cooperating with law enforcement requests for user data from Hong Kong authorities following the passage of national security laws imposed by Beijing. Apple did not. Does Apples reliance on China as a market and supplier compromise its commitment to human rights? Will Apple provide Beijing with the personal data of dissidents?

Google had $162bn in revenues last year, but that number hardly captures its dominance in products such as maps, email, web browsing and more. It all stems from the first product, search: Google handles more than 90% of all search queries worldwide. How is this a healthy competitive market?

Googles dominance in search gives it unprecedented power to shape the information that reaches billions of people around the world. And Google has at times struggled to ensure that that information is of high quality. How does the company plan to improve search results? And should a single company have that much power in defining what the world gets to read?

For a time, the number of people using Facebook was larger than any other category of humans on Earth other than followers of Christianity; then Facebook grew even bigger. In recent years, Facebook has acquired Instagram, WhatsApp, Onavo, Oculus, CrowdTangle and Giphy. It tried to acquire SnapChat, then copied its most popular feature. It recently launched copycat versions of rivals Houseparty and TikTok. Is there a rival social media app that has gained popularity in recent years that it did not either acquire or copy?

On 26 June, amid a growing ad boycott over Facebooks failure to curb hate speech, Zuckerberg reassured employees that all these advertisers will be back on the platform soon enough. What made him so confident that advertisers would have no choice but to return to the platform, whether or not it fixed the hate speech problem?

Facebook has responded to criticism of its record on hate by pointing to the vast amount of content published every day claiming that it automatically deletes nearly 90% of hate speech before anyone flags it. If Facebook is too big to prevent its product from being used to incite genocide and mob violence, isnt it too big to exist?

Read this article:

Billionaire bosses to feel the heat over tech giants' massive wealth and power - The Guardian

Lawmakers grill tech giants over their influence on consumers – WSYR

WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) The CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google testified remotely on Capitol Hill Wednesday afternoon, defending their business practices as lawmakers questioned how they wield their power over American consumers.

The CEOs Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg fielded questions from lawmakers during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, which comes after a yearlong bipartisan investigation into unfair business practices by the tech giants.

Rep. David Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, argues that their power over the marketplace is killing small businesses across the country.

Simply put: They have too much power, Cicilline said. Any single action by one of these companies can affect hundreds of millions of us.

Why does Google steal content from honest businesses? he asked while questioning Pichai.

We support 1.4 million small businesses, Pichai answered. We see many businesses thrive.

But lawmakers argue theres little room left for competition. The CEOs pushed back, however, arguing that theres still plenty of room for competition and opportunity on their platforms.

We nurture entrepreneurs and startups, Bezos said.

If Apple is a gatekeeper, what we have done is open the gate wider, Cook said.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, questioned Zuckerberg on his companys efforts to crack down on fake accounts spreading misinformation.

Zuckerberg said Facebook invests billions of dollars a year in doing so.

Republican lawmakers also raised concerns over the platforms censorship of conservative voices.

Big techs out to get conservatives thats not a suspicion, thats not a hunch thats a fact, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said.

Zuckerberg argued that his companys goal is to offer a platform for all ideas.

So far, lawmakers havent agreed on the right way to take a more active role in policing the top tech companies.

See the original post here:

Lawmakers grill tech giants over their influence on consumers - WSYR

Tech giants should not be arbiters of truth – Bangor Daily News

Monday, a group calling themselves Americas Frontline Doctors staged a press conference outside the steps of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., in order to speak out about their belief that the medication hydroxychloroquine was an effective tool to fight COVID-19.

The star of the show was Dr. Stella Immanuel, a physician at Rehoboth Medical Center in Houston, who spoke about her own experience treating patients. Said Immanuel, In the past few months, after taking in over 350 patients, we have not lost one. Not a diabetic, not somebody with high blood pressure, not somebody with asthma, not an old person.

The video of the press conference was loaded onto social media channels quickly, where it was shared widely by many people, including, of course, President Donald Trump.

Of course, the statements made by Immanuel were contrary to the official position of both the Food and Drug Administration as well as the National Institute of Health, both of which say that hydroxychloroquine is not beneficial in the treatment of COVID. Thus, reporters began looking into her background and left wing outlets had a field day ridiculing her as someone who believes in Alien DNA and Demon Sperm.

Thats when Facebook, Twitter and Youtube jumped into our story by removing the video from their platforms.

The justification for the removal of the video was pretty simple. The tech giants all claimed that the video spread dangerous misinformation, and contradicted the scientific consensus in the medical community.

By my estimation, they are almost certainly right that Immanuel and friends were peddling misinformation, but even if the claims in the video were utter nonsense, that should have been no justification for social media companies taking it down.

The concept of free speech is about so much more than just the Constitutional protection afforded to citizens against government restrictions on speech. It is in fact a bedrock American principle that rightly holds that the free expression of ideas, even if you are wrong, and even if no one agrees with you, is vital to the healthy functioning of our republic.

Yes, even if you are wrong. Because in a free society, progress is always made by those who reject the majority opinion. Scientific advancement is made by those that break the established order, and carve a new path.

That means that a lot of liars, hucksters and morons will have to be heard. We have to tolerate that to ensure that we are able to hear the geniuses and the revolutionaries that are telling us things we arent ready to hear, but one day will be.

Ignaz Semmelweis was an obstetrician, and was an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures in medicine. Observing that the mortality rate for women in his ward in Vienna went radically down if he simply washed his hands prior to treating patients, he ultimately published a book of his findings.

Unfortunately, his observations conflicted with established scientific and medical opinions among his contemporaries, and suggested doctors were causing deaths. Thus many in the medical community rejected his advice, condemning untold numbers of women to death.

Of course Semmelweis isnt alone. Aristarchus and then later Copernicus had their theories of heliocentrism widely opposed and dismissed in their time. Gregor Mendel, who conducted pioneering work on genetic inheritance was not taken seriously until more than three decades after his observations were published. The list goes on.

The point of this isnt to suggest that Immanuel is Copernicus. Quite the opposite, as I am rather certain she is no sage of truth.

But that doesnt matter. The point is that when adherence to consensus opinion becomes the thing that allows you to be heard, while contradicting it gets you suppressed and silenced, we are living in a terrifying period in American history.

The answer to troubling speech is not to shut it down. Rather it is more speech. Respond. Reflect. Debate. Engage. But dont erase, and suppress.

Besides, trying to silence unpopular or heterodox opinions just makes that troubling speech far more popular.

Today, trust in authority figures and experts has eroded. Theyve misled us too often, and it seems like their own personal agendas always twist and warp everything.

So when agents of the status quo take action to suppress contrary opinion, even if they are ultimately right, it inspires heightened interest in the thing being hidden. Any teenager who has ever been told that they cant watch a certain movie or listen to an album is well acquainted with this phenomenon.

Tech giants should not be making themselves the arbiters of what is true, and what isnt.

Matthew Gagnon, of Yarmouth, is the Chief Executive Officer of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, a free market policy think tank based in Portland. Prior to Maine Heritage, he served as a senior strategist for the Republican Governors Association in Washington, D.C. Originally from Hampden, he has been involved with Maine politics for more than a decade.

Visit link:

Tech giants should not be arbiters of truth - Bangor Daily News

Billionaire bosses to feel heat over tech giants wealth and power – The Irish Times

Some of the richest men in history representing the most valuable companies ever created will be grilled by Congress on Wednesday , as US authorities get increasingly serious about whether tech giants Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Alphabet have become too powerful.

The extraordinary hearing will see Amazons Jeff Bezos, Apples Tim Cook, Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg and Google owner Alphabets Sundar Pichai called to account for the market dominance of their companies - dominance that many say was achieved through anti-competitive business practices.

When the US House judiciary committee gavels into order its upcoming antitrust hearing the four star witnesses will represent more than $275 billion (233.8 billion) in combined personal net worth - and more than $4.8trillion in market value.

Wednesdays hearing follows more than a year of investigation by the House antitrust subcommittee, whose chair, representative David Cicilline, began a broad inquiry into the market power of the tech giants after the Democrats retook control of the House in 2018.

The House investigation, along with separate moves by the Federal Trade Commission and justice department, represents the first time that federal regulators have taken a hard look at the tech industry since the Microsoft case in the 1990s. Over the intervening decades, a new generation of tech behemoths have come to dominate even more aspects of the economy with little if any scrutiny from regulators in the US.

The issues at question are complex and important; the questioning at congressional hearings often is not. When Mr Pichai last testified before the House, one congressman asked him a question about his granddaughters iPhone, giving Mr Pichai a chance to point out that, dominant as Google may be, it is not responsible for Apple products.

Preview

Heres a preview of some questions these titans of technology should face on Wednesday:

Jeff Bezos, Amazon

Amazon is not only the largest retailer in the world, but the largest cloud computing company as well. The company has grown even larger by running a marketplace where third-party companies can sell their products, for a fee. Many critics argue that Amazon should not be allowed to both run the marketplace and compete within it, comparing the situation to Amazon being both player and referee - an unfair advantage over the other team. Why should it be allowed to maintain this advantage?

For years, third-party sellers that use Amazons marketplace have suspected that Amazon uses sales data to launch competing products under its own private labels. Last year, an Amazon executive testified under oath that Amazon does not do this; but in April, the Wall Street Journal reported that it was standard operating practice. Did Amazons executive lie?

Amazon is a provider of cloud computing services, and some of its customers are also its competitors. Does it ever use data from its cloud customers to inform decisions about competing products?

Amazon is also an investor. Has Amazon ever used its role as a startup investor to inform the development of competing products?

The coronavirus pandemic has led to a surge in demand, driving Amazons business to near peak holiday season levels. Have Amazon executives discussed taking advantage of the pandemic to move into new markets or extend its dominance of existing markets?

Tim Cook, Apple

There are 900million iPhone users in the world, and the only way they can download apps to their phones is through the App Store, which Apple controls. Apple gets to decide which apps can be in the store, and takes a substantial cut of their sales. How does that gatekeeping affect consumers?

Apple has repeatedly copied features from third-party apps, incorporating them into its operating system and rendering them obsolete. Why should that practice continue to be allowed?

Last month, the developers behind the email app Hey went public with a chilling complaint: that Apple was requiring it to use its in-app payment tools - and fork over a 30 per cent commission - or the app would be booted from the App Store. Why does Apple deserve such a large cut of other companies revenues?

Earlier this month, many major US tech companies said they would stop cooperating with law enforcement requests for user data from Hong Kong authorities following the passage of national security laws imposed by Beijing. Apple did not. Does Apples reliance on China as a market and supplier compromise its commitment to human rights? Will Apple provide Beijing with the personal data of dissidents?

Sundar Pichai, Google

Google had $162 billion in revenues last year, but that number hardly captures its dominance in products such as maps, email, web browsing and more. It all stems from the first product, search: Google handles more than 90 per cent of all search queries worldwide. How is this a healthy competitive market?

Googles dominance in search gives it unprecedented power to shape the information that reaches billions of people around the world. And Google has at times struggled to ensure that that information is of high quality. How does the company plan to improve search results? And should a single company have that much power in defining what the world gets to read?

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook

For a time, the number of people using Facebook was larger than any other category of humans on Earth other than followers of Christianity; then Facebook grew even bigger. In recent years, Facebook has acquired Instagram, WhatsApp, Onavo, Oculus, CrowdTangle and Giphy. It tried to acquire SnapChat, then copied its most popular feature. It recently launched copycat versions of rivals Houseparty and TikTok. Is there a rival social media app that has gained popularity in recent years that it did not either acquire or copy?

On June 26th, amid a growing ad boycott over Facebooks failure to curb hate speech, Mr Zuckerberg reassured employees that all these advertisers will be back on the platform soon enough. What made him so confident that advertisers would have no choice but to return to the platform, whether or not it fixed the hate speech problem?

Facebook has responded to criticism of its record on hate by pointing to the vast amount of content published every day claiming that it automatically deletes nearly 90 per cent of hate speech before anyone flags it. If Facebook is too big to prevent its product from being used to incite genocide and mob violence, isnt it too big to exist?

- Guardian News and Media

Continued here:

Billionaire bosses to feel heat over tech giants wealth and power - The Irish Times

How the Tech Giants are Adjusting to Working From Home – Tech.co

Google has announced that its staff will work from home until at least July 2021.

The change will affect nearly all of Googles 200,000 employees, including contractors and full-time workers, according to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the news.

In a blog post in May, Google announced it would begin reopening its offices from early July this year. This was only to allow those staff who wanted or needed to come back, and was done on a limited, rotating basis, the blog said.

Google has stressed to its staff that coming back to the office would be voluntary through the end of the year, and we encourage you to continue to work from home if you can.

To give employees the ability to plan ahead, we are extending our global voluntary work from home option through June 30 2021, for roles that don't need to be in the office. I hope this will offer the flexibility you need to balance work with taking care of yourselves and your loved ones over the next 12 months. Sundar Pichai, Google CEO, wrote in an email to employees

Excerpt from:

How the Tech Giants are Adjusting to Working From Home - Tech.co

ABC, SBS exclusion from tech giants’ payments a ‘government’ decision – Sydney Morning Herald

Under the draft code Google and Facebook will have three months to negotiate revenue-sharing deals with media companies before independent arbitrators are called in to impose a compulsory arrangement. The platforms will potentially face hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for breaches.

Mr Sims said in March that any revenue that came to the ABC as a result of the new code "would be applied to the delivery of ABC Charter objectives" and that there was a legitimate interst in ensuring that the value was put back into the broadcaster's journalism.

Loading

In a submission to the ACCC about what the code should look like, SBS advocated for a collective bargaining model that would also allow for news media businesses to agree to individual commercial arrangements.

ABC's submission, which was made public on Friday, said that if the digital platforms were gaining value from using ABC news content, the public broadcaster had a "legitimate" interest in ensuring that revenue was reinvested into its journalism.

The ABC is a proven public policy tool for delivering quality news and information. A further argument is that exclusion of the ABC from this aspect of the Code could have the unintended consequence of compromising the effectiveness of the regime, by distorting the playing field in the market for public-interest journalism," its submission said.

But commercial media companies including Nine Entertainment Co (owner of this masthead) argued that the two public broadcasters shouldn't be compensated because they don't rely on advertising to fund journalism and their operating models haven't been undermined by the platforms' dominance. News Corps submission to the inquiry, which is available publicly, lobbied for the ABC to be included.

Communications Minister Paul Fletcher said on Friday that it was important for Australia's democracy to have a sustainable news media ecosystem and the code was focused on businesses whose viability and news production was threatened by advertising revenue losses.

"That is a policy problem that does not arise for Australia's public broadcasters, which have secure government funding, and accordingly the ABC and SBS are not the policy focus when it comes to remuneration aspects of the proposed mandatory code," he said.

An SBS spokesperson said the broadcaster was "disappointed" to have been excluded from the remuneration provisions.

Loading

"Nearly a third of our funding comes from commercial sources, so it is appropriate that Google and Facebook contribute to investment in our valued news content, which benefits all Australians," the spokesperson said. "We will continue to engage constructively in this process prior to the finalisation of the code." ABC declined to comment.

The ACCC's approach is almost identical to one method proposed by News Corp. Mr Sims said that when the regulator decided to pursue an arbitration model, News Corp proposed "final offer arbitration". The idea was embraced by the ACCC as a proven way of bringing the parties together.

"In the end we thought that was the right way forward," he said. "But [News Corp] suggested it before we did."

Nine and other media organisations had proposed an alternative model whereby the government would calculated, collect and allocate a pool of revenue. Mr Sims said that the Nine proposal was problematic because the government would have too much involvement."You really don't want government determining these things. You want this to be a result of commercial negotiation," he said.

The code was largely welcomed by the industry when it was released, but Google managing director Mel Silva expressed disappointment. Ms Silva said that the code threatened the ability of Google to deliver services effectively to Australian consumers. In other markets where Google has been forced to pay publishers, it has withdrawn some services.

News publishers and the digital platforms are expected to provide responses to the draft legislation by August 28.

Zoe Samios is a media and telecommunications reporter at The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

Fergus Hunter is an education and communications reporter for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.

Read more:

ABC, SBS exclusion from tech giants' payments a 'government' decision - Sydney Morning Herald

Microsoft’s takeover would be a win for TikTok and tech giants – not users – The Conversation AU

In what seems to be a common occurrence, Chinese video-sharing app TikTok is once again in the headlines.

After months of speculation about national security risks and users data being harvested by the Chinese Communist Party, US President Donald Trump has announced plans to ban TikTok in the United States any day now.

In response, a deal is being negotiated between TikToks parent company ByteDance and US software giant Microsoft. If successful, Microsoft will take over the apps operations in the US and potentially also in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

A US ban would not be unprecedented. India barred TikTok last month, alongside dozens of other Chinese-owned apps and websites.

According to reports, ByteDance has agreed to sell some of its TikTok operations to Microsoft. The deal, which is unlikely to progress before mid-September, would appease US regulators and could be seen as a way forward for TikTok in Australia.

Microsoft has indicated any takeover would include a complete security review and an offer of:

continuing dialogue with the United States government, including with the president.

Moving ownership to a US company could help address concerns surrounding the perceived influence of the Chinese government over TikTok. But there will need to be strong oversight to ensure existing user data is transferred entirely to Microsofts control.

While Microsoft has pledged to ensure TikTok data are deleted from servers outside the country after it is transferred it would be difficult to prove copies had not been made before control was handed over.

Whats more, a Microsoft-owned TikTok may not appeal to everyone. Some may think Microsoft is too closely tied to the US government, or may consider it a monopoly holder in the personal computing market.

Also, it would be naive to think foreign governments will not be able to covertly access US-stored user data, if they are so inclined.

Should the deal go ahead, it may open an opportunity for the Australian and New Zealand governments to align with a US-supported initiative.

Australia is still deciding how to proceed, with the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media due to hear from TikTok representatives on August 21. The committee has been tasked to look at the influence of social media on elections and the use of such platforms to distribute misinformation.

TikTok wont be alone though Facebook and Twitter are both due to attend. It is, however, unlikely the Microsoft acquisition will have much influence on the proceedings as the deal is still in the early days of discussion.

Microsofts acquisition may introduce fresh concerns about the US governments influence over TikTok. Although, this is perhaps more politically palatable than potential Chinese government influence over the app given the Chinese Communist Partys unsavoury record of privacy abuses.

Perhaps the only winner from the deal would be ByteDance itself. A product that is increasingly disliked by foreign governments will only become harder to sell with time. It would make sense for ByteDance to cash out its asset sooner rather than later.

The deal would also likely earn it a significant payout, given TikToks millions of users.

Read more: TikTok tries to distance itself from Beijing, but will it be enough to avoid the global blacklist?

Despite ongoing allegations, there is no solid evidence of a threat to either national security or personal data from using TikTok. Many of the concerns hinge on data sovereignty specifically, where data are stored and who can use and access them.

TikTok has responded to allegations by stating its user data are not stored in China and are not subject to Chinese government influence or access.

That said, while TikTok user data may well be stored outside China, it is unclear whether the Chinese government has already secured access, or will seek to do so later through legal channels.

Read more: China could be using TikTok to spy on Australians, but banning it isnt a simple fix

There are, however, other potential issues that may be driving the USs concerns.

For instance, in 2018 an unexpected consequence of sharing fitness tracker data through the Strava website inadvertently revealed the locations of secret US military bases.

Thus, services such as TikTok which are meant to be relatively benign (if used ethically) can, under certain circumstances, present unexpected threats to national security. This may explain why Australias defence forces have banned the app.

Read more: Strava storm: why everyone should check their smart gear security settings before going for a jog

Threats from the US against TikTok are not new.

The countrys Secretary of State Mike Pompeo indicated TikTok was being examined by US authorities in early July. And suggestions of a national security review go as far back as November last year.

However, in regards to Trumps most recent threat, one contributing factor may be the personal feelings of the president himself.

There are theories much of the new hype over TikTok could be a reaction from Trump to an ill-fated political rally in Tulsa.

A number of TikTok users reserved tickets to the Trump rally and didnt show up, as a protest against the president. The rally saw only a few thousand supporters attend, out of hundreds of thousands of allocated tickets.

See original here:

Microsoft's takeover would be a win for TikTok and tech giants - not users - The Conversation AU

Apple, Microsoft And Other Tech Giants Top Forbes 2020 Most Valuable Brands List – Forbes

People queue outside the Apple new flagship store at Sanlitun on July 17, 2020 in Beijing, China.

When it comes to brand value, its hard to topple Big Tech. On Forbes 2020 list of the 100 most valuable brands, the top five are the same as last year: Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook. And while the first four have maintained or increased their pace of growth, Facebook has fallen. In fact, the social networks brand value declined by 21% between fiscal-year 2018 and fiscal-year 2019.

Several brands had notable shifts in the annual rankings, which examines financial data from the previous fiscal year. Visa rose from 25th to 18th, Adidas went from 61st to 51th, and Netflix jumped from 38th to 26th. Some luxury brands also saw significant changes, with Chanel going from 79th to 52nd and Cartier from 64th to 56th.

This years list includes several newcomers: Nintendo, Hennessy, Burger King, and AXA are in the top 100. Meanwhile, some of the companies with the biggest losses were legacy tech companies like GE, HP Inc., and IBM, which saw total values decrease by 14%, 12%, and 10% respectively. Phillips, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and Kelloggs were knocked off this year's rankings entirely.

Theres a stickiness to brand value thats pretty astounding when we think about it, said Christie Nordhielm, a marketing professor at Georgetown University. So at the same time that tech and the new brands are taking off, there is a stickiness to brandboth specific brands and corporate brands. And that ladders up to brand valuations, and sometimes that stickiness gives the false sense of security that can go badly. Just like everything were experiencing now, there is a lag effect.

Notably higher this year was Walmart. The retailers brand value increased 12% year-over-year to $29.5 billion while jumping in the ranks from 26th to 19th.

Walmart has been putting a lot of effort into modernizing their delivery and trying to compete, Nordhielm said. Theyre up against Amazon, and thats a tough competitor, but Walmart is not a shrinking violet. Theyre not going to go down quietly. In a sense, Amazon is helping Walmart and forcing them to raise their game.

There were also some big drops, especially in the auto sector. While Mercedes-Benz fell from 17th to 23rd and BMW dropped from 21st to 27th, Nissan has been knocked off the list entirelyfalling from 81st just a year prior. Other declines in rankings included Wells Fargo (42th to 69th) and and KFC (86th to 96th).

Forbes

Brand value often falls because companies have a hard time defending brand positioning, according to Tim Calkins, a marketing professor at Northwestern Universitys Kellogg School of Management. As a result, companies can struggle with competition, leading to declines that reflect the pressure put on them.

HP (Inc.) is a brand thats really struggled to define itself, Calkins said. The best brands are really well defined. And when you have a brand that loses its distinctive meaning it is almost always going to struggle in the market and then the valuations.

Older brands with newer competitors also saw losses in value and ranking. For example, Gillette continues to face mounting pressure from startups like Harryswhich was acquired last year for $1.4 billion by Edgewell Personal Care, parent company of Schickand Dollar Shave Club, which Unilever bought in 2016 for $1 billion.

Next years top 100 could look different than this years as the fallout from the Covid-19 crisis and economic downturn continue to affect both the largest and smallest companies around the world. But as for now, companies with big gains in 2019 like Amazon, Netflix, and PayPal also seem on track to be big winners during the pandemic when it comes to trends in e-commerce, streaming, and shifts in payments.

People have long said brands are going to fade away and arent so important now with the internet," Calkins said. "You dont need to rely on the brand and just read reviews. But what you see is brands remain incredibly important and incredibly strong. They create value in different ways now, but there is no doubt when you look at these companies that brands have real value for these companies.

Methodology

After assessing a universe of 200 global brands with a significant presence in the U.S., our first step in valuing each was to determine revenue and earnings before interest and taxes. We then averaged earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) over the past three fiscal years (2017 through 2019) and subtracted from earnings a charge of 8% of the brands capital employed, figuring the average brand should be able to earn at least 8% on this capital. Forbes also applied the corporate tax rate in the parent companys home country to the net earnings figure and then allocated a percentage of those earnings to the brand based on the role it plays in its industry. To this net brand earnings number, we applied the average price-to-earnings multiple over the past three years to arrive at the final brand value. For privately held outfits, we applied earnings multiples for comparable public companies.

Brands By The Numbers

Read this article:

Apple, Microsoft And Other Tech Giants Top Forbes 2020 Most Valuable Brands List - Forbes

Google, Other Tech Giants Extend Work From Home – TheStreet

Google (GOOGL) - Get Report is extending its work from home policy until summer 2021.According to the Wall Street Journal, the tech giant is extending the policy until at least Julyof next year. Work from home has become the new normal for many, as the ongoing coronavirus pandemic has forced people to stay at home.

On July 15, tech giant Amazon (AMZN) - Get Report extended its corporate work-from-home until January 8.

We continue to prioritize the health of our employees and follow local government guidance, an Amazon spokesperson said.

Similarly, Microsoft (MSFT) - Get Report said its employees could continue working from home through October 2020. Apple (APPL) also told its staff that a full return to U.S. offices won't happen this year.

If your store is closed, please sign up for Retail at Home, please talk to your manager, because we really need to make sure that we shift our teams to greet our customers remotely in this time,Apple executive Deirdre OBrien told its staff. We may need to be working remotely for some period of time.

In May, Facebook (FB) - Get ReportCEO Mark Zuckerberg said thatas much as 50% of its employees could be working remotely within next 5 to 10 years. Another social media giant Twitter (TWTR) - Get Reporttold its staff in the same month that they could permanently work remotely.

There has been an increase in the number of coronavirus infections in many states including California, Florida, South Carolina, North Dakota, Kentucky, and Hawaii.

See more here:

Google, Other Tech Giants Extend Work From Home - TheStreet

Forcing tech giants to the table – Otago Daily Times

Australia plans to make Facebook and Google pay for news. Rob Nicholls explains how it will work.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has released its draft news media bargaining code, announced last week by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.

The draft code allows commercial news businesses to bargain individually or collectively with Google and Facebook, in order to be paid for news the tech giants publish on their services.

According to ACCC chairman Rod Sims, the code aims to address the bargaining power imbalance between news publishers and major digital platforms, to bring about fair payment for news.

As Frydenberg said: "We want Google and Facebook to continue to provide these services to the Australian community, which are so much loved and used by Australians. But we want it to be on our terms."

The ACCC has previously found Google and Facebooks failure to pay for news content is eating into the advertising revenues which fund journalism.

The code is set out as exposure draft legislation and an explanatory memorandum.

These set out the rules for who can bargain. To be eligible, a news business must have employed journalists, earn more than $A150,000 ($NZ162,000) per year in revenue and be registered with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

And they must provide "core news", defined as: "journalism on publicly significant issues, journalism that engages Australians in public debate and informs democratic decision-making, and journalism relating to community and local events."

The code does not specify how much news businesses should be paid.

Instead, it provides a negotiating process in which Google and Facebook must take part. The negotiating phase lasts three months and includes at least one day of mediation.

If there is no agreement at the end, the process moves to compulsory arbitration (by an ACMA-appointed panel) for which both parties pay.

The arbitration panel will then select one of the final offers in a process sometimes called "baseball determination". Their decision will be binding.

The range of Facebook services subject to arbitration includes Facebook News Feed, Instagram and the Facebook News Tab. The Google services are Google Search, Google News and Google Discover.

The ACCC will also be able to make submissions in the arbitration process (which the arbitrator can decide to consider or not). Under limited and unlikely circumstances, the arbitrator may adjust the more reasonable of the final two offers.

The draft code introduces a series of "minimum standards" for digital platforms to meet in their dealings with news businesses.

These include a requirement for Google and Facebook to give 28 days notice of any algorithmic change that will affect either referral traffic to news or the ranking of news behind paywalls.

This gives news businesses the opportunity to adapt their business models to ensure their content retains its prominence. More importantly, it means their negotiated revenue will not drop. It may also help in decisions about what content stays behind paywalls.

There will be an obligation on Google and Facebook to give businesses clear information about the nature and availability of user data collected through users interactions with the news.

This does not mean Google or Facebook must share the data itself only that news businesses will be informed of what kind of data is being collected.

There are also obligations on the tech giants to publish proposals which appropriately recognise the media business original news on their platforms and to provide those businesses with flexible tools for user comment moderation.

In addition, Google and Facebook must allow news businesses to prevent their news from being included on any individual platform service. For instance, they may choose for an article to appear on Google Search but not Google News.

News businesses will be able to moderate comments more easily. This is important considering they can be sued for comments published on their posts via platforms such as Facebook.

The draft code will not result in a $A600million payday for news businesses, as Nines chairman proposed in May. However, the negotiation and arbitration process does provide certainty of a positive commercial outcome for news providers relying on advertising.

There will also be more work required for Google and Facebook to give notice of algorithmic changes, which are managed in the United States. This obligation will mean adjustments to both the tech giants business models.

Google has already taken steps down this path by successfully negotiating revenue sharing with some Australian news businesses. In effect, it has created a benchmark for its position in the new negotiation framework.

Meanwhile, Facebook has argued "news does not drive significant long-term commercial value" for it. However, it said it was committed to following "sensible regulatory frameworks for digital news".

A breach of the code by Facebook or Google could have a few potential outcomes. The first is an infringement notice which has a penalty of $A133,200 for each breach.

If the ACCC takes one of the tech giants to court, the maximum penalty is the higher of $A10million, 10% of the digital platforms turnover in Australia in the past 12 months, or three times the benefit obtained by the tech giant as a result of the breach (if this can be calculated).

The ACCC has previously had success against franchisers for breaches of the mandatory Franchising Code. It is likely to be just as vigilant in policing the news media bargaining code. theconversation.com

- Rob Nicholls is an associate professor of business law and director of the UNSW Business School Cybersecurity and Data Governance Research Network in Sydney.

Read more:

Forcing tech giants to the table - Otago Daily Times

The Economy Is in Record Decline, but Not for the Tech Giants – The New York Times

A day after lawmakers grilled the chief executives of the biggest tech companies about their size and power, Amazon, Apple, Alphabet and Facebook reported surprisingly healthy quarterly financial results, defying one of the worst economic downturns on record.

Even though the companies felt some sting from the spending slowdown, they demonstrated, as critics have argued, that they are operating on a different playing field from the rest of the economy.

Amazons sales were up 40 percent from a year ago and its profit doubled. Facebooks profit jumped 98 percent. Even though the pandemic shuttered many of its stores, Apple increased sales of all its products in every part of the world and posted $11.25 billion in profit. Advertising revenue dropped for Alphabet, the laggard of the bunch, but it still did better than Wall Street had expected.

The strong continue to get stronger, said Dan Ives, managing director of equity research at Wedbush Securities. As many companies are falling by the wayside, the tech stalwarts continue to gain muscle and power in this environment.

The tech companies financial performance was a remarkable contrast to the overall health of the U.S. economy. The Commerce Department said on Thursday that the countrys gross domestic product fell 9.5 percent in the second quarter of the year as consumers cut back spending. It was the steepest drop on record.

Combined, the companies reported $28.6 billion in quarterly net profit, underscoring how regulatory scrutiny remains more background noise and a distraction for them rather than an imminent threat to their businesses.

On Wednesday, a congressional antitrust panel questioned the companies leaders Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Alphabet about their market power and business practices.

It was part of a broader inquiry by regulators and lawmakers into the dominance of the tech giants, with open investigations from the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general.

The spectacle of the chief executives of the four companies, worth nearly $5 trillion by market capitalization combined, appearing before a House subcommittee was historic. But antitrust investigations often take years, especially if regulators seek more drastic measures like breaking up companies.

The pandemic has reinforced the advantages held by the big tech companies. As consumers stay home, demand for Amazons shopping site surged, while companies are turning to its cloud computing products to keep their services up and running. Apple said the shift to working and learning from home had led more people to splurge on Apples devices and use its services.

Our products and services are very relevant to our customers lives, and in some cases, even more during the pandemic than ever before, Luca Maestri, Apples finance chief, said in an interview. He noted, however, that Apple could have made several billion dollars more if not for the pandemic.

Facebook and Google continue to be important to marketers and they are weathering the downturn in advertising better than rivals. Facebook shrugged off a spending slowdown, hailing record levels of engagement with its products.

Alphabet said revenue from Google search ads fell 10 percent pushing the companys overall revenue lower for the first time in the companys history but that still was better than rivals. Last week, Microsoft reported an 18 percent slide in search advertising revenue.

Since the beginning of March, the companies stock prices have risen by an average of 35 percent, compared with a 10 percent rise in the S.&P. 500.

Buoyed by a pandemic-induced surge in online shopping, Amazon had $88.9 billion in quarterly sales, up 40 percent from a year earlier. Profit doubled, to $5.2 billion, even though the company invested in expanding warehouses and other ways to increase capacity.

Simply put, Covid-19, in our view, has injected Amazon with a growth hormone, Tom Forte, an analyst at the investment bank D.A. Davidson & Company, wrote in a recent note to investors.

In April, Mr. Bezos told investors to expect no operating profit, and maybe even a loss, as the company planned to spend about $4 billion on coronavirus-related expenses like temporary pay increases, declines in warehouse efficiency because of social distancing, and $300 million for testing its work force for the virus.

But even those costs did not compare to the immense surge in demand, with online retail sales up 48 percent.

On a call with reporters, Amazon declined to say if it would give its warehouse workers virus-related bonuses or raises in the current quarter, but added that pandemic-related expenses would fall to $2 billion in the quarter.

Sales at Amazons lucrative cloud computing business, whose customers include major corporations and small start-ups, grew 29 percent, to $10.8 billion, falling short of analyst expectations, though it was more profitable than they had expected.

Facebooks revenue for the second quarter rose 11 percent from a year earlier to $18.7 billion, while profits jumped 98 percent to $5.2 billion. The results were well above analysts estimates of $17.3 billion in revenue with a profit of $3.9 billion, according to data provided by FactSet.

Despite increasing scrutiny from regulators, questions about its role in subverting elections and how people use the platform to spread misinformation, neither users nor advertisers have shown an inclination to stop using Facebook.

More than three billion people now regularly come to Facebook or one of its family of apps, as the services have overtaken much of the developed world. And some 2.47 billion people use one or more of Facebooks apps every day.

The company said its number of monthly active users rose 12 percent from a year ago and added that it was seeing record levels of engagement and usage this year because of shelter-in-place orders around the world.

In late June, a grass-roots campaign, Stop Hate for Profit, rallied many of the top advertisers on Facebook to reduce their spending because of issues with hate speech on the site.

Facebook cautioned investors on Thursday that fallout from the ad boycott was noticeable in July and warned that greater economic turmoil from the pandemic could eventually hurt Facebooks bottom line.

Despite the global economic slowdown, people kept buying Apple devices en masse and paid the tech giant billions of dollars more for apps and services on those gadgets.

Apple said its sales rose 11 percent to $59.7 billion and its profits increased 12 percent to $11.25 billion. Both figures handily beat analysts expectations, with Wall Street having forecast declines in both areas.

Sales were particularly strong for iPads and Mac computers, as the public was increasingly forced to work and socialize virtually. Revenue also surged in its internet-services business, which include Apples cut of sales from the App Store, the subject of antitrust investigations in the United States and Europe.

Even the iPhone, which remains the companys biggest seller, had a slight increase in sales for only the second time in the past seven quarters.

Apple also announced a stock split on Thursday that would quadruple its number of shares, allowing people to buy a share in the company for a quarter of the current stock price, which closed at $384.76 on Thursday.

Googles parent company, Alphabet, reported its first-ever decline in quarterly revenue, hurt by a slowdown in spending by advertisers. The company posted revenue of $38.3 billion and a profit of $6.96 billion significantly higher than what Wall Street analysts had predicted.

Ruth Porat, Alphabets chief financial officer, said advertising revenue gradually improved as the quarter went on. The decline came largely from lower sales of advertisements that run alongside Googles search results, but the companys efforts to diversify its business paid off as revenue from YouTube ads and its cloud computing business grew.

When asked in a call with financial analysts about the congressional hearing, Mr. Pichai said the company would have to learn to live with the investigations.

The scrutiny is going to be here for a while and were committed to working through it, he said.

Read more:

The Economy Is in Record Decline, but Not for the Tech Giants - The New York Times

The Atlantic Daily: Congress Wakes Up to the Danger of Tech Giants – The Atlantic

Forty years ago, the government essentially stopped policing industry concentration, David Dayen, the executive editor of The American Prospect, argues. All Americans suffer from the wave of corporate consolidation that followed.

One question, answered: A reader refused to take their grandmother to the salon, citing health concerns. Now that grandmother is angry, the reader tells us:

Yesterday, she called me mean for refusing to take her. As a first-time caretaker, Im really struggling with this. How should I strike a balance between her quality of life and her safety?

James Hamblin offers some advice in his latest Paging Dr. Hamblin column:

A common tendency in these situations is wanting to swoop in and do everything in our power to keep a person physically healthy and, well, alive for as long as possible. But in the process we run the risk of denying agency to elders. Just because people arent able to drive, cook, or care for themselves in certain ways doesnt mean they should lose autonomy in other ways, such as making decisions for themselves.

Read the rest here. Every Wednesday, Jim takes questions from readers about health-related curiosities, concerns, and obsessions. Hes also answered:

Have one? Email Jim at paging.dr.hamblin@theatlantic.com.

What to read if youre secretly missing crowds:

Walt Disney World reopened in Florida, despite the states surge in coronavirus cases. Our staff writer Graeme Wood spent a weekend riding rides, waving at princesses, and contemplating his mortality.

What to read if you want practical tips:

Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Read more from the original source:

The Atlantic Daily: Congress Wakes Up to the Danger of Tech Giants - The Atlantic

Americas Monopoly Problem Goes Way Beyond the Tech Giants – The Atlantic

Lawmakers and the public should be concerned about the surveillance networks by which Facebook and Googlewhich dominate the digital-advertising markettrack users, build data profiles on them, and serve them customized ads. But millions of rural Americans cannot access the internet to begin with, in part because telecom companies harass, fight, and induce state legislatures to pass laws restricting municipal broadband. Across America, people send their kids to Starbucks parking lots to piggyback on the wifi and complete their homework.

Amazons rapidly expanding e-commerce empireand the potential consequences for Main Streets and municipal tax bases across the countryis definitely worth worrying about. But among the other forces squeezing out small retailers are dollar stores, a market segment dominated by two firms that together have about six times more outlets in America than Walmart. Last summer in Marlinton, West Virginia, I saw a Dollar General right next door to a Family Dollar. Despite the pandemic, Dollar General still plans to open 1,000 new stores in 2020.

Read: Family Dollar is actually worth 8.5 billion dollars

Software developers who want to sell apps to iPhone users must do so through Apples App Store, which spells out rules that they must follow and collects up to 30 percent of sales. This is little different from the situation of small farmers, who must raise livestock to the exacting specifications of the meatpacking giants and can lose their livelihoods on those companies whims. And just as Amazon sometimes undercuts the smaller third-party sellers that use its platform, Big Agriculture competes directly with smaller suppliers; the top four hog firms, which control around two-thirds of the market, typically own farms, slaughterhouses, warehouses, and distribution trucks, every step from the pig trough to the dinner table.

Whether you are shopping for pacemakers, sanitary napkins, or wholesale office supplies, you will find very few sellers. You think you have choices in grocery aisles or at car-rental counters, but the majority of consumer products come from a handful of companies. Competition is hardly stiff when even many store brands are just renamed versions of market-leading products; at Costco, the batteries come from Duracell and the coffee from Starbucks.

To focus the discussion of monopoly on the tech sector is to minimize the scope of a problem long in the making. Forty years ago, the government essentially stopped policing industry concentration. The conservative legal theorist Robert Borklater a failed Supreme Court nomineeand his allies in the law-and-economics movement argued that any merger making businesses more efficient must be approved, and that a larger scale generally increases efficiency. Borks analysis gained enormous power in the courts and the Reagan administration. The lawyers and the bankers who handled mergers and acquisitions loved it.

Read the original here:

Americas Monopoly Problem Goes Way Beyond the Tech Giants - The Atlantic