Theft, censorship and the emperors of the online economy: Tech CEOs go on defense – POLITICO

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos the world's richest man, making his long-awaited first-ever appearance before a congressional hearing faced no questions at all for nearly two hours, before offering an inconclusive answer on whether the company uses data to undermine its third-party merchants. Amazon is still facing allegations that one of its executives misled Congress about that same issue last year.

The virtual testimony comes at a time of rising legal jeopardy for the major tech companies, who are the subject of antitrust and consumer-protection probes in Washington, multiple U.S. states and Europe.

Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) set the tone early, with an opening statement vowing to check the power of the "emperors of the online economy." But so did Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the full Judiciary panel, who laid out a long series of alleged slights against conservatives by top social media companies and later got into a shouting match after a Democrat accused him of promoting fringe conspiracy theories.

See live highlights from the hearing below.

Amazon is making more money from sellers fees because more third-party sellers are using its services, CEO Jeff Bezos told lawmakers, countering the idea that his company is unfairly profiting from the merchants.

But the Amazon CEO acknowledged that the marketplace algorithm may indirectly favor those who pay the company to fulfill orders.

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) cited a new report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance that found Amazon brought in nearly $60 billion from seller fees last year 21 percent of Amazons total revenue and that the e-commerce giant keeps about 30 percent of each sale. That amount is up from 19 percent of each sale five years ago.

Bezos said the increased amount is because sellers are spending more money with Amazon by using additional services such as Fulfillment by Amazon, where the company stores and ships products on behalf of third-party sellers.

When you see these fees going up, sellers are choosing to use more of our services we make available, he said. Previously they were shipping their own products from their own fulfillment centers so they would have had costs doing that. Now they are doing that through Fulfilment by Amazon.

Bezos also acknowledged that the Buy Box which preselects the seller for when a user clicks on a product indirectly favors sellers who use the Fulfilled by Amazon services.

Indirectly, I think the Buy Box does favor products that can be shipped with Prime, he said. The Buy Box is trying to pick the offer that we predict the customer would most like. That includes price, that includes delivery speed, and if youre a Prime member, it includes whether the item is eligible for Prime."

In response to questions from Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ill.) about stolen and counterfeit goods, Bezos said he believes that Amazon requires sellers to provide a real name and address, but wasnt sure whether a phone number is required. He also said he didnt know how many resources Amazon devotes to seller verification.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos took a rare swipe against a core feature of his Silicon Valley competitors late in todays hearing, singling out social media as destructive for free expression.

What I find a little discouraging is that it appears to me that social media is a nuance destruction machine, Bezos said. And I dont think thats helpful for a democracy.

Bezos offered his critique while testifying by videoconference, alongside the head of social media giant Facebook.

He was responding to House Judiciary ranking member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who was invoking the idea of cancel culture and the notion of online mobs that shout down unfashionable opinions. The lawmaker was assessing whether lawmakers were concerned about the polarizing idea, which some question as overblown.

I am concerned in general about that, Bezos told Jordan.

Other tech CEOs also appeared sympathetic to Jordans cancel culture worries.

Apple CEO Tim Cook noted he wasnt all the way up to speed on the idea but expressed concern: If youre about where somebody with a different point of view talks, and theyre canceled, I dont think thats good. I think its good for people to hear from different points of view and decide for themselves.

Im very worried about some of the forces of illiberalism that I see in this country that are pushing against free expression, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Jordan, without identifying specifics.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai simply noted the interest in building platforms to allow freedom of expression. John Hendel

The Chinese government steals U.S. technologies, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said making him the only one of the four tech CEOs willing to say that plainly in response to a question from Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.).

I think its well-documented that the Chinese government steals technology from American companies, Zuckerberg said.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said he had no personal knowledge about Chinese technology theft.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai initially followed Cooks line, but later corrected the record to confirm that in 2009 China stole Google information in a well-publicized cyberattack.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who answered last, acknowledged that he had read many reports about technology theft by Beijing, but had no first-hand experience beyond knock-off products sold on Amazon.

All four CEOs passed on the opportunity to suggest how Congress could better help defend U.S. companies abroad, against either technology theft or excessive regulation. Leah Nylen and Ryan Heath

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who heads the Houses probe into tech giants, accused Facebook of tolerating a fountain of misinformation that benefits the companys engagement-driven business model even on topics as deadly as the coronavirus.

Theres no competition forcing you to police your own platform, the House antitrust subcommittee chairman told CEO Mark Zuckerberg. During the greatest public health crisis of our lifetime, dont you agree that these articles viewed by millions on your platform will cost lives?

The lawmaker cited articles that drew millions of views on sites like Facebook while making claims about Covid-19, including those describing President Donald Trumps musings about placing disinfectants inside the body or allegations that coronavirus hype is a political hoax.

Cicilline said Facebook allows such content to reap advertising dollars. But Zuckerberg countered that this kind of noxious material is not helpful for our business.

It is not what people want to see, and we rank what we show in Feed based on what is going to be most meaningful to people and what is going to create long-term satisfaction, Zuckerberg said.

Zuckerberg defended Facebooks policy of taking down bogus information that could cause imminent harm and its attempt to highlight authoritative guidance. But Cicilline brought up a Monday video from the conservative website Breitbart, which dismissed the necessity of masks and called hydroxychloroquine a Covid-19 cure and which experienced soaring Facebook traffic over several hours before Facebook removed it.

A lot of people shared that, Zuckerberg said. And we did take it down because it violates our policies.

After 20 million people saw it after a period of five hours? Cicilline countered. Doesnt that suggest, Mr. Zuckerberg, that your platform is so big that even with the right policies in place, you cant contain deadly content? John Hendel

Apple CEO Tim Cook speaks via video conference during the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law hearing. | Graeme Jennings/Getty Images

Apple didnt consider the impact on its own parental control app when it removed some of the most popular apps that limit screentime from its App Store, CEO Tim Cook told lawmakers.

Apple introduced its own Screen Time app, which allows parents to limit how much time kids spend on their phones, in September 2018. After that, the company removed a number of competing apps. Qustodio and Kidslox, two of the leading parental control apps, have filed a complaint with the European Commission about their removal.

Cook said Apple removed the apps because of privacy concerns.

We were worried about the safety of kids, Cook said in response to questions by Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.).

Demings asked Cook why the company removed many of the most popular screentime apps but not Absher, an app created by the Saudi Arabian government that uses the same technology.

It sounds like you applied different rules to the same apps, Demings said.

Cook said he wasnt familiar with Absher, but said the App Store has about 30 parental control apps after it changed its policy last year. Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), who returned to the issue later in the hearing, noted that Apple eventually allowed the apps back into the App Store after six months without requiring major changes.

We apply the rules to all developers equally, Cook said. I see Screen Time as just an alternative. Theres vibrant competition for parental controls out there. Leah Nylen

Facebook has certainly adapted features from competing services, CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged Wednesday, but he denied it has threatened to copy start-ups if they wouldnt sell to his company.

But Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) expressed skepticism about his answer, reading from text messages between Zuckerberg and Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom and messages between Systrom and a venture capitalist. She asked Zuckerberg whether he threatened Systrom and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel by saying he would clone their products if they didnt sell to Facebook. The company bought Instagram in 2012, but Snap rebuffed offers to sell to the social network.

The House subcommittee also posted those documents to its website Wednesday.

Im not sure what you would mean by threaten, Zuckerberg said, referring to the companys effort to build an app called Facebook Camera. It was public we were building a camera app at the time. That was a well-documented thing.

It was clear this was a space we were going to compete in one way or another, he said. I dont think those are a threat in any way.

Jayapal reminded Zuckerberg he was under oath while testifying.

In closing her questioning, Jayapal said she didnt believe threats should be a normal business practice.

Facebook is a case study in monopoly power, in my opinion, because your company harvests and monetizes our data and then your company uses that data to spy on your competitors and copy, acquire and kill rivals, she said. Youve used Facebooks power to threaten smaller competitors and ensure you always get your way. These tactics reinforce Facebooks dominance. Leah Nylen

House Judiciary Democrats lost a big potential GOP ally if they had any hopes of bipartisan recommendations to update antitrust law as part of their probe into tech giants.

I have reached the conclusion that we do not need to change our antitrust laws, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the top Republican on the antitrust subcommittee, said hours into the hearing on alleged bad behavior by Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook. Theyve been working just fine. The question here is the question of enforcement of those antitrust laws.

The subcommittees probe has been led by Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who has been preparing a report to conclude the long investigation. GOP buy-in would strongly bolster its conclusions, including potential recommendations for updates to antitrust law.

Notably, Sensenbrenner seemed to support the probe itself and said hes been working with the chairman for over a year on this bipartisan investigation. His support runs counter to some Republicans who have disparaged Democratic handling of the probe.

But Congress shouldnt toss out a century of precedent, added the retiring House Republican. He said lawmakers should instead pressure antitrust regulators like the Federal Trade Commission, an agency that has faced accusations of going lightly on companies like Facebook and Google. John Hendel

Tempers flared more than two hours into the hearing after Rep. Mary Scanlon (D-Pa.) began her questioning with a dismissal of what she called fringe conspiracy theories of House Judiciary ranking member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

That prompted an outburst from Jordan, who had just pressed Google on whether its biased toward Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and said he had internal evidence of the search giants interest in encouraging Latino voters in 2016.

The only problem: It was no longer Jordans time to speak, as Democrats immediately reminded him as they shouted him down.

Mr. Jordan, you do not have the time! antitrust subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) declared amid gavel slamming.

When someone told him to wear a mask, Jordan sought to bring up the unmasking in the surveillance sense of former Trump White House national security adviser Michael Flynn.

When someone comes after my motives for asking questions, I get a chance to respond, Jordan said before letting the hearing proceed.

For the record, Google CEO Sundar Pichai maintained that his company is apolitical. John Hendel

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said the company is still investigating whether employees may have used data it acquires from its third-party sellers to launch competing products an issue that has prompted allegations that the company misled House lawmakers a year ago.

We have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private label business. I cant guarantee you that that policy has never been violated, Bezos said in response to questions from Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), whose district includes Amazon headquarters. If we found someone violated the policy, we would take action against them.

The Wall Street Journal reported this year that Amazon employees frequently looked at seller data to help determine what products the company should offer, contrary to what an Amazon executive told the House a year ago. Jayapal also quoted a former Amazon employee as telling the panel that seller data is a candy shop. Everyone can have access to anything they want.

Bezos also acknowledged that while company policy might prevent employees from looking at a specific sellers information, they could look at aggregate data. Jayapal and The Wall Street Journal story noted that Amazon workers took advantage of that by pairing a successful seller with one who had little business to gain insights into particular products.

You have access to data that other sellers do not have, Jayapal said. The whole goal of this committees work is to make sure that there are more Amazons, that there are more Apples, that there are more companies that get to innovate and small businesses get to thrive. ...That is why we need to regulate these marketplaces so that no company has a platform so dominant that it is essentially a monopoly. Leah Nylen

The first batch of questions saw the CEOs collectively struggle to directly answer lawmakers, who came armed with well-researched questions and strong opinions a shift in gear from previous congressional tech hearings.

The one exception was Jeff Bezos, who escaped all questions for the first hour.

As Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended his companys management of Instagram, citing the Federal Trade Commissions original decision not to challenge the companys 2012 merger with Instagram, hearing chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) dismissed Zuckerberg, saying the failures of the FTC in 2012 do not alleviate Facebooks current antitrust challenges.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai tried to fend off questions by citing examples of individual vendors using Google to grow their business, before Cicilline cut him off for not answering the question.

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) reeled off a list of possible links and alignment between Google and the Chinese Communist Party, leaving Pichai to say only that Google had only a very limited presence in China. He repeated that answer to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who repeated charges by tech investor Peter Thiel that Googles China links are treason, and concerns from Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said in 2018 that Googles artificial intelligence work in China puts the U.S. military at a competitive disadvantage. Ryan Heath

Apple CEO Tim Cook rejected allegations that the companys App Store rules for developers are enforced arbitrarily and argued that the company must compete with rivals to interest developers in building apps for its iPhone and iPad.

We treat every developer the same. We have open and transparent rules, Cook said under questioning from Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). Those rules apply evenly to everyone.

Cook said the majority of apps sold through the App Store, 84 percent, pay no fees. The remainder pay either a 30 percent or 15 percent commission, he said.

Johnson noted that Amazon has an agreement with Apple to allow users to bypass the iPhones in-app payment service, and its 30 percent fee, and instead use the credit card on file in their Amazon account for the Amazon Prime Video app. Cook said that would be available to anyone meeting the conditions, though he didnt outline what those conditions are.

The Apple CEO also argued that the company must compete to attract developers, who could offer apps for Googles Android, Microsofts Windows or XBox or Nintendos Playstation.

Theres a competition for developers just like theres a competition for customers, Cook said. Its so competitive I would describe it as a street fight for market share in the smartphone business. Leah Nylen

Were starting to see some fruits of the subcommittees year-plus investigation, and its got Zuckerberg on the defensive.

The Facebook CEO and New York Democrat Jerry Nadler went back and forth over internal company emails in which, Nadler said, Zuckerberg told a colleague back in 2012 that it was buying the photo-sharing Instagram because it could meaningfully hurt us without becoming a huge business.

Zuckerbergs thinking at the time could become a critical piece of evidence if it bolsters the idea that Facebook was abusing its dominance and deep coffers to eliminate budding rivals. Facebooks buying up of Instagram has become a key focus for critics of the company, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others saying the deal should be unwound. Thats a threat for Facebook: Instagram has become wildly popular in its own right, and is central to Zuckerbergs plan to keep a toe hold with younger generations who are otherwise flocking to sites like TikTok.

Did you mean that consumers might switch from Facebook to Instagram? Nadler asked.

Congressman, started Zuckerberg, attempting to make the case that no one at the time saw Instagram has a general social network app, rather than a really good photo-sharing app. Nadler pressed on: Yes or no: Did you mean that?

Then Nadler went for the kill, asking what Zuckerberg meant when he wrote that what were really buying is time, adding, Mr. Zuckerberg: Mergers and acquisitions that buy off potential competitive threats violate the antitrust laws.

Zuckerberg tried again, insisting that the Federal Trade Commission knew how Facebook was thinking about Instagram back when it signed off on the merger almost a decade ago. Thats when antitrust subcommittee David Cicilline (D-R.I.) jumped in: I would remind the witness that the failures of the FTC in 2012 of course do not alleviate the antitrust challenges that the chairman described.

Translation: Dont think this is over just because that agency down the road said it was.Nancy Scola

A top House Republican used his questioning to press Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over a recent content moderation squabble involving Donald Trump Jr., the presidents son, with Twitter.

It was reported that Donald Trump Jr. got taken down for a period of time because he put something up on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the top Republican on the Judiciary antitrust subcommittee. Although Sensenbrenner said he wouldnt take the medication, the lawmaker said, I think this is a legitimate matter of discussion.

Why has that happened? Sensenbrenner asked Zuckerberg.

Congressman, first, to be clear, I think what you might be referring to happened on Twitter, so its hard for me to speak to that, the Facebook CEO said. But I can talk to our policies about this.

Zuckerberg said Facebook would take down any claim a proven cure for Covid-19 exists when there is none, given the potential imminent risk for harm, although he said the social platform would allow free discussion about drug trials and what people may think more generally about a treatments prospects.

Our goal is to offer a platform for all ideas, Zuckerberg told Sensebrenner. Frankly I think weve distinguished ourselves as one of the companies that defends free expression the most. John Hendel

Google CEO Sundar Pichai denied that the search giant steals content from other websites and rejected reports alleging that the company steers users to its own products and sites rather than sources elsewhere on the web.

We have always focused on providing users the most relevant information, Pichai said in response to pointed questions from House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee chair David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who said the panel had seen evidence about Google taking content from other websites and placing more ads on its search results. The vast majority of queries on Google, we dont show ads at all.

Cicilline cited an investigation by The Markup that showed Google has devoted more space on the first page of search results to its own products -- which earn the company more revenue that if users go to other webpages. Pichai said that Google only shows ads when consumers are seeking to buy products and argued that they compete with other e-commerce platforms, like Amazon, where consumers often go directly to try to find products.

When I run the company Im really focused on giving users what they want, Pichai said. We see vigorous competition, whether it be travel or real estate, and we are working hard to innovate.

The Federal Trade Commissions investigation into Google in the early 2010s found Google scraped content from other websites, including Yelp and TripAdvisor. The company agreed to allow other companies to opt out of having their content scraped through 2017. Leah Nylen

One surprise so far in the hearing: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who generally likes to stick fairly religiously to a script in his public appearances, went far afield from his written testimony including strongly arguing that his 2-billion-member social network is an underdog when you look at the behemoths hes testifying alongside.

Continued here:

Theft, censorship and the emperors of the online economy: Tech CEOs go on defense - POLITICO

The daily gossip: Instagram censors Madonna but not for the reason you’d expect, Kate Beckinsale receives an unwanted rabbit, and more – Yahoo News

1.

It's been awhile since Madonna was involved in a coronavirus scandal, but the drought came to an end on Monday, when the singer was censored by Instagram for posting a COVID-19 conspiracy theory. Madonna had shared a viral video (the same one President Trump also promoted, before it was likewise censored by Twitter), writing: "The truth will set us all Free!" The video, however, falsely claims that authorities are hiding a coronavirus cure and features Dr. Stella Immanuel, who's famously alleged that many medical problems are caused by "demon sperm." Earlier in the pandemic, Madonna was criticized for gushing about breathing in "the COVID-19 air," and controversially calling the disease "the great equalizer" while sitting in a tub in her multi-million-dollar mansion. [Vulture]

Please do not send Kate Beckinsale an unsolicited rabbit! The actress revealed on Instagram that someone had anonymously left a rabbit in a cage at her front door on Tuesday, alongside a basket of rose petals. "What the f--k is going on?" Beckinsale exclaims in a video presumably shot by her boyfriend, Goody Grace. "I mean, who just drops off an animal?" the man behind the camera agrees. In a caption, Beckinsale scolded whoever had given her the rabbit, named Marvel, noting that it was a "boiling hot day" and the rabbit could have "roast to death" outside. "We have found a loving home for Marvel without cats," she said, "but it was quite a shock, and I think pretty upsetting for Marvel too." [The Daily Mail, People]

A second Riverdale actress is speaking out about the way Black actors are used on the show. Bernadette Beck, who plays Peaches 'N Cream, described being "completely forgotten" on set, while her character was not treated much better in the script. "I get it, there's always a protagonist and antagonist, but I never had much of a story plot or enough character development to even be considered an antagonist," she told Elle, adding: "I'm not the first Black actress to show up on set, stand there, chew gum, and look sassy and mean. I feel like I was just there to fulfill a diversity quota." Previously, actress Vanessa Morgan criticized the show, saying she's "tired of us being used as sidekick non-dimensional characters to our white leads." [Elle]

Story continues

Apologies to all the other musicians attempting to write quarantine songs: Cousin Greg just dropped the mic. Succession actor Nicholas Braun joked back in May about writing a song called "Antibodies (Do You Have The)," and his fans took the idea and ran with it, producing hundreds of covers. "Then this A&R from Atlantic Records reached out to me and said, 'Hey, I know this song is kind of a joke, but I also kind of think that bridge and your second verse are really catchy,'" recalled Braun, whose 81-year-old father actually survived coronavirus earlier this year. Braun's resulting hilarious music video "I really wanted him to get emo and kind of grunge with it" can be watched here, with proceeds going to charity. [Rolling Stone]

Hey 90s kids, want to feel old? Sharkboy and Lavagirl are returning in director Robert Rodriguez's new Netflix movie, We Can Be Heroes but they'll be parents. The iconic characters first appeared in the 2005 movie The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl, played by Taylor Lautner (a.k.a Jacob in Twilight) and Taylor Dooley respectively; it's unclear if Lautner will be returning, but Dooley will reprise her part, and Priyanka Chopra Jonas and Pedro Pascal are also signed on. "Sharkboy and Lavagirl show up as superhero parents who now have a daughter who has shark and lava powers," Rodriguez said of the plot. Shark and lava powers? In this economy? Can't wait. [People, Collider]

More stories from theweek.comPelosi to implement new order requiring all lawmakers wear masks on House floorRepublicans' coronavirus aid bill is a joke. It might take a stock market crash to change their minds.The Pentagon wants a new nuke because it might fire off the old ones by mistake

Original post:

The daily gossip: Instagram censors Madonna but not for the reason you'd expect, Kate Beckinsale receives an unwanted rabbit, and more - Yahoo News

Researchers create AI bot to protect the identities of BLM protesters – AI News

Researchers from Stanford have created an AI-powered bot to automatically cover up the faces of Black Lives Matter protesters in photos.

Everyone should have the right to protest. And, if done legally, to do so without fear of having things like their future job prospects ruined because theyve been snapped at a demonstration from which a select few may have gone on to do criminal acts such as arson and looting.

With images from the protests being widely shared on social media to raise awareness, police have been using the opportunity to add the people featured within them to facial recognition databases.

Over the past weeks, we have seen an increasing number of arrests at BLM protests, with images circulating around the web enabling automatic identification of those individuals and subsequent arrests to hamper protest activity, the researchers explain.

Software has been available for some time to blur faces, but recent AI advancements have proved that its possible to deblur such images.

Researchers from Stanford Machine Learning set out to develop an automated tool which prevents the real identity of those in an image from being revealed.

The result of their work is BLMPrivacyBot:

Rather than blur the faces, the bot automatically covers them up with the black fist emoji which has become synonymous with the Black Lives Matter movement. The researchers hope such a solution will be built-in to social media platforms, but admit its unlikely.

The researchers trained the model for their AI bot on a dataset consisting of around 1.2 million people called QNRF. However, they warn its not foolproof as an individual could be identified through other means such as what clothing theyre wearing.

To use the BLMPrivacyBot, you can either send an image to its Twitter handle or upload a photo to the web interface here. The open source repo is available if you want to look at the inner workings.

Interested in hearing industry leaders discuss subjects like this? Attend the co-located 5G Expo, IoT Tech Expo, Blockchain Expo, AI & Big Data Expo, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo World Series with upcoming events in Silicon Valley, London, and Amsterdam.

Tags: ai, artificial intelligence, black lives matter, blm, bot, face recognition, facial recognition, privacy, protest, surveillance

See the rest here:
Researchers create AI bot to protect the identities of BLM protesters - AI News

Novogratz: Global ‘Liquidity Pump’ Will Keep Bitcoin Rising, Price to Hit $20K This Year | Markets and Prices – Bitcoin News

Billionaire investor Michael Novogratz said global liquidity pump from stimulus packages will keep driving bitcoins price higher. He expects the price of bitcoin to reach $20,000 this year, fueled by retail investors shifting to the cryptocurrency.

Galaxy Digital CEO Michael Novogratz said on Tuesday that bitcoin and gold have more room to grow and will continue to rise due to global liquidity pump, afforded by governments stimulus packages, coupled with an influx of retail investors.

The liquidity story isnt going to go away. Were going to get a big stimulus, the billionaire investor told CNBC, adding that it doesnt look like the Federal Reserve is going to raise rates. After the CARES Act, the $2.2 trillion coronavirus aid stimulus package which President Donald Trump signed into law in March, Republicans and Democrats have both proposed further stimulus packages. The Democrats proposed the $3 trillion HEROES Act while the Republicans introduced the $1 trillion HEALS Act on Monday.

Furthermore, Bitcoin still has a lot of retail interest in it, Novogratz described, adding that he sees stock investors shifting back to gold and bitcoin.

Novogratz expects bitcoins price to be at $14,000 in the next three months, emphasizing that it could easily reach $20,000 by the end of the year. His year-end price prediction agrees with several others, including a comprehensive analysis by Crypto Research Report.

Bitcoin is currently trading at about $11,258, up approximately 17% since last week and 54% since the beginning of the year. Meanwhile, the price of gold hit an all-time high on Monday, climbing more than 7% since the beginning of the month.

Novogratz said most of his investments have been in bitcoin, gold, and silver. Noting that an estimated 20% of his net worth is in bitcoin, he added: I want it to go a lot higher. As for gold, he said it is more of a 5% position for him.

The billionaire investor further emphasized that he is starting to see institutional investors move into bitcoin. However, unlike gold investing, they face a learning curve when trying to invest in cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is still hard to buy. If it was easier to buy, it would be a lot higher, he previously said. Gold has been around for 3,000 years, its pretty easy to buy, Novogratz opined. Theres an adoption game in bitcoin that you dont have in gold. But I like them both.

Others have also reported seeing increased institutional demand for cryptocurrency, particularly bitcoin. Grayscale Investments said that in the second quarter, 84% of its almost $1 billion inflow into crypto investment products were from institutional investors. Moreover, famed hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones recently confirmed that he has almost 2% of his assets in bitcoin.

What do you think about Novogratzs prediction? Let us know in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Link:
Novogratz: Global 'Liquidity Pump' Will Keep Bitcoin Rising, Price to Hit $20K This Year | Markets and Prices - Bitcoin News

STMicroelectronics Releases STM32 Condition-Monitoring Function Pack Leveraging Tools from Cartesiam for Simplified Machine Learning – EE Journal

Geneva, July 28, 2020STMicroelectronics has released a free STM32 software function pack that lets users quickly build, train, and deployintelligent edge devices for industrial condition monitoringusing a microcontroller Discovery kit.

Developed in conjunction with machine-learning expert and ST Authorized Partner Cartesiam, theFP-AI-NANOEDG1 software packcontains all the necessary drivers, middleware, documentation, and sample code to capture sensor data, integrate, and run Cartesiams NanoEdge libraries. Users without specialist AI skills can quickly create and export custom machine-learning libraries for their applications using Cartesiams NanoEdge AI Studio tool running on a Windows10 or Ubuntu PC. The function pack simplifies complete prototyping and validation free of charge on STM32 development boards, before deploying on customer hardware where standard Cartesiam fees apply.

The straightforward methodology established with Cartesiam uses industrial-grade sensors on-board a Discovery kit such as theSTM32L562E-DKto capture vibration data from the monitored equipment both in normal operating modes and under induced abnormal conditions. Software to configure and acquire sensor data is included in the function pack. NanoEdge AI Studio analyzes the benchmark data and selects pre-compiled algorithms from over 500 million possible combinations to create optimized libraries for training and inference. The function-pack software provides stubs for the libraries that can be easily replaced for simple embedding in the application. Once deployed, the device can learn the normal pattern of the operating mode locally during the initial installation phase as well as during the lifetime of the equipment, as the function pack permits switching between learning and monitoring modes.

Using the Discovery kit to acquire data, generate, train, and monitor the solution, leveraging free tools and software, and the support of theSTM32 ecosystem, developers can quickly create a proof-of-concept model at low cost and easily port the application to other STM32 microcontrollers. As an intelligent edge device, unlike alternatives that rely on AI in the cloud, the solution allows equipment owners greater control over potentially sensitive information by processing machine data on the local device.

The FP-AI-NANOEDG1 function pack is available now atwww.st.com, free of charge.

The STM32L562E-DK Discovery kit contains anSTM32L562QEI6QUultra-low-power microcontroller, an iNEMO 3D accelerometer and 3D gyroscope, as well as two MEMS microphones, a 240240 color TFT-LCD module, and on-board STLINK-V3E debugger/programmer. The budgetary price for the Discovery kit is $76.00, and it is available fromwww.st.comor distributors.

For further information please visithttps://www.st.com/en/embedded-software/fp-ai-nanoedg1.html.

Related

More here:
STMicroelectronics Releases STM32 Condition-Monitoring Function Pack Leveraging Tools from Cartesiam for Simplified Machine Learning - EE Journal

Global Machine Learning Market 2020 | Analyzing The COVID-19 Impact Followed By Restraints, Opportunities And Projected Developments – Owned

Trusted Business Insights answers what are the scenarios for growth and recovery and whether there will be any lasting structural impact from the unfolding crisis for the Machine Learning market.

Trusted Business Insights presents an updated and Latest Study on Machine Learning Market 2019-2029. The report contains market predictions related to market size, revenue, production, CAGR, Consumption, gross margin, price, and other substantial factors. While emphasizing the key driving and restraining forces for this market, the report also offers a complete study of the future trends and developments of the market.The report further elaborates on the micro and macroeconomic aspects including the socio-political landscape that is anticipated to shape the demand of the Machine Learning market during the forecast period (2019-2029).It also examines the role of the leading market players involved in the industry including their corporate overview, financial summary, and SWOT analysis.

Get Sample Copy of this Report @ Machine Learning Market by Service (Professional Services, and Managed Services), for BFSI, Healthcare and Life Science, Retail, Telecommunication, Government and Defense, Manufacturing, Energy and Utilities, Others-Global Industry Analytics, COVID-19 Business Impact, and Trends, 2017-2024

Abstract

The report covers forecast and analysis for the machine learning market on a global and regional level. The study provides historic data of 2015-2017 along with a forecast from 2018 to 2024 based on revenue (USD Billion). The study includes drivers and restraints for the machine learning market along with the impact they have on the demand over the forecast period. Additionally, the report includes the study of opportunities available in the machine learning market on a global level.

This report offers comprehensive coverage on global machine learning market along with, market trends, drivers, and restraints of the machine learning market. This report includes a detailed competitive scenario and the product portfolio of key vendors. To understand the competitive landscape in the market, an analysis of Porters five forces model for the machine learning market has also been included. The study encompasses a market attractiveness analysis, wherein all segments are benchmarked based on their market size, growth rate, and general attractiveness. This report is prepared using data sourced from in-house databases, secondary and primary research team of industry experts.

The study provides a decisive view on the machine learning market by segmenting the market based on service, verticals, and regions. All the segments have been analyzed based on present and future trends and the market is estimated from 2017 to 2024. By services, the market is divided into professional services and managed services. On basis of verticals, the market can be bifurcated into BFSI, healthcare, and life science, retail, telecommunication, government and defense, manufacturing, energy and utilities, others. The regional segmentation includes the current and forecast demand for North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East and Africa.

The report covers detailed competitive outlook including the market share and company profiles of some of the key participants operating in the global machine learning market include International Business Machines Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Amazon Web Services, Inc., Bigml, Inc., Google Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development Lp, Intel Corporation, and others.

The report segments the global machine learning market as follows:

Global Machine Learning Market: Services segment Analysis

Professional ServicesManaged Services

Global Machine Learning Market: Vertical Segment Analysis

BFSIHealthcare and Life ScienceRetailTelecommunicationGovernment and DefenseManufacturingEnergy and UtilitiesOthers

Global Machine Learning Market: Regional Segment Analysis

North America

The U.S.

Europe

UKFranceGermany

Asia Pacific

ChinaJapanIndia

Latin America

Brazil

Middle East and Africa

Quick Read Table of Contents of this Report @ Machine Learning Market by Service (Professional Services, and Managed Services), for BFSI, Healthcare and Life Science, Retail, Telecommunication, Government and Defense, Manufacturing, Energy and Utilities, Others-Global Industry Analytics, COVID-19 Business Impact, and Trends, 2017-2024

Trusted Business InsightsShelly ArnoldMedia & Marketing ExecutiveEmail Me For Any ClarificationsConnect on LinkedInClick to follow Trusted Business Insights LinkedIn for Market Data and Updates.US: +1 646 568 9797UK: +44 330 808 0580

Read more:
Global Machine Learning Market 2020 | Analyzing The COVID-19 Impact Followed By Restraints, Opportunities And Projected Developments - Owned

Massive Growth in Machine Learning in Communication Market Breaking new grounds and touch new level in Upcoming Year by Amazon, IBM, Microsoft,…

Machine Learning in Communication Market report focused on the comprehensive analysis of current and future prospects of the Machine Learning in Communication industry. This report is a consolidation of primary and secondary research, which provides market size, share, dynamics, and forecast for various segments and sub-segments considering the macro and micro environmental factors. An in-depth analysis of past trends, future trends, demographics, technological advancements, and regulatory requirements for the Machine Learning in Communication market has been done in order to calculate the growth rates for each segment and sub-segments.

Machine Learning in Communication Market is growing at a High CAGR during the forecast period 2020-2026. The increasing interest of the individuals in this industry is that the major reason for the expansion of this market.

Get Sample Copy (Including FULL TOC, Graphs and Tables) of this report:

https://www.a2zmarketresearch.com/sample?reportId=257354

Note In order to provide more accurate market forecast, all our reports will be updated before delivery by considering the impact of COVID-19.

Top Key Players Profiled in this Report are:

Amazon, IBM, Microsoft, Google, Nextiva, Nexmo, Twilio, Dialpad, Cisco, RingCentral

Various factors are responsible for the markets growth trajectory, which are studied at length in the report. In addition, the report lists down the restraints that are posing threat to the global Machine Learning in Communication market. It also gauges the bargaining power of suppliers and buyers, threat from new entrants and product substitute, and the degree of competition prevailing in the market. The influence of the latest government guidelines is also analyzed in detail in the report. It studies the Machine Learning in Communication markets trajectory between forecast periods.

Key Questions Answered in this Report:

Hurry Up! Get 20% Discount on this Report @:

https://www.a2zmarketresearch.com/discount?reportId=257354

The report summarized the high revenue that has been generated across locations like, North America, Japan, Europe, Asia, and India along with the facts and figures of Machine Learning in Communication market. It focuses on the major points, which are necessary to make positive impacts on the market policies, international transactions, speculation, and supply demand in the global market.

Reasons for buying this report:

Table of Contents

Global Machine Learning in Communication Market Research Report 2020 2026

Chapter 1 Machine Learning in Communication Market Overview

Chapter 2 Global Economic Impact on Industry

Chapter 3 Global Market Competition by Manufacturers

Chapter 4 Global Production, Revenue (Value) by Region

Chapter 5 Global Supply (Production), Consumption, Export, Import by Regions

Chapter 6 Global Production, Revenue (Value), Price Trend by Type

Chapter 7 Global Market Analysis by Application

Chapter 8 Manufacturing Cost Analysis

Chapter 9 Industrial Chain, Sourcing Strategy and Downstream Buyers

Chapter 10 Marketing Strategy Analysis, Distributors/Traders

Chapter 11 Market Effect Factors Analysis

Chapter 12 Global Machine Learning in Communication Market Forecast

Buy Exclusive Report @:

https://www.a2zmarketresearch.com/buy?reportId=257354

If you have any special requirements, please let us know and we will offer you the report as you want.

Here is the original post:
Massive Growth in Machine Learning in Communication Market Breaking new grounds and touch new level in Upcoming Year by Amazon, IBM, Microsoft,...

Big tech CEOs give Congress the 5 Ds of Dodgeball on anti-competitive behavior – The Sociable

Today, some 20,000 people on YouTube tuned-in on to a Congressional hearing where the CEOs of Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon attempted to convince the House Judiciary Committee that they didnt engage in anti-competitive practices.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos wasnt even asked a single question before the first recess was called due to technical issues, and prior to that most of the attention was directed towards Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, with little input from Apple CEO Tim Cook.

The hearing took many turns to address censorship, extremism, and the Chinese threat, but anti-competitiveness was a hot topic from the get-go.

In their responses, the big tech CEOs took a page right out of the fictional 5 Ds of Dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge as theydeflected, dodged, or denied accusations of anti-competitive behavior.

Some anti-competitive accusations from House members:

Some big tech CEO rebuttals:

Quick update. pic.twitter.com/iwLYqLqqdb

The Markup (@themarkup) July 29, 2020

This week, The Markup published a report where it examined 15,000 popular search queries and found that Google products and services made up 41% of Googles first page search results.

The report included that at least some FTC staffers had concluded that Googles boosting its own properties in search rankings led to a significant decrease in traffic for the websites of many vertical competitors, according to an internal FTC report, half of which was accidentallyprovidedto The Wall Street Journal.

New investigation: We found Google routinely put its own products before competitors on the search page. In a sample of 15,000 queries, Google content took up 41 percent of the first page and 63 percent of the first screen of search results. https://t.co/pkjRuFyfIt

The Markup (@themarkup) July 28, 2020

When asked if Google shows the most relevant results or results that were most profitable for Google, Pichai responded in todays hearing,Weve always focused on providing users the most relevant information, and we rely on that trust for users to come back to Google every day.

[Google] used its surveillance over web traffic to identify competitive threats and crush them Rep David Cicilline

When asked if he was involved in Googles conversations about the threat of vertical search, Pichai responded, When we look at vertical search, it validates the competition we see.

Rep David Cicilline reminded Pichai that when Google stole Yelp reviews and Yelp complained, Google responded by threatening to take Yelp off its platform completely. The chairman asked Pichai if what Google did to Yelp in 2010 could be considered anti-competitive.

Pichai chose not to answer the question and deflected to saying, We conduct ourselves to the highest standard.

Without getting much information from Pichai, Chairman Cicilline concluded his time by stating:

As Google became the gateway to the internet, it began to abuse its power. It used its surveillance over web traffic to identify competitive threats and crush them. It has dampened innovation and new business growth, and it has dramatically increased the price of accessing users on the internet, virtually ensuring that any business that wants to be found on the web must pay Google a tax.

We wont do any work to politically tilt anything one way or the other. Its against our core values Sundar Pichai

Touching briefly on the subject of election interference, Rep Jim Jordan asked Pichai, Is Google going to tailor its features to help Joe Biden in the 2020 election?

Pichai responded, We wont do any work to politically tilt anything one way or the other. Its against our core values.

Bezos had to wait over an hour and a half before he was asked a single question, but when it came, it came fast and hard.

[Amazon has] access to the entirety of sellers pricing and inventory information past, present, and future, and you dictate the participation of third party sellers on your platform, so you can set the rules of the game for your competitors, but not actually follow those same rules for yourself Rep Pramila Jayapal

When asked if Amazon accesses and uses third party seller data in making business decisions, Bezos dove away, stating that he couldnt give a yes or no answer.

He did say, We have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private label business, but I cant guarantee you that that policy has never been violated, which was about the most direct, open, and honest answer that all but admits guilt that any of the witnesses gave.

Rep Pramila Jayapal laid into Bezos, stating:

You have access to data that far exceeds the sellers on your platforms with whom you compete. You can track consumer habits, interests, even what consumers clicked on but then didnt buy. You have access to the entirety of sellers pricing and inventory information past, present, and future, and you dictate the participation of third party sellers on your platform, so you can set the rules of the game for your competitors, but not actually follow those same rules for yourself.

We have a policy against using seller-specific data to aid our private label business, but I cant guarantee you that that policy has never been violated Jeff Bezos

Do you think thats fair to the mom and pop third party businesses who are trying to sell on your platform? she asked Bezos.

Bezos was able to blurt out, Im very proud of what we have done for third party sellers on this platform, before Jayapals time expired.

Prior to acquiring both Instagram and Snapchat, Facebook was developing its own similar apps, but was accused of anti-competitive behavior in threatening companies by either threatening to clone their products or buying them out.

Rep Jayabal asked Zuckerberg, Do you copy your competitors?

He responded, Weve certainly adapted features that others have led in, as others have copied and adapted features that weve led in.

Has Facebook threatened to clone the products of another company while also attempting to acquire that company? asked Rep Jayapal.

Not that I recall, said Zuckerberg.

[Facebook] harvests and monetizes our data and then your company uses that data to spy on competitors and to copy, acquire, and kill rivals Rep Pramila Jayapal

Jayapal reminded Zuckerberg that he himself had told Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom that Facebook was developing our own photo strategy, so how we engage now will also determine how much were partners versus competitors down the line, and that Systrom confided in an investor that he feared Zuckerberg would go into destroy mode if he didnt sell Instagram to Facebook.

I want to respectfully disagree with the characterization. I think it was clear that this was a space that we were going to compete in one way or another. I dont view those conversations as a threat in any way.

Commenting on Facebooks acquisition of Instagram after deeming it a threat, Zuckerberg said, I think this is an American success story.

The Facebook CEO claimed that nobody could predict just how successful Instagram would be, but that one reason why it became so successful was because Facebook was backing it.

Rep Jayapal also asked, Did you warn Evan Spiegel, the founder of Snapchat, that Facebook was in the process of cloning the features of his company while also attempting to buy Snapchat?

Zuckerberg responded, I dont remember those specific conversations.

Rep Jayapal concluded, When the dominant platform threatens its potential rivals, that should not be a normal business practice. Facebook is a case study, in my opinion, in monopoly power because your company harvests and monetizes our data and then your company uses that data to spy on competitors and to copy, acquire, and kill rivals.

Cook was spared the hot seat for most of the first half of the hearing, but in the short time he was questioned, he was pressed on why app developers were accusing Apple of arbitrarily making up rules for the App Store review process and selectively enforcing them, making it more difficult for developers to sell their products on the platform.

With over 100 million iPhone users in the United States alone [] you wield immense power over small businesses to grow and prosper. Apple is the sole decision maker as to whether an app is made available to app users through the App Store, said Rep Hank Johnson.

With over 100 million iPhone users in the United States alone [] you wield immense power over small businesses to grow and prosper Rep Hank Johnson

Developers have no choice but to go along with the changes or they must leave the App Store. Thats an enormous amount of power. Also the rules get changed to benefit Apple at the expense of app developers and the App Store is said to also discriminate between the app developers with similar apps on the Apple platform and also as to smaller app developers versus large app developers, Rep Johnson added.

We treat every developer the same Tim Cook

Mr. Cook, does Apple not treat all app developers equally? he asked.

We treat every developer the same, said Cook, adding, we have open and transparent rules. Its a rigorous process. Because we care so deeply about privacy and security and quality, we do look at every app before it goes on [the App Store], but those rules apply evenly to everyone.

Some developers are favored though over others, is that correct?

That is not correct, Cook testified.

The first half of the House Judiciary Committee hearing today was mostly a lesson in dodgeball, but between the dodges, dips, dives, ducks, and dodges, the hearing offered a glimpse into how the big tech CEOs perceive public concerns about anti-competitive behavior by looking at which questions they avoided and which ones they answered directly.

Whats wrong with anti-competitive behavior in big tech?

Facebooks business model is poison & its algorithms amplify misinformation: digital forensics expert testifies

Facebook says it doesnt benefit from hate, but its algorithms tell a different story: op-ed

The rest is here:

Big tech CEOs give Congress the 5 Ds of Dodgeball on anti-competitive behavior - The Sociable

If Cancel Culture Is About Getting Fired, Let’s Cancel At-Will Employment – In These Times

Wednesday, Jul 29, 2020, 4:01 pm editBY Moshe Z. Marvit and Shaun Richman

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

You know what should be canceled? The legal right of most bosses to fire you for a good cause, bad cause, or no cause.

That status quo is so widely accepted that some progressives dont think twice about appealing to the authoritarian power of bosses in the pursuit of social justice: Many high profile social media campaigns have been employed to get people who are caught on video committing racist acts in their everyday lives fired from their jobs. But the desire to hold racists and sexists accountableor the related struggles against sexism, homophobia and fascismneed not be in conflict with the principles of workplace rights.

So-called cancel culture is not well-defined, but its critics frequently use the moniker to refer to an activist program of making individuals who harm their neighbors or coworkers with acts of racism, sexism (and worse) accountable through exposure and de-platformingincluding attempts to get them fired. Liberal critics have been more likely to raise free speech concerns than any about workers rights, while leftists are likelier to argue that free speech doesnt mean freedom from the consequences of speech.

Depending on what websites you read, cancel culture could be portrayed as the biggest threat to society outside of a pandemic with no end in sight, a cratering economy with tens of millions of people out of work and facing eviction, and unidentified men wearing camouflage and carrying machine guns removing protestors from the streets of Portland. The terms of the debate are so problematic that Trump used the occasion of his July 4 speech to complain of leftists that, one of their political weapons is cancel culturedriving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. Then, because theconcept of irony has apparently died of complications from Covid-19, he continued, This is the very definition of totalitarianism.

Three years ago, we published an op-ed in the New York Times explaining how U.S. workers lack a basic right to their jobs that many workers in other countries enjoy as a legal standard. As a solution, we proposed a just cause right to your job law as a badly needed labor law reform. Since then, weve been encouraged to see the issue turn up on many progressives agenda.

In the debate between a right to your job and the need to de-platform bigots, some have raised concerns that without the bosss right to fire an employee for any reason, racists and sexists would getmore of a free pass at work.But this argument misses what just cause means. It doesnt mean that employees cannot be fired, it means they cant be fired for a reason thats not related to work. Racism, sexism, harassment and other forms of conduct in and out of the workplace that make other employees feel unsafe and violate policies around respect and equity are grounds for discipline and terminationbut are also subject to due process. When you look at how just cause plays out in areas where it existsin the public sector, under many union contracts, or in other countriesits clear that racists, sexists and harassers are, in fact,disciplined.

Beyond the pale and unacceptable

American workers stand apart from those in other countries, as theyre governed by a body of judge-made law called the at-will employment doctrine. The doctrine is built around a sort of false mutuality, where the employee has the liberty to quit her job for any reason, and the employer has the right to fire her for any reason. The alternative, commonly negotiated in union contracts, is just cause: the principle that an employee can be fired only for a legitimate, serious, work-performance reason. In a union contractwhere just cause is commonly foundit is usually combined with a progressive discipline system and a grievance procedure to challenge write-ups, suspensions and terminations that a worker feels was unfair.

Progressive discipline typically starts with verbal warning of an infraction or unsatisfactory performance. If, after that warning, a boss thinks that the situation has not improved, it may be followed up with a formal warning in writing, then a suspension without pay and, finally, termination. The progressive steps of discipline reflect an increasing seriousness of infraction, or inability to improve following warnings and remedial supports. Lower levels of discipline might be accompanied by new training or counseling to help the employee improve. Butand this is a key pointwhile some matters might go through the entire progression of discipline, other more serious infractions might go straight to a higher level of discipline.

A vocal or demonstrative racist creates a hostile work environment for her coworkers, and can be punishedor even firedunder a system of just cause and due process. Lets look at a few real-world scenarios. Casually browsing through arbitrators' decisions in New York, we found the case of a professionally-classified employee at a social service agency serving developmentally disabled children and families, who made racist remarks about a supervisor to a fellow worker that other co-workers overheard. Horrified, the co-workers who were subject to an unwelcome racist rant reported it to management, complaining that they were not comfortable working with such an unabashedly racist co-worker. The racist employee was fired. She brought the case to arbitration, arguing that she was not given progressive discipline and was fired without just cause.

The case went all the way up to arbitration and a neutral third-party upheld the termination. The damning judgment: Under these circumstances, I find that the Employer acted reasonably and had just cause to terminate Grievant's employment. In maintaining a respectful, productive and safe working environment for a diverse workforce as well as a proper atmosphere for the Employer's clientele, the use of certain negative language is beyond the pale and is unacceptable, making progressive discipline unwarranted.

Amy Cooper, the entitled white lady who called the cops on an African-American birder in the Ramble of New Yorks Central Park is a slightly more complicated case. Cooper was caught on video reacting in a reflexively racist way to a Black man who just wanted to protect some birds from getting gored by an off-leash dog, threatening to unleash some unpredictable police response upon him. She was quickly doxxed, and angry internet hordes demanded she be fired from the investment firm that she worked for. The firm, Franklin Templeton didnt hesitate to fire her to protect its own reputation.But even Amy Cooper deserved due process.

The targeted campaign against the investment firm arguably made Coopers behavior in Central Park a work-related cause of damage to her employers business. More relevant is how uncomfortable her presence in Zoom meetings and on email CC lines would be for her co-workers in the immediate aftermath of her scandalous behavior. It would not be unreasonable for an employer to move directly to a suspension under those circumstances. It could be a suspension without pay while she cooled her heels and consulted with anyone willing to represent her in an appeal. If the employer decided that her time away from regular duties should be spent in implicit bias training or anger management counseling, then the suspension could continue some form of compensation.

If the goal of cancel culture is to make racists afraid again by making their despicable behavior carry real-world consequences, then Cooper very nearly losing her job would likely have been as effective as her actually losing her job. And under a just cause standard, she probably wouldnt have been immediately fired for this one terrible offense.

Lets look at one more example. In a widely-discussed piece for New York Magazine critiquing cancel culture, Jonathan Chait complained about the firing of a political data analyst named David Shor. In Chaits telling, Shor tweeted a link to a paper by Princeton Professor Omar Wasow, which showed that non-violent protests increased the vote for Democrats, whereas protests viewed as violent increased the vote for Republicans. What followed was a Twitter debate between Shor and several others concerning the propriety of Shor posting the paper, wherein Shor was accused of racism and his employer was tagged. A few days later, Shor was fired from his job.

Chait uses the Shor episode, along with several others, to point to a left-wing illiberalism that seeks to silence people with opposing viewpoints. However, in Chaits examples and his discussion of the problems, he almost wholly lets the employer off the hook. He engages in no discussion of at-will employment or how Shors employer should not have been permitted to fire him for a superficially innocuous tweet, but instead blames leftists and the far left for causing Shor to lose his job. Nowhere does Chait even mention that it was not the Twitter users who fired Shor, but his boss.

The problem for Chait was a cancel culture that included everyone except the powerful arbiter of speech who actually canceled his employmenthis boss.

The cause must be just

In her 2017 book, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don't Talk about It), University of Michigan professor Elizabeth Anderson argues that we think too narrowly about the power and ubiquity of governments. We almost exclusively focus on the power of the politicians we elect while ignoring the far more coercive power of our bosses. All workplaces have a system of government. In the United States, a unionized workplace is like a constitutional monarchy. We have some rights and can petition the King. A non-union workplace is a dictatorship. Left-wing activists need to think twice before appealing to the authoritarian power of a boss. Even if the cause of anti-racism is just, the bosss arbitrary authority to punish his employees for what they do in their private time is a massive restriction of our civil rights.

Corporations are only temporarily embarrassed when right-wing employees spark a controversy. But corporations actually dislike left-wing ideas and are usually all-too-happy to find an excuse to quash them, leaving progressive activists far more vulnerable to campaigns of harassment targeted against their livelihoods. This can be seen in academia, where there has been a multi-year effort to police the speech of academicson anything from the 1619 Project to theBDS movementthats viewed as too far left. Critics have tried to force risk-averse university administrators into firing such professors for tweets that get caught in the right-wing media echo chamber.

All workers deserve just cause protections, and we need to fight for this right as a matter of principle and self-defense. This can be done without endorsing an alliance with the boss that enshrines a broad unchecked power to fire at-will employees.

Originally posted here:

If Cancel Culture Is About Getting Fired, Let's Cancel At-Will Employment - In These Times

Federal Authorities’ Conduct Against Protesters and Reporters in Portland Gross Violations of the First Amendment – PEN America

PEN America says federal agents are not above the rule of law in repressing and attacking protesters and reporters

(New York, NY) Reports have emerged that federal authorities have required detained protesters in Portland to commit to not attending further protests as a condition for release, and that federal officers have shot at and maced reporters and legal observers covering protests. PEN Americas director of U.S. free expression programs Nora Benavidez released the following statement in response:

Forcing First Amendment-abiding protesters to sign away their right to demonstrate to be released. Law enforcement using live ammunition against reporters and legal observers. These are gross violations of the First Amendment. Federal agents are not above the rule of law, and certainly not above the Constitution. The actions unfolding in Portland are aimed not only at silencing dissent, but also silencing the reporters and journalists working to reveal whats happening on the ground. This has to stop. Freedom predicated on silence isnt freedom at all.

Continued here:

Federal Authorities' Conduct Against Protesters and Reporters in Portland Gross Violations of the First Amendment - PEN America