Daily Archives: January 9, 2021

This story is part of CES, where our editors will bring you the latest news and the hottest gadgets of the entirely virtual CES 2021.

CES 2021 kicks off as a virtual event on Monday, but some companies are already offering a peek at their brand-new products. Kohler is ringing in 2021 with a host of new smart kitchen and bath products ranging from a smart water monitor to a $16,000 tub.

We've seen smart toilets and voice-controlled faucets from the established manufacturer in years past, and this year the focus lands squarely on relaxing and home and keeping our hands free from germ-ridden surfaces as much as possible.

If you'd rather buy a bathtub than a used car, Kohler's stillness bath might be right up your alley. This square tub combines light, fog and aromatherapy to create a spa-like experience at home.

Get the best reviews, videos and comparisons in CNET's Smart Home and Appliances newsletter.

The bath is based on the practice of Japanese forest bathing, or shinrin-yoku. Water fills from the bottom of the bath and overflows into a Hinoki wood moat. The tub is surrounded by lighting, but that's not all. You can also choose to envelop the surface of your bath with a fog and add essential oils for aromatherapy.

The Stillness Bath will be available this year in configurations ranging from $6,198 to $15,998 fully loaded.

If there's anything a global pandemic taught us, it's that touching stuff is not the best for personal hygiene, especially in the bathroom. Kohler released the Sensate touchless kitchen faucet in 2019, and this new bathroom-focused model offers the same hands-free interaction. Two styles will be available, one with built-in sensing in the faucet itself and another with a button beside the faucet.

Pricing isn't available yet, but Kohler says we should see the touchless bathroom faucet come to market by the end of 2021.

This intelligent toilet doesn't have technically have any smart home integrations, but it is pretty jam packed with extra features at a lower (but still expensive) price than the company's previous intelligent toilets. Innate includes a heated seat, auto opening and closing, a remote, as well as a personal bidet function. Kohler also says you can install the toilet yourself thanks to its DIY-friendly ReadyLock design.

The Innate Intelligent Toilet will be available this summer with an MSRP of $3,100.

Kohler is adding more touchless toilets to its portfolio for 2021, bringing us two new styles costing $600 and $1,000. A sensor in the flush lever of the toilet flushes with the wave of your hand. A built-in LED light can be customized through the Kohler app. Both of these toilets are slated for release in March of this year. I've never been so excited about a touchless bathroom as I am after living through 2020.

Perhaps the most affordable and truly smart home-centric product from Kohler this year is the Kohler Whole Home Water Monitor powered by Phyn. Phyn, a spin off of gadget maker Belkin, has been in the smart water market for several years now, and Kohler's new partnership puts them in a better position to reach consumers looking for options from traditional bathroom and kitchen brands.

Kohler will launch two co-branded products with Phyn this year, the Kohler Whole Home Water Monitor Powered by Phyn, and a second version with an automatic water shut off. The monitor is a self-installed system that mounts under one sink in your home. From there, it detects water use throughout your plumbing system and notifies you if if a leak is detected anywhere in the home. It will also provide detailed insight into how each fixture uses water.

The model with automatic shut off uses high-definition pressure wave analysis to alert you the moment a leak is detected and shut off your water.

The basic Kohler Whole Home Water Monitor Powered by Phyn will cost $300, and the automatic shut off option will cost $500. You can expect to see the Kohler Whole Home Water Monitor in the second half of 2021.

The top 6 trends to expect at CES 2021

Sure, a $15,000 bathtub probably isn't within most of our budgets, but Kohler's idea of turning our homes into spa experiences echoes the striving for peace and relaxation at home many of us have felt in the last year. Smart water monitors, on the other hand, can be great additions to smart homes. With a more affordable price point and a practical application, it might be the smartest thing Kohler brought to CES.

Stay tuned to CNET as we follow these and more exciting new products on their journey to a smart home near you.

Now playing: Watch this: Kohler's crazy bathtub highlights a CES lineup of smart...

5:22

View post:

Kohler's new bathroom designs believe in big spenders and touchless tech - CNET

The Democrats winning the Georgia runoffs has big implications for Big Tech.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) is a part of US law that provides tech companies with two important protections. Firstly, it gives them the ability to decide how to moderate content on their own platforms. Secondly, it shields them from liability for what their users post.

This means that when a user posts something illegal on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube for example, child abuse imagery or terrorist content the platform isn't liable.

Section 230 has come under heavy fire from Trump and the Republicans, who claim that the Big Tech companies discriminate against conservatives. Trump called for the revocation of Section 230 numerous times, and vetoed a $741 billion defense bill over it in December.

A new administration does not mean reform of Section 230 will be abandoned, as Democrats have also attacked the law, saying it gives the tech companies too much legal protection for hosting harmful content. President-elect Joe Biden in January said he was in favor of repealing it.

This could place tech companies in major jeopardy, as it would expose them to huge legal risk for what their users post, and with the Democrats controlling both Houses they now have more of a chance of legislating Section 230 how they see fit.

Even small changes to Section 230 could majorly shift how platforms approach moderation. If platforms become more liable for the content users post, they may be more indiscriminate in how much content they remove under their moderation policies.

Big Tech executives including Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey have resisted calls to repeal Section 230, saying it would mean platforms would end up stifling free speech in a bid to avoid being hit with a deluge of lawsuits.

Business Insider spoke to six legal experts about how the Democrats' win could shape the future of Section 230.

Two of the legal experts said it's unlikely the Biden administration will do anything to Section 230 in the first 100 days of his presidency.

"Their focus will be on nominations, COVID response and vaccinations," said June DeHart, an attorney specializing in policymaking proceedings at Manatt law firm.

Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law expert who wrote a book on Section 230 entitled "The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet," also said legislative changes would be slowed because there's not yet a clear consensus on what to do.

"I think probably the most immediate impact is [the administration change] would affect the nature of the hearings about platforms and Section 230 that we're going to see," said Kosseff.

This gives the tech companies some wiggle room, but doesn't mean they can rest easy. "They will get to it and want to make changes, clearly," said Daphne Keller, director of Stanford Law School's Program on Platform Regulation.

"My hope is that they will take the time to craft thoughtful legislation, perhaps modeled in part on the EU's major new draft law, the Digital Services Act, and on last term's PACT Act, which was the smartest of the bills. A lot of the 2020 bills were the product of time pressure and political theater, [the Democrats] should be able to take a breath and be more deliberate now," she added.

Read more: Experts lay out the criteria for choosing Biden's CTO, who will be faced with using tech to tackle everything from climate change to vaccine distribution

She said a big problem for the Democrats in tackling harmful content via Section 230 is that a lot of the content they're worried about isn't actually illegal speech.

"Things like hate speech and medical misinformation are often First Amendment protected speech, for better or for worse. That means CDA 230 is not the reason it gets left up [...] In fact, CDA 230 actively encourages platforms to take that content down by giving them the immunities they need to engage in content moderation," she said.

Scott Shackelford, associate professor of business law and ethics at Indiana University, said it raises the stakes because it makes it more likely that the Democrats can push through comprehensive legislation.

"The razor thin majority will mean that moderate Senators will have an outsized role in crafting potential reforms," he added. DeHart also pointed to the narrow margins in both Houses, saying this means reform of Section 230 is more likely than revocation.

"I suspect that a complete revocation of 230 is unlikely [...] that would be a big lift to overcome the industry opposition, and the path of extending regulatory oversight will be much easier by comparison," said Richard Lawson, a partner at Gardner Brewer Martinez-Monfort law firm.

Three of the experts also noted the lobbying power of Big Tech.

"Any legislation related to CDA 230 will likely face intense opposition from the tech industry, and with Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google alone having a market cap of $5 trillion one can easily imagine that resources will be made available to combat any changes," said Richard Lawson.

"Reform is still not a foregone conclusion. There are powerful interest groups, and lobbying outfits funded by tech firms that enjoy some of the deepest pockets in the world. Still, given the outcome in Georgia, and the pronouncements by President-elect Biden on this topic, I think the safe money is that there will be a push to reform the tech regulatory landscape with Section 230 being one aspect of that effort," said Shackelford.

Paul Barrett, deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, agreed reform is more likely.

"Any controversial legislation faces an uphill climb in a closely divided Senate. But I think there is now a chance that a thoughtful updating of Section 230 could pass Congress and get Biden's signature," said Barrett.

Jeff Kosseff said when politicians dig into the technical details of Section 230 they may realise that repealing it won't let them stand up to Big Tech in fact it could end up solidifying Big Tech's power.

"The companies impacted by Section 230 are not just Facebook and Twitter and Google. It's any company that operates a website that hosts user content, so it's everything from Facebook to a small local news site that allows user comments," he said.

"I think there's a concern about making sure that the changes that are made don't further entrench the dominance of a few large players. Because whatever changes are made there's a pretty good chance that the biggest companies will be able to afford the costs of those changes, but the smaller companies might not be able to do that," he said.

Read more: 54 tech startups to bet your career on in 2021

"I think the one common thread between both sides of the aisle is that, many people are upset with Big Tech and Section 230 is really being used as a proxy for big tech. When in fact changing Section 230 might not address their concerns and it actually might make Big Tech even bigger," Kosseff said.

Any change to Section 230 may be slow, although the focus on the potential harm of the Big Tech platforms may well be renewed by Wednesday's violent assault on the Capitol, where rioters displayed their beliefs in online conspiracy theories like QAnon.

Read more:

How Section 230 could be reformed now the Democrats have both Houses - Business Insider - Business Insider

Twitters banning of Donald Trump illustrates the increasing appetite of social media giants to suspend controversial accounts.

acebook and Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, also suspended Mr Trumps account indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete, said Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg.

The outgoing US presidents Twitter account, his main method of communication, was permanently revoked on Friday, adding his name to a list of people who have been kicked off Big Tech platforms in recent years.

Katie Hopkins, the former Apprentice star turned right-wing provocateur, had more than a million followers on Twitter when she was booted off the site last year.

Close

Katie Hopkins (Philip Toscano/PA)

PA

Twitter said she was suspended for breaking rules on hate speech after sparking outrage with comments on race, religion and immigration.

She had been heavily criticised over remarks comparing migrants to cockroaches as well as claiming the photograph of a dead Syrian boy lying on a beach which sparked a wave of compassion across Europe was staged.

Keeping Twitter safe is a top priority for us abuse and hateful conduct have no place on our service and we will continue to take action when our rules are broken, a Twitter spokesman said.

Ms Hopkins appears to be posting videos to a small Facebook page currently, which has just over 23,000 followers.

Another British right-wing personality, Milo Yiannopoulos, was banned from Twitter in 2016 after being accused of urging his followers to abuse actress Leslie Jones and her role in the female-led Ghostbusters reboot.

The former technology editor at the Breitbart website had more than 300,000 followers on the site and described himself as the most fabulous supervillain on the internet.

He came to be seen as an alt-right figurehead, was recruited to Breitbart by Mr Trumps former chief strategist Steve Bannon, and was known to refer to the president as daddy.

Facebook has also stepped up its banning of accounts deemed to be extremist, including one belonging to Mr Yiannopoulos.

In 2019, the social media site banned figures including Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, and right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for violating its policies on hate and violence.

The company said it has also banned right-wing figures Paul Nehlen, Paul Joseph Watson and Laura Loomer, along with Mr Joness conspiracy-promoting site Infowars.

The permanent suspensions were criticised by Mr Trump at the time, who said he was monitoring and watching, closely!!

He has previously claimed social media companies are biased against conservatives, something the companies have rejected.

Supporters of Mr Trump have cited the fact that Mr Farrakhan, who has been widely accused of anti-Semitism and has referred to Satanic Jews, and Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini remain on Twitter.

PA

Original post:

Trumps social media suspension part of Big Techs increasing use of bans - Belfast Telegraph

Google is the U.K.s first big antitrust target after the country quit the European Union as regulators opened a probe Friday into the companys planned changes to advertising data.

The Competition and Markets Authority said its investigating Googles plans to remove third-party cookies and other functionalities from its Chrome browser, according to an emailed statement. This could undermine the ability of publishers to generate and undermine competition in digital advertising, entrenching Googles market power.

Publishers and advertising technology companies complained in November that Googles so-called privacy sandbox changes will curb members ability to gather information on web users, which helps them offer more valuable advertising. Smaller media companies are at risk of losing as much as 75 per centof their revenue, it said.

Google upended the advertising world with its decision last year to phase out third-party cookies that help advertisers pinpoint customers with ads for websites they previously visited and monitor which ads convinced them to buy. Googles Chrome is used by the overwhelming majority of internet users and the changes will be followed by browsers based on Google technology such as Microsoft Corp.s Edge.

Continued here:

Google's ad changes face UK probe in first shot at Big Tech - BNN

Banks will still have the appetite for financial technology M&A in 2021, but the economic uncertainty created by the coronavirus pandemic will make them more cautious in their dealmaking, analysts said.

The COVID-19 crisis has put pressure on banks to improve their digital offering as lockdowns have forced customers to use applications and online banking rather than visit branches. Buying up small, innovative fintechs can be a faster and more effective way for banks to improve their tech offerings, and the infrastructure that supports them, than building their own solutions. But given the punishing year that lenders have had, and the bleak economic outlook for 2021, their capacity for larger deals will be constrained.

Big techs such as Facebook Inc. and Alphabet Inc., on the other hand, have deeper pockets.

Meanwhile, a streak of M&A in the payments world in 2020 is likely to continue this year, as the shift to digital payments ushered in by the pandemic makes payments fintechs attractive targets.

Big tech, deep pockets

Although it is still difficult to see what the wider-reaching impacts of the events of 2020 will be, many corporates will be taking a "longer-term view" and will be thinking about the importance of technology and innovation, according to Fionnghuala Griggs, partner and global co-head of fintech at Linklaters. For many banks, card networks and other financial institutions, M&A will still look like an attractive way to broaden their geographic coverage and unlock potential benefits of scale, she said.

But they will be far more circumspect in the coming year when it comes to dealmaking.

"Given the economic uncertainty they will be understandably cautious over how they deploy their resources for M&A opportunities, and therefore we expect that there will be an increased focus on valuation, and on the ability of fintech business models to generate profits on a longer-term basis," she said in an email.

The need to provide better, faster and cheaper financial services remains a powerful driver for investment by banks into fintech, according to Benjamin Ensor, director of research at 11:FS, a fintech and banking tech consultancy. But the pandemic has diminished banks' appetite and ability to make acquisitions.

"What has changed with the pandemic is the appetite and ability of companies to invest and so take part in acquisitions. Specifically, the earnings outlook for most banks deteriorated sharply with the onset of pandemic and is unlikely to improve dramatically even with the gradual roll out of vaccines because of the huge damage to businesses right across most economies," he said in an email.

"While banks and other financial services companies may want to invest in promising fintechs, they have less capital available to do so than they did at the start of 2020," he said.

By contrast, "big tech" companies have "thrived" during the pandemic and have money to spend on acquisitions, he said.

Although a banking crisis was averted in Europe in 2020 due to robust fiscal and monetary support, profitability at European lenders will be "subdued" in 2021, according to a December analyst note from Scope Ratings.

The picture for tech giants, however, is brighter. Retail behemoth Amazon.com Inc.'s earnings per share exceeded analyst expectations in the third quarter, at $12.37 compared with the S&P Capital IQ mean consensus estimate of $7.53, while the company said that it expects double-digit growth in sales in the fourth quarter. Google LLC parent Alphabet Inc. reported a 14% year-over-year increase in revenues in the third quarter, at $46.17 billion, partly thanks to a rebound in its digital advertising business.

"Big techs" have been muscling their way into financial services in recent years, having lent $572 billion globally in 2019, double the amount of credit extended by fintechs that year, according to the Bank for International Settlements.

Even if incumbent financial institutions such as banks, investment management companies and insurance companies want to buy fintechs, they may increasingly find themselves outbid, either by big tech firms or established fintech companies that are looking to bolster their capabilities in areas such as artificial intelligence, Ensor said.

Payments heats up

M&A involving payments companies was a major theme in 2020, with a number of large European deals including Nexi SpA's 7.8 billion deal to buy Danish rival Nets A/S, agreed in November, and Worldline SA's 7.8 billion acquisition of Ingenico Group SA, cleared by European regulators in October.

Linklaters' Griggs anticipates further payments M&A in 2021.

"The events of 2020 have placed ever-increasing focus on the value of digitalization and technology in payment service, and has also driven widespread innovation in the sector, including significant growth opportunities for companies offering new payment methods. As a result we expect fintechs focused on payments ... to remain attractive investment prospects, whether for full acquisitions, minority investments or strategic partnerships," she said.

Some 420 billion transactions worth $7 trillion are anticipated to switch from cash to cards and digital payments by 2023, rising to US$48 trillion by 2030, according to November research from Accenture. The coronavirus pandemic has sped up the shift to digital payments "at a pace banks could not have predicted," Sulabh Agarwal, who leads Accenture's payments practice globally, said in a company statement.

The pandemic triggered a major shift toward digital payments in much of Europe, especially in countries such as Greece and Italy, where the public have traditionally leaned toward using cash instead of card, online or mobile transactions.

See more here:

Big tech rather than banks to drive fintech M&A in 2021, with payments key - S&P Global

Big Tech is stepping into a year where the only certainty is that there will be much unwelcome uncertainty. And with so many of the major technology platforms calling Ireland their European home, that could have implications for Ireland Inc.

If 2019 and 2020 were the years of uncomfortable political hearings, when founders and senior executives were summoned for questioning before the US Congress, the European Parliament and, at one point, the Dil then 2021 promises to be the altogether far more sobering and alarming year of the antitrust investigation.

The political grillings seen over the past 18 months, especially in the US, have set the stage for what is to come next. By last July when we reached that odd hearing featuring the virtual appearances of the chief executives of Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Google/Alphabet before the US House of Representatives antitrust subcommittee, politicians questions were making it clear that anything the chief executives said could and would be used against them and their companies.

Following a 16-month long investigation of which a number of those US hearings formed a part, the fat (449-page) congressional report that eventually appeared in October proved this was indeed the case. It referenced testimony and documents, such as internal chief executive emails, to back its conclusion that much stronger regulatory and antitrust action was needed.

As 2020 came to a close, no fewer than five antitrust investigations against large technology and social media platforms were officially underway in the US, at both federal and state level: three against Google, and two against Facebook. More could be on the horizon for 2021.

Of these, the headliner is the suit against Google by the US justice department. It marks the first significant use of antitrust law by the US since it took on Microsoft at the turn of the millennium.

Focused on Googles search engine dominance and the companys ability to use its powerful position to potentially sideline smaller competitors, the action wont be heard until 2023. But if the Microsoft case serves as an example of what to expect, well be hearing lots of ongoing detail in 2021 as the case is prepared, especially as one of the other cases against Google announced in December and brought by Texas and nine other states may be rolled into the federal case.

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), as well as a large coalition of US states, are bringing separate antitrust cases against Facebook, demanding it be required to sell off its major acquisitions, WhatsApp and Instagram.

State investigations arent any less powerful, or worrying for the platforms, than federal actions. Think in terms of the situation in the EU, where member countries as well as the EU itself can bring cases against companies. Individual EU states, such as France and Germany, have brought punishing actions against the platforms in the past.

If anything, a multitude of separate US state actions might be worse than a single federal action, resulting in a multitude of different regulations and a huge headache for any company.

But theres more. The US justice department is also investigating Apple (seemingly centred on its App Store), and is believed to also be investigating Amazon, as well as further aspects of Facebooks operations. It noted in 2019 that it was looking at search, social media, and some retail services online.

The FTC is also investigating Amazons relationship with small traders on its platform businesses with which it sometimes competes directly.

Given the strong bipartisan antipathy to the big platforms, whether social, retail or search, the incoming Biden administration and a Biden-appointed justice department is likely to maintain the same cool relationship with the platforms as the previous administration.

And that is likely to be the case even as some tech industry figures have surfaced as actual or potential appointees within the administration. So far, executives from companies including Amazon, Airbnb, Lyft, Uber and Salesforce are in.

And since mid-November, former Google chief and chairman Eric Schmidt has been rumoured as a possible choice for a Biden tech industry taskforce, but this has been met with much public opposition.

On the other hand, the incoming US president has appointed Pete Buttigieg, who he ran against for the democratic presidential nomination, as his transport secretary. When campaigning in California, Buttigieg supported taxi drivers opposing Uber and Lyft, and also supported greater rights for gig workers and criticised Google and Uber in his economic policy proposals during the 2019 campaign.

His perspective in the West Wing is likely to carry far stronger weight than anyone in a lower level administrative role, or a tech policy adviser.

While recent fines and penalties emerging from the EU have indicated it remains no great friend of the platforms either, these recent moves from the US especially on the antitrust front mark a significant contrast between the US and the EU.

For years, the European Union was viewed (rightly) as the far stronger regulatory environment, and also as the torch-bearer for antitrust activity, given US silence in an area that had once been a US legal hallmark, delivering some of the most important, US public-benefiting actions, divestments and restructurings throughout the 20th century.

For years, many felt the EU would be the most likely source of significant antitrust moves against the platforms and, in particular, the most likely to enact one of antitrust laws most dramatic punishments: splitting up the big platforms by requiring a divestment of past major acquisitions.

Not that the EU has led by example in this area. It has repeatedly mirrored the US and approved highly controversial acquisitions, such as Googles takeover of ad giant DoubleClick, and Facebooks moves for Instagram and WhatsApp.

Still, many felt that EU would consider taking such action. In a sea change, European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager indicated that, in the wake of a special report she had commissioned, she did not consider breaking up the platforms to be the best resolution to ongoing problems. The turnabout came as a shock to campaigners against the platforms.

However, the EU, with Vestager reappointed to the same commission role, has continued to use other aspects of EU antitrust law against the platforms, issuing major fines against companies including Google and Facebook.

At the tail end of 2020, Vestager announced major antitrust charges against Amazon, alleging it misuses data it acquires from sellers on its platform. A decision is expected in 2021. Other EU tech-related investigations are ongoing.

In addition, two major pieces of EU legislation the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act (DMA and DSA) were published as draft proposals in December. Together they would impose sweeping changes in the way the big platforms operate, designating the largest as gatekeeper companies with significant additional responsibilities and operating constraints.

The DMA has a firm antitrust focus, and could allow companies to be broken up. As happened with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) during its long evolution, much lobbying and argument lies ahead for the two pieces of legislation in 2021.

And yet, even as the EU was rattling its collection of antitrust swords with the publication of these acts, it also approved Googles controversial acquisition of FitBit, giving the search giant a massive tranche of health data generated by FitBits wearable fitness devices.

Mixed signals, indeed.

Regardless, given the growing, antagonistic antitrust and regulatory focus in both the EU and the US, there is certainly no promise of a happy new year in 2021 for Big Tech.

Visit link:

No promise of a happy new year for Big Tech as EU and US lawmakers bear down - The Irish Times

If I had to pick the most far-reaching and significant threat facing big technology companies in the future, I would not make an obvious choice.

Here, I mean threat from the companies perspective, the thing most capable of overturning their highly profitable business-as-usual, what they see as their unique corporate culture and defend as exciting new work paradigms and lucrative move-fast policies that allow them to innovate.

Many of the rest of us may be more likely to identify these as the more noxious aspects of the industry.

Weve seen plenty of obvious threat candidates coming out of headline-making international political hearings, regulatory actions by nations and US states, new laws (such as the General Data Protection Regulation in the EU, and new state privacy laws in the US), and the continued establishment of case law from the EU.

From this menu, the list of uh-oh factors for tech is easy to compile. Most boil down to greater outside regulation and oversight via the use of antitrust, data protection, privacy and, to a lesser extent, employee protection laws.

And yes, this all (rightly) poses significant worries for big tech, including very real prospects of being broken up; of being subjected to greater operational transparency; of having more comprehensive limits placed on the use of personal data; of the crumbling of the data-gathering advertising model that is so lucrative.

But none of these industry alarms is as likely to cause the profound, long-term change that could emerge over time from the actions of just 200 individuals this week: the North American employees of Google parent company Alphabet, who have formed the first major union within a technology company.

Wed had enough, stated the two elected union executives of the new Alphabet Workers Union, Google software engineer Parul Koul and Google site reliability engineer Chewy Shaw, on Monday in anopinion piece for the New York Times. An initial 226 employees now have union cards affiliated to the Communications Workers of America.

That action will have sent shockwaves through the executive suites and boardrooms of the big technology companies around Silicon Valley. They wont admit it, of course. Google issued a statement in which it said it would continue engaging directlywith employees.

Because this is what these companies want: to handle employee grievances individually, out of public view. But as the history of the union movement has shown, nothing focuses a companys negotiating mind like having a unified bloc of employees backing the complaints of an individual, or fighting for employees as a whole.

While the thoroughly un-unionised technology industry has long argued its pampered employees have no need for unions and indeed, many of its work conditions and contracts have been generous mounting evidence indicates this may be true for the younger, white, male employees that form the majority of the tech workforce, but not so much for women, LGBT+ employees or people of colour.

In addition, employees of many technology firms have grown increasingly unhappy with the ways their companies operate.

In 2018 many Google employees globally staged protests over a company culture that had, among other things, been involved in a secret AI drone surveillance project with the Pentagon, and awarded a generous severance package to an executive accused of sexual harassment.

More recently, many Google employees were disturbed by the companys firing of black AI researcher Timnit Gebru, who was critical of company diversity programmes.

Walk-outs and internal protests of the type we have seen at Google are important symbolically, but its easy for companies to divide and conquer workers who, as has been raised in several court cases and public campaigns, cannot always rely on the support of human resource or legal departments to address even the most serious bullying and harassment issues.

In addition, tech has a specific technique for disempowering workers: just dont hire them directly. Instead, make them gig economy workers. Get their labour, but as little-to-no-benefits independent contractors or outsourcing hires.

At Google, such workers outnumber regular employees by 135,000 to 115,000. Notably, in 2019, a number of such Google contract workers in Pittsburgh formed a small union which, because of the dearth of unions within tech, ended up affiliating with the United Steelworkers.

The new Alphabet union intends to represent all workers, whether contract or casual, or direct employees.

So many of the complaints that have surfaced in recent years within tech about working conditions, pay and benefits discrepancies, corporate culture, company operations are exactly the kinds of issues that unions have traditionally acted upon for workers.

Recent years have demonstrated that tech companies are not kindly, benevolent guardians of their huge workforces. Companies know unions can and will change the nature of what they do, and how they do it, in profound ways. The establishment of a first in-house union is groundbreaking.

Expect the industry to fight unionisation every inch of the way. But if tech workers want real workplace change, they need to put power behind their protests. Tech workers need unions.

The rest is here:

Big tech will be sweating over prospect of worker unionisation - The Irish Times