Daily Archives: September 27, 2021

This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. Here is a collection of past columns.

Amazon has more than 800 people working on what sound like videoconference gadgets on wheels, but it isnt sure that customers want them.

Apple has spent nearly a decade and untold billions of dollars starting, retreating from and repeatedly reworking a project to develop a car that may never hit the roads.

Google and Facebook continue to spend billions buying and building fancy complexes when no one is confident about the post-pandemic needs of in-person office work.

We want successful companies to tinker with expensive projects, even if they dont pan out. Wandering and stumbling is how invention happens. But that may not be all thats happening in the research labs and corporate suites of Americas tech giants.

Part of what we may be seeing now are companies that are so friggin rich that they sometimes throw money around hey, why not?! in ways that hold back other companies and themselves from breakthrough innovations.

Yes, Im really asking if its possible to be too rich. (And yes, this is a problem that I would like to have.)

Let me explain why we should care if a handful of tech giants are wasting their time and money.

Not having enough money can strain a company or entrepreneur, but it can also foster focus and inventiveness. Theres an axiom about technology start-ups that the ones founded in dire financial times often turn out to be the biggest successes. Young companies and their leaders learn to do more with less and devote their attention to only their best ideas.

And like a wealthy friend who installed gold toilets in each of his 25 bathrooms, having so much money can compel companies to pursue half-baked ideas.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that Amazon is testing concepts for a department store with digital clothing tags that customers can scan with their phones to try on items and may later add robots for some reason. Tech doodads are probably not the way to improve the shopping experience for humans, but Amazon can experiment with overly complicated concepts because hey, why not? It might work.

When Amazon throws money at a problem, other companies often respond with their own high-tech countermeasures. Not long after Amazon bought the Whole Foods supermarket chain, Kroger cooked up a plan for futuristic stores with digital shelves to alter product prices quickly and help people shop more quickly. Walmart and other stores deployed robots to detect when items were out of stock and tested systems to automate the checkout process.

Some kinds of technology for retail, particularly automation of the parts that shoppers never see, may turn out to be major advances. But the trap that the retailers and Amazon fall into is a fixation on the flashy over the genuinely useful. Did anyone stop to ask: Is a fussy digital touch-screen or a robot the best way to do this? Walmart last year gave up on its shelf-scanning robots because simpler alternatives were just as good.

Amazon can try all this because it has seemingly endless money. But what else could Amazon, Kroger or Walmart do that is more likely to improve shopping rather than chasing expensive dreams of The Jetsons?

Many smaller tech companies also fear that tech giants are hoarding talent because they can. Imagine the midlevel software engineer making bank at Google who might otherwise start a driverless car company, or a Facebook manager who might instead be steering a second-tier e-commerce company to become the next Amazon.

The people who own Americas technology giants stockholders mostly trust Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft to follow the right routes to riches. (Sometimes stockholders do worry that these companies are wasting money, and it has resulted in executive changes or other company actions.)

We want Big Tech to continue investing to come up with fresh products and services. But we all know that having so much money can make people, and companies, undisciplined and impulsive.

If you dont already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Tip of the Week

What if I told you that your iPhone could feel like new even if you didnt plunk down $700 for the most incremental upgrade ever? Brian X. Chen, The New York Timess consumer technology columnist, tells you how.

There is a widely shared conspiracy theory that phone manufacturers deliberately slow down phones as they age to entice you to buy a new device. In reality, the opposite has been true. In the last few years, Apples iPhone software updates have made older phones faster, and Googles Android 12 release, expected in coming weeks, was also designed to improve performance.

It is true that phones slow down over time but for different reasons. Like a car, smartphones need maintenance to stay in tiptop shape. Here are some tips for what to do to give your phone a boost if its feeling sluggish:

Replace the battery. Some manufacturers, like Apple, slow down phones when the battery is on the fritz to keep the device running longer. A simple remedy is to replace your battery through the company or at a local phone repair shop. Depending on the phone model and the repair shop, a battery replacement can cost between $30 and $80.

Be mindful of your storage. Many people dont realize that just because your iPhone or Samsung phone has 64 or 128 gigabytes of storage doesnt mean you should fill it all the way up. The device will run faster if more of its storage is available. So at least once a year, purge the apps, photos and files that you no longer use.

Start fresh. Over time, phones can feel slow and buggy because of software updates, tweaked system settings and so on. If the basic maintenance steps above dont help, try backing up all your phone data and completely erasing all the data on the device. Then reinstall the operating system and restore your data from the backup. This can solve software problems that would otherwise be tough to diagnose.

Germany wanted to stop the worst online abuses but fell short: The country passed a law in 2017 requiring companies including Facebook and Twitter to delete online hate speech quickly. My colleague Adam Satariano details the ways in which the law has not necessarily stopped all harassing online posts, including those that threaten female political candidates with violence. Free-expression groups also say that the law sets a dangerous precedent for government censorship of the internet.

Theres no magic fix to bring the internet to more Americans: Bloomberg News focuses on a rural area of Arkansas to explain why its difficult to build gold-standard internet pipes in every part of the United States. Whats needed is probably a mix of technologies, like a project in Arkansas to repurpose a U.S. Navy transmission spectrum to zap internet signals from water towers, flagpoles, a prison and other high spots.

Change these settings now: The Washington Post has a guide to the settings that are worth changing on Amazon, Facebook, Venmo and other popular websites and apps, and why were better protected if we do so.

My colleague Erin McCann regularly tweets photos of this charming dog that hangs out on its doorstep in London.

More:

Its Possible to Be Too Rich - The New York Times

The United States (US) cannabis industry is receiving strong support from one of the largest companies in the world, Amazon Inc. (Nasdaq: AMZN).

Earlier last week, the tech giant restated its support for federal cannabis legalization and reiterated that it would like to see Congress pass legislation to end prohibition. As it relates to the types of legislation it supports, Amazon selected the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act and the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA).

Amazon sent a letter to the senators that are spearheading these bills that said, As your bill would achieve similar objectives, we are pleased to endorse the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act as currently drafted.

The letter continued additional information that Is related to expunging prior cannabis convictions and using some tax revenue from the industry for community reinvestment and ending pre-employment testing of cannabis as a condition of employment.

We believe the cannabis industry will greatly benefit from the lobbying power that Amazon brings to the table. Over the next few months, we expect to see additional large-scale mainstream businesses follow Amazons lead.

Although Amazon steals headlines that are associated with federal cannabis legalization efforts, Uber (UBER) was one of the first large corporations to voice its support for cannabis reform. Due the nature of Ubers business, it also has substantial lobby power and we consider its support to be of great significance.

Federal cannabis legalization in the US is nearing an inflection point and we are bullish on this trend. We consider cannabis reform in the US to be the most significant potential catalyst for the sector and will monitor how legalization efforts advance in the near-term.

If you are interested in learning more about any changes to cannabis legalization efforts in the US, please send an email to support@technical420.com with the subject US Cannabis Legislation to be added to our distribution list.

For the fastest access to data on the potential for cannabis reform in the US, sign up for our free newsletter!

Authored ByMichael Berger

Michael Berger is Managing Partner of StoneBridge Partners LLC. SBP continues to drive market awareness for leading firms in the cannabis industry throughout the U.S. and abroad.

See the original post:

Amazon Is One Of The First Tech Giants To Openly Voice Support For the Cannabis Sector - Technical420 - Technical420

Two major trade groups representing social media platforms Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are suing the Attorney General of Texas over a new state law that supporters say would limit the "censorship" of conservative users.

HB20, which passed in Texas earlier this month, bans social-media companies with more than 50 million monthly active users from censoring people because of "the viewpoint of the user or another person," the law states. It also allows users "banned from social media for their political beliefs" to sue the platform that banned them.

Tech companies say the law "would unconstitutionally require platforms like YouTube and Facebook to disseminate, for example, pro-Nazi speech, terrorist propaganda, foreign government disinformation, and medical misinformation," according to the suit.

The plaintiffs cite multiple court decisions defending a private company's right to editorial discretion under the first amendment. This includes a Florida law similarly targeting social media companies that was blocked by a federal judge in June.

"Forcing those companies to give equal treatment to all viewpoints puts Nazi party political speech and extremist messages from Taliban sympathizers on equal footing with God bless America," Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, told USA Today.

On the other side of the lawsuit is Attorney General Ken Paxton, a fervent Trump loyalist who spoke at the rally preceding the Jan 6. attack on the US capitol.

Texas GOP leaders initially raised Big Tech censorship concerns following the US capitol insurrection that killed five people and injured more than 100 officers.

In response, several major social-media networks banned former president Donald Trump from their platforms citing a violation of their terms and services, in addition to blocking accounts linked to election misinformation.

"The seemingly coordinated de-platforming of the President of the United States and several leading voices not only chills free speech, it wholly silences those whose speech and political beliefs do not align with leaders of Big Tech companies," Paxton said in a news release one week after the riot.

"I will defend the First Amendment and ensure that conservative voices have the right to be heard," Paxton said in a statement. "Big Tech does not have the authority to police the expressions of people whose political viewpoint they simply disagree with."

Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Follow this link:

Texas sued by group of tech companies over censorship bill - Business Insider

Angela Merkels party comes up short in Germany. In yesterdays election, the center-left Social Democratic Party led by Olaf Scholz won 1.6 percentage points more of the vote than Merkels Christian Democratic Party. But with only around 26 percent of the vote, the Social Democrats will have to form a coalition to govern, which could get messy.

The Transition to Electric Cars

Britain struggles with fuel shortages and other supply disruptions. Panic buying led to long lines at gas stations over the weekend, with many saying that they are now out of fuel. An acute shortage of truck drivers is behind fuel and food shortages, leading Prime Minister Boris Johnson to issue thousands of special visas for foreign drivers and to suspend some competition rules.

Google takes on the E.U. in court. A five-day hearing starts today in which the tech giant is challenging a 2018 antitrust fine of more than $5 billion. The European Union said that Google had abused its power in the smartphone market; the penalty was the first in a number of rulings targeting U.S. tech giants in Europe.

Huaweis long-running sanctions case is resolved. Meng Wanzhou, the Chinese companys finance chief who had been detained in Canada since 2018, reached a deal with the U.S. Justice Department, allowing her to return to China in exchange for admitting wrongdoing in a fraud case that became symbolic of China and Americas fraying relationship. In return, two Canadians who had been imprisoned in China since Mengs detention were freed.

Polestar, the Swedish high-end electric vehicle company, has signed a deal to go public at a $20 billion valuation, via a merger with a SPAC backed by the Gores Group and Guggenheim Capital. Polestar is owned by Volvo Cars and Volvos Chinese parent, Geely, with other investors including Leonardo DiCaprio. Polestars equity owners will roll over all of their interest in the deal and ultimately retain a 94 percent stake in the company.

Polestar has two models on the road, and it wants to launch three more by 2024. It delivered approximately 10,000 vehicles in 2020, but lags far behind the market leader, Tesla. Compared to us, Tesla is a very old company, said Thomas Ingenlath, Polestars C.E.O. Rather than spend capital building out electric-charging infrastructure, as Tesla did, Polestar can take advantage of existing infrastructure, he said. (In the U.S., that may still not be enough.)

See the original post here:

A Strange Voice on the Phone - The New York Times

Democratic and Republican voters are also urging the federal government to crack down on big tech companies by issuing stronger regulations.

A new poll reveals that 80% of registered voters believe in the impact of overgrown big tech companies and use our data to go too far into our lives. became.

Voters want policy makers to enhance user privacy and make big tech giants accountable.

They also show that they are very nervous about the impact of social media on their children.

According to the Washington Post, poll results are the result of the continued reassessment of the role of tech giants around the world.

Democratic and Republican voters are also urging the federal government to crack down on big tech companies by issuing stronger regulations.

The Benenson Strategy Group, in collaboration with the Public Opinion Strategies, surveyed 2,016 registered voters in late July on behalf of the Future of Tech Commission.

The results showed that 83% of Democrats and 78% of Republicans believe that federal policy makers need to take steps to limit the impact of big tech companies.

[The poll shows that] The technology industry must operate within boundaries, and the only organization that can bind it is the federal government, said former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who is also one of the three Co-Chairs committees. I told the newspaper.

Polls argue that strengthening user privacy and making big tech giants accountable are two of the top priorities for Americans in terms of technology policy.

However, despite strong support for antitrust legislation, 54% to 45% of voters agree that the dissolution of big tech companies threatens our countrys greatest impetus for innovation and growth. bottom.

Polls also found that 84% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans have expressed concern about how social media is affecting their children.

Polls argue that strengthening user privacy and making big tech giants accountable are two of the top priorities for Americans in terms of technology policy.

Polls also showed that most voters usually looked at big tech companies in a positive light, but their executives, including Mark Zuckerberg (pictured), werent very positive.

In addition, the Commission holds technical policy city halls nationwide.

What we consistently hear is that people want and expect federal leadership, said the Commission, who was Secretary of Education under former President George W. Bush. Co-Chair Margaret Spellings said.

Second, they want America, the United States to become a world leader in these issues.

Polls also showed that most voters are looking at big tech companies with the following favors: Google at 81 percent, Amazon at 74 percent, Apple at 67 percent, and Facebook at 53 percent.

Big Tech executives such as Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos were less favored.

Poll results say there is a 2.07% margin of error, as organizations have begun to assess the role of technology companies around the world.

Opinion polls revealed the following favors: Google is 81%, Amazon is 74% (photo by founder Jeff Bezos), Apple is 67%, Facebook is 53%.

Several major tech companies, including Facebook, Amazon, Apple (pictured by CEO Tim Cook), and Google, are exercising their power because of the fact that they operate in a dynamic and competitive market. It generally rejects the claim that it is too much.

Several major tech companies, including Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google, have argued that they are overpowering because of the fact that they operate in dynamic and competitive markets. Generally rejected.

However, at the same time, some companies have stated that they are open to privacy changes.

Steve Satterfield, Facebooks Vice President of Privacy and Public Policy, said: ..

Facebook also said the company had been advocating updated Internet regulations for some time. We will continue to work with Congress and government to set clear and fair rules that support a safe and secure open Internet.

Google, Apple and Amazon did not respond to newspaper responses to comments. The DailyMail.com has also contacted.

During his presidency, Donald Trump (photos (photos) protect so-called Big Tech like Facebook and Twitter from being held liable for anything posted on their site. Attempted to have lawmakers change section 230 of the law

Meanwhile, during his presidency, Donald Trump changed section 230 of the Common Sense Act to protect so-called Big Tech such as Facebook and Twitter from being held liable for anything posted on their site. I tried to make it.

Mr. Trump said keeping Section 230 intact is a win for foreign villains.

The law cant even make meaningful changes to Article 230 of the Correspondence Code, even though bipartisan demands that the provision be abolished, he said in December 2020. ..

Section 230 facilitates the spread of foreign disinformation online. This is a serious threat to our national security and election integrity. It must be abolished.

Trump also filed three class action proceedings against big tech giants YouTube, Facebook and Twitter this summer. He sought damages that could reach trillions for violating the rights of the First Amendment.

The proceedings allege a violation of the First Amendment by YouTube because the video platform alleges that it banned the former president at the request of Democrats.

He filed a proceeding in collaboration with the America First Policy Institute, which was established by a former member of his administration.

All three proceedings filed in Miami and Fort. Lauderdale, Florida also requires federal judges to declare Article 230 of the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional.

Democratic and Republican voters want the federal government to crack down on big tech giants

Source link Democratic and Republican voters want the federal government to crack down on big tech giants

Go here to read the rest:

Democratic and Republican voters want the federal government to crack down on big tech giants - Texasnewstoday.com

European Commission executive vice president Margrethe Vestager talks to media in Brussels, Belgium.

Thierry Monasse | Getty Images News | Getty Images

LONDON China and the U.S. are taking more aggressive steps in regulating large tech firms, challenging the European Union's dominance in the space.

For some time, the EU has led the way in regulating tech. This is partly because the region has no large technology firms of its own; as such, regulation was the one area where Europe could dominate. High-profile policies such as GDPR or the General Data Protection Regulation, which give users a stronger say over how their data is used made headlines around the world and forced technology giants to make changes.

But the United States is catching up and China is also taking it to a new level which has not only increased the pressure on Big Tech, but also questioned the role of the EU in this space.

"China, the U.S. they have started to figure out that they need rules," Dexter Thielen, lead analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit, told CNBC over the phone. As such, he said, "there is a competition in regulation."

Chinese authorities have introduced a slew of legislation in recent months targeting the tech sector. Anti-monopoly laws, stronger data protection rules and more have sparked new investigations and fines for a number of companies.

It has led to billions of dollars being wiped off the value of Chinese tech giants, with companies such as Tencent, Alibaba and Didi under pressure.

In the U.S. meanwhile, President Joe Biden in July signed a new executive order that impacts corporate consolidation and antitrust laws. It gives the Federal Trade Commission the ability to challenge prior "bad mergers" and limits noncompete agreements.

"If Europe does not catch up, it could perhaps do it by cooperating with the U.S. and other countries, it will lose its 'Brussels effect' not because of a decline in its soft power, but rather due to China's technological dominance, which will come with protocols, standards, specifications, and ultimately rules," Andrea Renda, senior research fellow at the think tank CEPS, told CNBC via email.

This means that the EU might have to diversify its approach beyond regulation if it wants to continue playing a key role in tech.

"There is a realization in Europe that regulation is not enough," the EIU's Thielen said.

In fact, there are plenty of initiatives that the European Commission the executive arm of the EU is working on that show an attempt to influence other areas in the sector.

Thierry Breton, Europe's single market chief, is working on an artificial intelligence strategy, on space traffic management standards which promote safe access to outer space, and others. More recently, the commission also announced plans to boost the production of semiconductors in the region.

All of these steps come under what some EU policymakers describe as digital sovereignty: the idea that the bloc needs to foster its own innovation and become less reliant on foreign technology and companies.

But the question is whether it will succeed and how quickly. One of the biggest criticisms of the EU is how long it takes to implement new laws.

A recent example is the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act two major pieces of legislation aimed at ensuring fairer competition, which were presented in December but are unlikely to be put into action before mid-2022 at the earliest.

"For the DSA as well as the DMA, which are both far-reaching and extremely difficult to assess with regard to their economic consequences, Member States' views are as different as chalk and cheese, making it very unlikely to see any material progress at any time soon," Matthias Bauer, senior economist at the think tank ECIPE, said.

He recognized that there is an overall aim between the U.S., the EU and China: to grant users more control over certain data and limit the potential market power of digital giants. However, he stressed that each region has a different approach and "significant regulatory divergence will be the likely outcome."

In the end, Emre Peker, director at the consultancy firm Eurasia, said it was too soon to say that the EU is losing its crown as the world's top tech regulator.

"While the EU cannot control the commercial and regulatory trends in Beijing and Washington, it will steadfastly work to maintain its pole position in rulemaking, with some success," he said, however, "regulations alone will not help the EU's industrial push to decrease interdependencies."

"That's a reality most European policymakers are aware of, but don't have a remedy for at this time," he added.

Follow this link:

China and the U.S. are challenging Europes role as top tech regulator - CNBC

Despite the common belief in Silicon Valley that leaking is a bad thing, in some cases it is the only thing. Horwitz, the Wall Street Journal reporter behind the series, and Kang both told me that they get tips and documents only when insiders lose hope that they can make change happen internally. And, in my experience, those who leak are not typically disgruntled but frustrated that their best work is being sullied by careless or even malfeasant leaders.

Many years ago, a top Yahoo executive who was exasperated by all the internal information I was able to access at her company called me to ask why people leaked to me.

My answer: Because she wasnt listening to them but she sure as heck listened to me.

And theyd all better listen when lawmakers start talking next week.

As I wrote recently, China is cracking down on tech, and today it made another big move by hitting hard at the fast-growing (yet still nascent) cryptocurrency sector. The Peoples Bank of China put a Q&A on its website that essentially declared the use of digital currency illegal.

You read that right: illegal.

Financial institutions and nonbank payment institutions cannot offer services to activities and operations related to virtual currencies, the central bank said. China already moved earlier this year to crack down on cryptomining.

Its a big blow to the freewheeling sector and a sign that the Chinese government will not tolerate any other entity grabbing a critical means of social control. No surprise, the value of Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin and even Dogecoin dropped. Companies that service the crypto sector, including Coinbase, were also down.

It makes noises from the U.S. government seem minuscule in comparison. This week, in a Washington Post virtual forum, Gary Gensler, the Securities and Exchange Commission chair, said, I dont think theres long-term viability for five or six thousand private forms of money. So in the meantime, I think its worthwhile to have an investor-protection regime placed around this.

See more here:

Opinion | Will Lawmakers Finally Act Against Big Tech? - The New York Times

This most recent Russian election provides clear evidence that the Russian Government is meddling as much in their own elections, to achieve the Kremlin-designed outcome, as they have in recent American elections with one RFE/RL headline proclaiming: Hacking Servers. Online Blocking. Police Raids. Information Attacks. What Wont The Kremlin Do To Stop Smart Voting?

This election is also seen by many Russians as a precursor to the 2024 Presidential election. In 2020, Russian President Vladimir Putins super-majority United Russia ruling party amended the Russian Constitution, allowing Putin to seek two more terms as president and potentially remain in office until 2036.

Already a member?Sign in to your account.

OODA Loop provides actionable intelligence, analysis, and insight on global security, technology, and business issues. Our members are global leaders, technologists, and intelligence and security professionals looking to inform their decision making process to understand and navigate global risks and opportunities.

You can chose to be an OODA Loop Subscriber or an OODA Network Member. Subscribers get access to all site content, while Members get all site content plus additional Member benefits such as participation in our Monthly meetings, exclusive OODA Unlocked Discounts, discounted training and conference attendance, job opportunities, our Weekly Research Report, and other great benefits.

For more information please click here. Thanks!

Already a member?Sign in to your account.

Now more than ever, organizations need to apply rigorous thought to business risks and opportunities. In doing so it is useful to understand the concepts embodied in the terms Black Swan and Gray Rhino. See: Potential Future Opportunities, Risks and Mitigation Strategies in the Age of Continuous Crisis

The OODA leadership and analysts have decades of experience in understanding and mitigating cybersecurity threats and apply this real world practitioner knowledge in our research and reporting. This page on the site is a repository of the best of our actionable research as well as a news stream of our daily reporting on cybersecurity threats and mitigation measures. See:Cybersecurity Sensemaking

OODAs leadership and analysts have decades of direct experience helping organizations improve their ability to make sense of their current environment and assess the best courses of action for success going forward. This includes helping establish competitive intelligence and corporate intelligence capabilities.Our special series on the Intelligent Enterprise highlights research and reports that can accelerate any organization along their journey to optimized intelligence. See: Corporate Sensemaking

This page serves as a dynamic resource for OODA Network members looking for Artificial Intelligence information to drive their decision-making process. This includes a special guide for executives seeking to make the most of AI in their enterprise. See: Artificial Intelligence Sensemaking

From the very beginning of the pandemic we have focused on research on what may come next and what to do about it today. This section of the site captures the best of our reporting plus daily daily intelligence as well as pointers to reputable information from other sites. See: OODA COVID-19 Sensemaking Page.

A dynamic resource for OODA Network members looking for insights into the current and future developments in Space, including a special executives guide to space. See: Space Sensemaking

OODA is one of the few independent research sources with experience in due diligence on quantum computing and quantum security companies and capabilities. Our practitioners lens on insights ensures our research is grounded in reality. See: Quantum Computing Sensemaking.

In 2020, we launched the OODAcast video and podcast series designed to provide you with insightful analysis and intelligence to inform your decision making process. We do this through a series of expert interviews and topical videos highlighting global technologies such as cybersecurity, AI, quantum computing along with discussions on global risk and opportunity issues. See: The OODAcast

See original here:

Smart Voting App, Removed by U.S. Tech Giants, Threatens Putin's United Russia Party in Recent Duma Election - OODA Loop

By Sheila Dang

(Reuters) -Facebook Inc will invest $50 million to partner with organizations to responsibly build the so-called metaverse https://www.reuters.com/technology/facebook-sets-up-new-team-work-metaverse-2021-07-26 - a digital world where people can use different devices to move and communicate in a virtual environment, it said on Monday.

Facebook, the world's largest social network, has invested heavily in virtual reality and augmented reality, developing hardware such as its Oculus VR headsets and working on AR glasses and wristband technologies. The company has been criticized over its impact on online safety.

The new XR Programs and Research Fund will invest the money globally over two years to ensure metaverse technologies are "built in a way that's inclusive and empowering," Facebook said.

The company said it plans to work with researchers across four areas including data privacy and safety, to allow users to get help if something they see in the metaverse makes them uncomfortable.

It will also research how to design technologies that are inclusive and accessible to all users, and also "encourage competition" in the nascent industry, Facebook added in a blog post.

Facebook has faced scrutiny on a wide range of internet issues, such as the spread of disinformation and social media's negative impact on teens.

Also on Monday, Facebook said it paused development on Instagram Kids, an app that would have provided age-appropriate content for kids under 13. U.S. lawmakers and advocacy groups have cited safety concerns and urged Facebook to drop the launch plans.

A Facebook executive will testify on Thursday at a U.S. Senate committee hearing on the impact of its Instagram app on young users' mental health.

Initial partners for Facebook's new metaverse fund include Howard University in Washington D.C., which will research the history of diversity in the information technology industry and how it could shape opportunity in the metaverse.

Seoul National University and the University of Hong Kong will research safety, ethics and responsible design, Facebook said.

(Reporting by Sheila Dang in DallasEditing by Matthew Lewis and David Gregorio)

Read more from the original source:

Facebook invests $50 million to build the 'metaverse' in responsible manner - Yahoo News

Former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, who was instrumental in putting together the Sept. 15 warning, is a senior adviser with the law firm King & Spalding, which represents Google before the House Judiciary Committee in the panels antitrust investigation into the tech giants. King & Spalding wrote a white paper released last week by Googles major trade group, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, making similar arguments that the antitrust bills could harm national security.

Those tech ties were not immediately apparent when the dozen former officials sent their letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, urging lawmakers to pause action on a bipartisan package of antitrust bills aimed at Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon. But their revelation could deepen skepticism in Congress about the beware-of-China message.

It is not surprising that individuals who receive money from Big Tech are defending Big Tech, said Colorado Rep. Ken Buck, the antitrust panels top Republican, in a statement to POLITICO. At the end of the day, Big Tech is harming U.S. competition and innovation through anticompetitive practices.

None of the former officials who signed onto the letter responded to requests for comment. Axios first reported on the letters existence last week, while noting that several of the signers had tech industry ties.

The former officials allies say their argument remains valid.

It shouldn't be surprising that national security officials would have concerns about legislation that would hamstring U.S. tech companies while not applying to their foreign competitors, said Heather Greenfield, a CCIA spokesperson. She said the tech trade group had not participated in drafting or disseminating the letter to Pelosi or McCarthy.

Tech trade groups have promoted the anti-China message for years as they have sought to avoid antitrust action. Similarly embattled industries have also argued that regulations from Washington could harm U.S. competitiveness whether it was the financial industry pointing to Japan while pressing for deregulation in the 1990s, or Qualcomm arguing during the Trump era that the U.S. was ceding the future of 5G to China by pursuing a case against the company.

This time, the warnings are falling flat among the critics of the big tech companies.

Its a really smart way to go after Republicans, to go after the national security angle, said Jon Schweppe, the director of policy and government affairs at the right-wing American Principles Project, which supports the antitrust crackdown. But the thing weve found, and we see it with this letter ... is that whenever people are making these arguments, they are funded by big tech and these are arguments coming directly from strategy meetings being held between Google, Facebook, Apple and all their public policy teams.

Its hard to lend that any sort of credibility once you know thats the case, Schweppe said.

Among the letter-signers tech ties:

Seven of the 12, including Panetta, hold roles at Beacon Global Strategies, a public relations firm that according to a person familiar with the matter counts Google as a client. (The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because the firm does not publicize its clientele.)

Google and Beacon Global Strategies did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Five of the former officials, including former director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Robert Cardillo and former National Security Agency deputy director Richard Ledgett, serve as advisory board members at Beacon. Panetta and Michael Morell, a former acting CIA director under President Barack Obama, are senior counselors for the firm.

Cardillo, the former NGA director, earlier this year became chair of the board of the Earth imaging company Planet Federal. Planet Federal is a division of Planet Labs, a company in which Google has a significant equity stake.

All the signatories have connections to organizations that either receive money from the tech giants or defense companies that partner closely with Amazon and Google a sign of just how ubiquitous big tech funding has become in Washingtons policy world.

Sue Gordon, a former principal deputy director of national intelligence, is an advisory board member of the Antonin Scalia Law Schools National Security Institute, which counts Amazon as a major funder. James Foggo III, a retired Navy admiral, is a fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, which Google lists as one of the organizations it funds.

Frances Townsend, who was a counterterrorism and homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush, is on the national security advisory board for American Edge, a Facebook-funded group that opposes changes to strengthen antitrust laws.

Townsend is also on the board of directors of the Atlantic Council, which counts Facebook and Google as funders; the board of trustees for Center for Strategic and International Studies, which counts Apple and Google as funders; and the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, which receives money from Microsoft and counts Facebook and Google in its highest membership category.

Whatever other impact letter has, it appears to have inspired at least one other former national security official to speak out on behalf of stronger antitrust laws Wes Clark, a former Democratic presidential candidate who was NATOs supreme allied commander in Europe, last week tweeted, We cannot let anxiety around competitiveness with China become an excuse to look the other way on anticompetitive behavior by large U.S. technology firms.

View post:

12 former security officials who warned against antitrust crackdown have tech ties - POLITICO