Daily Archives: March 18, 2022

Margrethe Vestager is one of the driving forces behind tech regulation worldwide. Appointed as the European Commissions commissioner of competition in 2014 and an executive vice president in 2019, shes pursued antitrust cases against Apple, Google, Meta (formerly Facebook), and Amazon among others. Now, with the EU on the verge of implementing a new antitrust law called the Digital Markets Act, Vestager is planning her next moves.

The DMA designates a category of tech gatekeepers, then outlines rules against behaviors like giving preference to their own services or gaining an unfair advantage with analytics data. Vestager hopes it can address systemic problems that individual enforcement actions cant, and that it will streamline cases the EU does bring against companies. But when I caught up with her at the SXSW conference in Austin, where she was speaking about disinformation and democracy, she said theres still work left to do before it passes.

Theres also a wide range of emerging technologies that could pose new problems, like cryptocurrency and the metaverse which Vestager has said probably needs regulation once she figures out exactly what it is. And we discussed the questions that antitrust rules cant answer, like how companies should respond to illegal content on their platforms.

Ok, Margrethe Vestager. Here we go.

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager, welcome to Decoder.

Well, thank you very much.

Lets start by laying out the field of antitrust enforcement right now for the EU. Could you go through the big cases that are on the table?

On Friday we just opened a new case with Google and Facebook, now Meta. Its called Jedi Blue, named after the codename for an agreement that they seem to have entered back in 2018, with the aim, seemingly, to kill off Google competitors in the advertising ecosystem. We also have another Google case exclusively focusing on Google and the ad-tech stack, looking at some of the behaviors that seem to be anti-competitive.

Then we have three Apple cases: one concerning music streaming services and the 30 percent fee, then we have a more general Apple App Store case, and then we have an Apple Pay case about access to the payment infrastructure or technology on your phone. We have two Amazon cases: one concerns access to data it seems as if Amazon Retail have had access to all the data from the smaller retailers on the Amazon marketplace, enabling Amazon Retail to have a head start on numerous products and prices in the marketplace and the second is about their fulfillment system. We also have a case concerning advertising in the Facebook environment. So our to-do list is quite full.

It is. You also have new regulations that are going to, in theory, come into force reasonably soon.

Yes. One of the things that I have learned over these seven years [as a European Commissioner] is that some of these behaviors are systemic, and then you need a systemic answer. Also, that we need to gain speed. Because if illegal behavior is allowed to continue even for a short amount of time, the risk that competitors will suffer and because of that, consumers will suffer is really big. So with the Digital Markets Act, we want a very simple, fundamental thing: we want the market to be open and contestable. So it depends on your ideas, your work ethics, your ability to attract capital, whether youll be successful with your customers or not. And unfortunately, because of the systemic nature of behavior, thats not necessarily the case today.

Would you be able to go through some of the specifics of the Digital Markets Act?

The idea is to say that youre more than welcome to be successful in the European market, but if you grow in market power, you should also grow in responsibility. So we have developed a set of objective criteria, and if you fall into those, we will designate you as a gatekeeper. That will give you certain prohibitions and obligations. A prohibition could be that youre not allowed to self-preference. Or in neighboring markets to the market where you are the gatekeeper, an obligation could be to share data if you are in the gatekeepers marketplace, you would actually get data that your own business is generating, for yourself and for the development of your business.

Youve talked about enforceability being the last piece of the puzzle for the Digital Markets Act. Could you talk a little bit more about what that means and what its going to require?

Sometimes it makes me feel very old, but having been working with legislation for a huge majority of my life, I have realized that legislation is only as good as its enforcement. So its really important that we get the enforcement set up in a way that it will work on the ground. Because we have a lot of ambitions, but they should become real in everyday life, for businesses that want to be in an open, contestable market.

These are not trivial things its not trivial to designate a gatekeeper. Its not trivial to have the regulatory dialogue so that gatekeepers know what theyre supposed to do. So that is the last piece of the puzzle that we are pushing in the late phase of the negotiations of the Digital Markets Act.

You talked a little bit about this, but I want to expand on it more. What are the key elements of making sure this is enforceable?

One of the things we need to maintain is that the commission is responsible for the enforcement. We have very good experience working with national competition authorities, and we need all resources to be mobilized in order to enforce our rules. But we should also maintain that its the commission who has the last word who would take the decisions and enforce this piece of legislation. And in the last phases of a negotiation, sometimes you need to take a step back to make sure that you get the fundamentals right, so the legislation is not challengeable. So its really about staying focused in the last part of a negotiation, so that we know that what is in the regulation are things that we actually have a very clear idea of how they will work in real life.

What are some examples of cases we might see with the Digital Markets Act that havent been possible so far?

Hopefully a lot of things will be solved before it becomes a real issue. Because the entire idea is that we do not want more markets to tip. We do not want things to happen because of illegal behavior in the marketplace.

And deciding beforehand, based on objective criteria, that [companies] do have these obligations, things they can and cannot do, will speed things up. When we open a competition case today, the first thing we do is to assess whether the business is dominant in the relevant market, and that in itself can take a surprisingly long time. And only if we can prove dominance do we have a case, because a smaller business thats not dominant can do a huge number of things that the dominant company cannot.

Saying beforehand You are now designated a gatekeeper should give us that speed in making sure that the marketplace is open, that there is no self-preferencing, that businesses get their data, that app stores are open; that a second app store can be on your phone if you would want it to. And that kind of speed, I think, mirrors the nature of digital markets.

I think theres often a sense of cynicism around tech company enforcement that the companies will just opt to pay a fine and get a monetary slap on the wrist. How does the Digital Markets Act address that?

Its not just a theory. The Dutch competition authorities had a case where they asked Apple to change a certain behavior in the App Store, and so far Apple has not implemented those changes and they pay a weekly fine I think its five million euros. And that is really thought-provoking, because the idea, of course, from the Dutch authority is that in implementing those changes, youd have a more fair market situation.

This is why, in the Digital Markets Act, there is a full toolbox where the sanctions become more and more severe. The fines will increase if you do not implement changes. Eventually, in the toolbox, theres also the tool that you can actually break up a company if no change is happening, or if you are a repeat offender.

What is the interplay right now between EU and US regulation and enforcement? The Jedi Blue case you mentioned began as a state lawsuit in the US.

Yes. We took inspiration from the state attorney general in Texas who filed this suit, and we opened our own with the CMA [Competition and Markets Authority] of the UK. I think it shows that there is a sense of alignment. We do not have a global competition authority. We have many different competition authorities. But there is a new sense of common purpose here for the market to stay open. I keep a map where I can sort of put pins in things, like: now the Australians, they are looking into this behavior; now the Indians are into that behavior; now the South Americans, they are looking into this. And there is a pattern showing that competition authorities all over the planet are zooming in on the digital economy in order to make sure that markets are competitive.

We also have very close cooperation with our US colleagues. In parallel to the [EU-US] Trade and Technology Council, we have a policy dialogue between the US and EU on competition in tech-driven markets; we had the first interaction of that and that was, I think, very successful. It may take some time before we do common cases, depending on the market situation, but I think the alignment as to how we see these markets is increasing more and more.

You mentioned Australia, and there are other countries like Korea that are working on antitrust actions. Where do you think the most interesting things are happening outside the US and Europe?

I cant really pick. I think there are a lot of interesting things ongoing. In some jurisdictions they have the same idea, that law enforcement in specific cases should be complemented with regulation. We do not act as one competition authority because we have different traditions, differences in legislation, different tools that we can use, but I find it really encouraging that there is a sense of community when it comes to enforcing tech cases.

For your agency specifically because there is this absolutely vast swath of potential cases how do you pick where youre going to focus enforcement actions?

Obviously its really important for us when people complain, because that gives us access to how they see the market situation. Very often, they come with data that allows us to ask more qualified questions, to find evidence if evidence is to be found.

Were also really careful to scope the cases so that we focus on what may be the most harmful illegal behavior, and that allows us to make the most efficient use of resources. We hope that the Digital Markets Act will take care of some of the cases we had before, allowing us to focus on some of the issues that the Digital Markets Act will not deal with one of the things would be something like the Jedi Blue case.

Youve talked about how you theoretically want to regulate the metaverse, but that its still very early days and youre trying to figure out what it is. What would it take for your agency to develop the expertise that you would need to go after potential violations there?

Well, metaverse or no metaverse, we are in the process of changing the composition [of our group] so we can hire more people who have technical capabilities. We use more technical digital tools than we used to otherwise our work is simply not possible. If we send a request for information, for example, you may get millions of documents and you can only go through that many with the help of digital tools. So we are already in a period of change and have been for some time. Where that would lead us, I think still remains to be seen, but its something that needs to happen before we say now there is an established thing that we could call the metaverse.

Im also curious how youre looking into the cryptocurrency space.

From a competition perspective, its early days. My colleague Mairead McGuinness, who is responsible for financial matters, is of course watching this very carefully. The European Central Bank and the different national central banks are also considering making a digital euro basically to take back part of the essential monetary policy that allows you to actually issue means of payment. Its not a cryptocurrency, its a real official currency, so to speak.

But its something that we follow very closely, because when it comes to things like payment and financing, its really complex and very often its hidden from people what they actually pay.

Do you see there being potential competition issues in the crypto space? Decentralization is supposed to be a big element of it, but there are currency exchanges and NFT marketplaces that are turning out to be very close to gatekeepers.

Well, we havent had complaints about it yet. So it still remains to be seen what specific cases may develop in the future.

I wanted to talk about the Digital Services Act, which is the counterpart to the Digital Markets Act Im specifically interested in the liability of platforms for illegal content. To start, could you lay out how that works?

The Digital Services Act addresses both content and products. When it comes to products, platforms would have an obligation to know their business customers to make sure that your products are safe, that people can come back and complain about them, that they have their consumers rights.

When it comes to content, there are two obligations. First would be to take down things that are considered to be illegal if flagged, while at the same time making sure that you can complain if content of yours is taken down. Second, that companies do a horizontal risk assessment as to whether or not their services can be misused to undermine democracy or put peoples mental health at risk. If these risks are being found, you need to mitigate them.

When it comes to liabilities for the platform themselves, that would only kick in if people can make the assumption that its actually the platform that was behind this. I think its easier to understand when its physical products if you dont realize that youre dealing with a business that is on a platform, but think that its actually the platform that youre dealing with, then the platform may assume liability.

The question about removing illegal content is a very hot topic in the US. Theres a fear that adding this requirement is going to lead platforms to over-moderate and take down content indiscriminately to say, look, wed rather be safe than sorry and that this might particularly affect vulnerable groups. And people might not fully understand the process of trying to get that content put back up. How do you see the Digital Services Act addressing that?

This is exactly why people should get notified and have a chance of having their post put back up again. It is a difficult thing to do, because there is a gray zone here where things are not illegal, but they may be hurtful for people. There may be conflicts coming from it, but its your right to say whatever you want, as long as its not illegal. So this is why we have crafted this balance. We think this will work because of course over-removal is something we are trying to avoid.

If something like the Digital Markets Act successfully reduces the power of big gatekeepers and big tech platforms, what effect do you see that having on the other tech issues like disinformation?

I think different tools are needed. My colleague Vra Jourov has been responsible for working with platforms based on the EU code of conduct. Weve just strengthened the code of conduct and all of the big platforms have signed up for it TikTok, Google, all the big ones. I think the cooperation is quite good, and it has been essential during the pandemic. Its really important for us not to think that there is one silver bullet. To make the digital world a fully integrated part of our world, many things need to happen at the same time. And I think the code of conduct combined with the regulation creates a balance and that is probably the most effective way to go about it.

I think theres a broad understanding that people want to lessen the power of gatekeepers and have fewer central choke points for the internet, but at the same time, as weve seen with the war in Ukraine, the same people rely on these big central gatekeepers to cut off things they want to see taken offline, like Russian propaganda. It seems theoretically possible that if you lessen the power of these companies, you suddenly dont have these points where you can exercise control over something like disinformation. Is that something that youve thought about?

Its quite a special situation that were in, because we see the actions here as part of the sanctions because Russia Today and Sputnik, they are completely state-controlled media. So we see them as part of the war machine. And the sanctions are why it works all over the European Union at the same time. But I dont see that there is a need just to have a few gatekeepers for that to be effective, because even if there were many more outlets for these media, they would also be on board to do this.

What are the broader lessons that we can draw from the digital response to the war in Ukraine?

I think its a very old truth that the first victim in a war is truth, because it becomes increasingly difficult to trust what youre being told. Having social media, of course, amplifies propaganda and misinformation to a completely different degree than what it was just 10 years ago. As horrible as it is on the ground for the people who are being shelled, for people being bombed, it is also a war about how you see the war. This is why its so important that we have good cooperation with the platforms to make sure the propaganda is not allowed to remain on them.

For the last few years, weve been going through what people are dubbing the techlash. Im curious if you think this is a temporary moment, or if theres been a permanent shift thats put public opinion on a different trajectory.

I think its a permanent shift, because from the very early days of digitization, maybe we didnt really notice that it grew to have such an importance in our lives. But the thing was that as our digital world grew, it pushed back on where our democracy has a say because the physical world became of less and less importance in many peoples lives, and what they do online takes up a lot of hours every day.

What is happening right now is that democracy is coming back in to say, well, no. Democracy counts in the digital world as well as the physical one. It must be that what we agree is illegal actually is illegal and is treated as such. And what is legal is legal and treated as such. And that, I think, is a permanent thing that democracy is coming back to be able to govern our society when its digital.

Thank you, its been wonderful talking to you.

Thank you very much for doing this. I appreciate it.

Follow this link:

How the EU is fighting tech giants with Margrethe Vestager - The Verge

JHVEPhoto/iStock Editorial via Getty Images

Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) is showing a rapid growth in its subscription business and has recently crossed 50 million subscriber milestone on its YouTube Premium and Music platform. Within the music streaming business, Google is close to Apple (AAPL) and Amazon (AMZN) and is showing the fastest growth rate according to MIDiA research report. At the current growth rate, it should be possible for Google to reach 200 million subscribers on its YouTube subscription platform by 2025.

Subscription business is the new battleground for tech companies. All the tech players are looking to increase their subscription revenue as it gives them a recurring base of revenue and also improves the ecosystem of services. Amazon is in the lead with its Prime membership and has reported over $30 billion in subscription revenue in the trailing twelve months. Apple is also looking to gain more members for Apple One, TV+, music streaming, and other services. Google has an advantage in this segment due to its YouTube platform and the strong market share within smart speaker and smart home devices business. Rapid growth in subscription revenue can improve the valuation multiple of Google and boost the bullish sentiment towards the stock.

Subscription business is the new battlefield among tech majors. All tech giants want to increase their subscription revenue and build a strong ecosystem of products and services. Amazon is currently in the lead due to its Prime membership which is backed by the massive logistics network and rapid investment in streaming video. Apple is also increasing investment in TV+ and has promoted Apple One as a combo option to get all subscriptions. Google was quite late to this business and has only recently invested significant resources to improve the subscription services.

However, the management's efforts are showing good results. The company has already reported over 50 million subscribers on YouTube Premium and Music. It is close to Amazon and Apple in terms of market share in the music streaming business. According to the report by MIDiA Research, the growth rate of YouTube Music is a lot higher than Apple and Amazon. It is possible that Google overtakes these two companies within the next two years. This would be a big win for Google as the company was lagging a lot.

MIDiA Research

Figure 1: YouTube is in third place among big tech players within music streaming segment.

Amazon has created the perfect flywheel effect through its subscription business. It has used Prime membership revenue to boost investment in logistics and is now heavily investing in streaming video content. At the current growth rate, Amazon could hit $100 billion in revenue in the subscription business by 2025 which shows the potential of subscription segment.

Amazon Filings

Figure 2: Amazon has shown strong growth in subscription business at a high revenue base.

Google has launched Pixel Pass which provides customers all the services of Google along with an option to update their Pixel device every two years. This is a seamless merger of hardware and software in one subscription plan. We could see more focus on this option as Google tries to improve the market share in the smartphone industry and also launches new services within the subscription segment.

Even at 50 million subscribers, YouTube Premium could start making an impact on Google's top line. At the higher end, if we count every subscriber as paid and using the YouTube Premium option of $11.99 per month, it would be equal to $7 billion annual revenue. Other services like Google One and Nest Aware could further increase this revenue base. The growth rate for subscription services is quite high and we could easily see this number cross 200 million by 2025.

The biggest advantage for a strong subscription business is the tailwind it provides for other services and products. Google has a wide range of smart home devices and is trying to increase Pixel sales. More subscribers using Google services would help Pixel Pass subscription which combines Pixel device with other subscription plans.

Amazon has also used its Prime membership to drive sales of Echo products. Prime members using Amazon Music on Echo devices can get very attractive rates. This ends up creating more loyalty within Prime membership and also increases sales of Amazon Music and Echo devices. Google could replicate a similar strategy by combining its hardware and services within one single subscription plan with very attractive rates.

Alphabet stock is trading at a lower PE multiple compared to Apple which derives 80% of its revenue base from products like iPhones, iPads, Mac and others. While Apple has made huge investments to ramp up its subscription business for its own services, Google has reported better growth and membership numbers in recent quarters. It should be noted that Apple, Netflix (NFLX), Disney (DIS) and other streaming giants need to invest tens of billions of dollars every year to build an attractive subscription platform. However, Google would be spending a fraction of that amount on YouTube content development.

Google also has a number of levers to pull more users to the subscription option on YouTube. It has already restricted download options for non-subscribers. We could even see a limit to the video quality allowed for non-subscribers on YouTube. Google could easily restrict the highest quality videos for YouTube Premium users. If Google is able to reach 200 million subscribers by 2025 on YouTube and other services with an average revenue per user of $150, it would add $30 billion of annual subscription revenue for the company. Hence, the subscription business could be a major driver for Google's top-line and bottom-line growth.

Ycharts

Figure 3: Comparison of Alphabet and Netflix's growth and PE metrics.

Alphabet is trading at a lower PE multiple compared to Netflix which is market leader in subscriptions. However, Google's subscription growth is a lot higher than Netflix and Google has a longer growth runway. Google's ecosystem will also benefit massively from a strong subscriber base compared to Netflix which should give this business a higher valuation multiple on a standalone basis.

Investors should closely follow the subscription growth trajectory of Google to gauge the long-term growth potential of the stock and the ability of the company to build a strong moat in new services and products.

Google has cornered close to 8% market share within the music streaming industry and is placed behind Apple Music and Amazon Music. The growth rate of YouTube Music is the highest which could lead the company to dethrone both Amazon and Apple in the music streaming ranking in the near term. Google's management has already announced that they have over 50 million subscribers on YouTube Premium and YouTube Music platform. It is likely that Google will push more users to become paid subscribers by limiting the options for free users on YouTube.

It should be noted that the company spends a fraction of amount on content development on YouTube compared to Netflix, Disney, Apple, and Amazon. This should free a lot of resources for Google to divert to other growth segments. Google's Pixel Pass subscription option is another initiative by the company to tie up its hardware and services together. This will increase hardware sales and will be a massive boost to the overall ecosystem. The Alphabet stock is also trading at a modest PE multiple compared to Apple, Netflix and other major tech stocks which increase the long-term returns for investors at the current price point.

Read the original:

Alphabet Can Race Ahead Of Other Tech Giants - Seeking Alpha

A large number of employers are calling employees back to offices, but a lot of them are also ensuring that their tools can support the modern workplace system of hybrid working.Tech giants have realised that hybrid and remote working are not going to disappear from the modern corporate workforce anytime soon.The start of the COVID-19 pandemic ushered in a new era for the modern workplace. Almost overnight companies had to shift, adapt and overcome challenges to become fully digital workplaces. Companies quickly got the hang of the new normal. Collaborative tools, productivity solutions, and communications apps were used and updated across the board to enable seamless asynchronous working.

Two years have passed since then. Offices are opening up, employees are being called back, but the new normal doesnt look like its departing anytime soon. Repeated new waves of the pandemic, especially those caused by emerging variants, push back opening plans and most employees themselves prefer to be working from home. This has resulted in the advent of hybrid working employees being able to work from both the office and their home.

Tech giants like Alphabets Google, Microsoft, and Salesforce, among others, have been quick to realise the shifting dynamics. These companies, whose tools are some of the most important for shared remote workspaces, are continuing to tailor their solutions for these remote workspaces.

Read Also |

Googles latest change to Google Docs and Microsofts updates to Teams and Outlook are examples of this development.

Google has introduced a new feature to Google Docs that lets individuals work together on a new template to draft emails. The tool will allow users to draft emails with comments and suggestions from other team members. The update will be available to all Google Workspace customers, as well as users on the legacy G Suite Basic and Business plans. The new feature is part of Googles smart canvas initiative, which seeks to seamlessly connect different Google services like Meet, Docs, and Gmail.

The idea is similar to Microsofts Fluid Office Document launched last year. Instead of using multiple applications like Word, PowerPoint, Excel and others, Fluid allows users to essentially create Lego blocks of components like tables and more. These are called Fluid components and are hosted on the internet where anyone can use these in different ways and edit them on the fly.

Imagine you could take those Lego pieces and put them in any place you wanted: in emails, in chats, in other apps. As people work on them, they will always be updated and contain the latest information, explained Jared Spataro, head of Microsoft 365, in an interview to The Verge.

Now Microsofts new update to Outlook and Teams is aimed at helping hybrid workers communicate and work better together with a variety of new features. Outlooks new RSVPs allow team members to say whether theyll be attending meetings remotely or in person, whileLoop components, an idea similar to Fluid components but for Teams, will be added to Outlook as well. Teams will also get new features like Speaker Coach, Inspiration Library, and Front Row to improve productivity for remote and hybrid workforces.

(Edited by : Thomas Abraham)

Follow this link:

How tech giants are tailoring their solutions to meet the new normal in productivity - CNBCTV18

A new ad from a group advocating for tech reform will slam industry giants over their handling of Russian disinformation amid the war in Ukraine.

The Tech Oversight Projects 30-second TV ad will run in the Washington, D.C., market starting Tuesday and accuses tech giants of helping spread Russian disinformation despite their public pledges to crack down on the state-controlled media.

Big Tech says theyre taking action, but new reports show some of them are still helping Russia spread disinformation, a narrator says, according to a copy of the ad exclusively shared with The Hill.

The group, which launched in January and is primarily funded by the Omidyar Network and the Economic Security Project, is pushing for antitrust reform as a way to curb companies power.

Simply put, Big Tech is not doing enough to stop Russian disinformation campaigns if they are still cashing Kremlin-backed checks on their platforms. This is part of a broader pattern of Big Tech concealing the truth from both the public and lawmakers this timewith devastating consequences for the people of Ukraine and shows why they cannot be trusted, Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, said in a statement.

Americans are crystal clear where they stand: hold Big Tech accountable for their actions that harm small businesses, users, and national security by passing antitrust reform now, Haworth added.

The ad broadly attacks the four largest tech companies targeted in antitrust reform proposals Meta, Google, Amazon and Apple but specifically calls outMeta and Google based on reporting about ads on the platforms spreading pro-Russian disinformation.

Both Meta, Facebooks parent company, and Google said they would stop allowing Russian state media to run ads on their platforms at the end of February, after Russia launched its invasion into Ukraine. The companies also took further action to restrict access to Russian state-controlled media after calls from global leaders.

Last week, however, Axios reported that ads from Chinese state broadcaster CGTN are running on Facebook targeting global users with pro-Russian talking points.

AMeta spokesperson did not directly respond to the report or the ad but highlightedMeta's policy of labeling state-controlled media entities, including CGTN.

NewsGuard reported last week that dozens of websites promoting Russian disinformation about the war in Ukraine, including official Russian state media sources, continued to receive revenue from advertisements including ones served on Google.

A spokesperson for Google in a statement said the company had stoppedmonetizing Russia state-funded media last month.

"Since then, our teams have continued to evaluate sites across our network and we will take action as we detect additional state-funded media entities, the spokesperson said. "Further, all publishers must abide by our existing policies, which prohibit content that incites violence, promotes hate, or denies the occurrence of tragic events.

Link:

New ad slams tech giants over Russian disinformation | TheHill - The Hill

It is rumoured in the Chinese social media platform Weibo that tech giants Alibaba and Tencent employees are expecting around 30 per cent job cuts.

On March 13 and 14, Alibaba and Tencent layoffs appeared on Weibo trends, reported local media.

There was internal speculation among employees, that Tencent expects to lay off 10 per cent to 30 per cent of its employees, and Alibaba will lay off 30 per cent of its employees.

Since the pandemic began there have been many layoffs by the tech giants. Meanwhile, Alibaba and Tencent both of them are the biggest tech companies in China.

Alibaba's community group-buying business unit MMC is reportedly planning to lay off about 20 per cent of its employees, reported Chinese media publication Yilanshangye.

The reported layoffs come amid an ongoing crackdown on tech in Beijing. While iQiyi is reportedly letting go of around 20 per cent to 40 per cent of its current workforce, Kuaishou is looking to lay off 30 per cent of its staff.

Tencent started layoffs within small business departments in September 2021.

The posts on Weibo showed that the current economic situation is being reflected in the following things: internet tech layoffs; real estate debt crisis; salary cuts for government services and negative growth of residents' medium and long-term loans.

China has recorded the lowest economic growth in four decades as it grew by 2.3 per cent according to the latest data provided by the National Bureau of Statistics.

China, which is the second-biggest economy in the world, is facing a slowdown due to a slump in manufacturing, real estate, exports, inflation, and consumer spending, according to several reports, which added that the ongoing Ukraine crisis poses may further damage its economy.

This year, China has set a target of around 5.5 per cent for GDP growth, which is the lowest in decades.

The Hong Kong Post reported that rising crude oil prices and hurdles in the development of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) are going to worsen China's economic woes. China's GDP had grown by 8.1 per cent in 2021. However, it would not be easy for China to even reach 5.5 per cent growth this year.

Rising unemployment is another major problem China is facing as unemployment among fresh university graduates increased to 0.88 in the fourth quarter of 2021 from 0.79 in the second quarter of 2020, as per reports.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

Read more here:

Tech giants Alibaba, Tencent likely to trim workforce by up to 30% - Business Standard

The Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to herald a new era among Silicon Valley companies and bosses.

In the past, tech tycoons often chose to follow the traditional line observed by the bosses of companies in other sectors on geopolitical or political issues: remain neutral to avoid alienating a potential reservoir of customers or to avoid having the doors of a market closed.

This rule was particularly observed in tech because tech companies most often have global ambitions. These groups want to be everywhere and capture every possible audience.

Companies have often turned a blind eye to calls for violence using their platforms or refused to take a stand on issues of human rights and freedoms, particularly in China and other non-democratic countries.

MARCO BELLO/AFP via Getty/Shutterstock/TheStreet

You have to believe that things are about to change. Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla (TSLA) - Get Tesla Inc Reportand SpaceX, has been helping Ukraine and Ukrainians for a few weeks now. The billionaire had Starlink terminals sent to the country to allow cities destroyed by Russian Shelling and bombing and remote areas to continue to have Internet access.

Musk has also had generators sent to supply electricity to Ukrainian areas whose infrastructure has been destroyed.

The richest man in the world on paper even went so far as to propose to Russian President Vladimir Putin to settle the conflict by a duel between them. Musk is still waiting for an answer.

Now another big name from Silicon Valley is following in Musk's footsteps. Jack Dorsey, the very discreet former CEO and founder of Twitter (TWTR) - Get Twitter, Inc. Reporthas just shown where his sympathies lie. He has just, through his Start Small, LLC fund, made donations of several million dollars to Ukrainians. Dorsey is the CEO of payment service company Block (SQ) - Get Block Inc Class A Report.

This money has been distributed to seven NGOs or charities involved in helping Ukrainians. This money -- $7 million -- was distributed on March 10 toCARE, World Central Kitchen, Sunflower of Peace, Razom, Mercy Corps,GlobalGivingand to Ukraine Nova.

Each of the non-profits received $1 million, according to the Start Small, LLC donation tracking site.

"Nova Ukraine is grateful to Start Small for supporting our mission - helping the people of Ukraine. As the situation on the ground in Ukraine changes daily, this donation gives us flexibility to respond quickly and provide humanitarian relief where it is needed most," a spokesperson said in an email statement.

Scroll to Continue

On its website, Nova Ukraine, describes itself as a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing humanitarian aid to the people of Ukraine and raising awareness about Ukraine in the United States as well as in the rest of the world.

"Through your generous donations, we fund a variety of efforts to help the people of Ukraine and to strengthen Ukraine's democratic society," Nova Ukraine said.

We are seeing immense demand from local partners on the ground that are bravely helping those in need neighbor to neighbor in some cases," GlobalGiving interim CEO, Donna Callejon said in an email statement. "These local leaders and their teams are deeply committed to their communities, and we are committed to supporting them at every step, with the help of generous donors around the world.

Shutterstock

Dorsey's generous donations come as Russia restricts access to Twitter, and in the midst of unprecedented generosity from the crypto space of which he is one of the evangelists.

The giants of Silicon Valley are also the target of the Russian authorities who have blocked access to Meta Platforms' (FB) - Get Meta Platforms Inc. Class A ReportFacebook and Instagram services.WhatsApp, the group's other messaging platform is restricted in the country.

These sanctions are part of a communication war between Moscow and Silicon Valley. Meta, formerly Facebook, for example decided to ban Russian state media channels on its platforms and dismantled and blocked Russian propaganda networks despite protests from Moscow. Twitter also did the same.

Between threats, blockages, the tech giants have not been in the odor of sanctity since the Russian invasion of Ukraine which started on February 24.

"At a meeting on organizing hatred for the Russian people," Russia's space chief tweeted recently, according to TheStreet's translation of the tweet, with a hijacked photo of seated uniformed generals. In the photo Dorsey and Zuckerberg are in the foreground.

Rogozin has already taken it out on Musk after he proposed the idea of a deadly fight between him and Putin.

"You, little devil, are still young," Rogozin tweeted at Musk, quoting a fairy tale by Alexander Pushkin, a Russian poet known for disguising political messages in his stories. "Compete with me weak;It would only be a waste of time. Overtake my brother first."

To which Musk responded by saying:

"And um [flicks wrist] we should form a book club," Musk tweeted.A fool with a heart and no mind is just as unfortunate a fool as a fool with a mind without a heart, he added quoting Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novel "The Idiot."

Continued here:

Jack Dorsey Takes Sides in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine - TheStreet

The tech world order that came together in the '90s at the Cold War's end is falling apart today as a new rift between Russia and the West opens and a great retrenchment begins.

Why it matters: The breakup of the USSR in the early '90s opened an era in which internet use rapidly spread around the globe and U.S. tech companies viewed the entire planet as both factory floor and market.

Driving the news: A new COVID outbreak that's spread from Hong Kong to nearby Shenzhen, China, has led Foxconn the gigantic Taiwan-based tech supplier to temporarily close production complexes there that manufacture, among other things, Apple's iPhone.

At the same time, Ukraine's plight has pushed many U.S.-based tech giants toward taking sides in a major international conflict, turning the power of their platforms toward blocking Russian state propaganda.

The big picture: Beginning in the '90s and accelerating after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, China became the tech industry's foundry. The relationship brought benefits to both sides.

Now all that, plus the pandemic, has left the U.S. in a "bring production home from overseas" mood.

The result is the start of a vast withdrawal from a single global tech market.

Yes, but: A restructured international tech order, with native companies providing more software, services and even devices, could be more diverse, resilient, and vibrant than today's world, in which a handful of companies serve billions of customers in largely the same ways.

Our thought bubble: Decentralization is a watchword for industry visionaries, and that's exactly what's happening right now in the tech economy around the globe.

What's next: A modest retrenchment could see some tech manufacturing return to the U.S. while software services become less global in ambition.

Read more:

China, pandemic, Ukraine war are ending the tech industry's globalist dream - Axios