Daily Archives: July 4, 2022

Hon Hai Technology Group, AKA Foxconn, plans on making a number of its own EVs.Photo: Foxconn

Electric cars are trickling into the auto industry at different rates globally. China is at the forefront in terms of EV adoption, but its influence could spread out to the rest of the world and change the landscape of the automotive industry as we know it. Where the United States and the European Union once led the way in shaping car design and production, China may take up the mantle soon. And even though this transition of automotive production power comes at the onset of the EV era, really, whats spurring on this change is already in your pocket and on your desk: smartphones and computers.

Look, I know the whole tech companies are pivoting to cars bit is getting old, but I encourage you to read this excellent Wired article article about how China could soon become the automotive epicenter of the world, thanks to its tech industry.

Wired outlines how the companies that built your phone, your tablet, or your laptop are vying for the future of the car. Im not talking about companies whose logos youd recognize. Regardless of what comes to mind when you visualize the modern computer, or whether its made by Apple, Google, Samsung or Sony, were not talking about brand-name giants. The tech companies truly leading the way into EVs are far from household names.

Im referring, specifically, to Foxconn: the company behind the company that brought you the iPhone. Apple gets much of the attention, because, well, its Apple formerly the worlds most valuable company. But Apple wouldnt be where it is without Foxconn, one of its major suppliers. Its Foxconn that makes most of the guts inside those iPhones and MacBooks.

Thats precisely why it says what it says on every Apple box: Designed by Apple in California/Assembled in China. The second half of that statement could more accurately read, Assembled by Foxconn in China. Obviously, we cant really expect a brand-name company to put its industry suppliers name front and center, but the distinction is important to understand.

And the relationship between Apple and Foxconn could get interesting if (or when) Foxconns automaking ambitions pan out. Its unclear whether Apple and Foxconn will become bitter rivals or closer partners in the jump to cars. Naturally, Apple would need a company to manufacture its car. Whos that going to be, if not Foxconn?

Wired makes a compelling case for the supplier giant making its own Foxconn-mobile that would compete with the long-rumored Apple Car. That EV could be a hatchback, sedan or even a bus. Foxconn has already teamed up with Yulon to make EVs under the new Foxtron brand. But Foxconn is also making deals with EV makers in the U.S., like Lordstown and Fisker.

Whether Foxconn can get EVs to market under its (pretty rad) brand name Foxtron or through a partnership, the company could be a powerhouse of automotive production. And if Foxconn is any indication, other foreign companies could follow, shifting the car world Eastward. Where does that leave Apple or Google? Im eager to see what becomes of tech companies that plan on making cars when their OEMs are busy making their own gadgets for once.

Read the original:

How Apple and Foxconn Could Face Off With Competing Electric Cars - Jalopnik

The states efforts in the absence of federal action could test governments ability to regulate speech, while forcing some of the nations wealthiest tech companies to fight an array of legal battles against laws that could upend their business models. These fights will also present courts with a fundamental debate about how the First Amendment plays out in the online age, including the companies own rights to decide what content they host on their platforms.

Many legal scholars see glaring flaws in some states approaches. The government cannot tell a private company what speech it can or cannot carry, provided that speech is constitutionally protected, said Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who has written two books about online speech.

Industry groups have warned that some of the laws especially the ones in Texas and Florida could wreak havoc on how they handle content worldwide.

You cannot have a state-by-state internet, Kosseff said. When you step back and look at the possibility of having 50 different state laws on content moderation some of which might differ or might conflict that becomes a complete disaster.

The bills fall into four major categories: More than two dozen, pushed by Republicans, seek to prevent companies from censoring content or blocking users. Others, pushed by Democrats, aim to require companies to provide mechanisms for reporting hate speech or misinformation. Lawmakers of both parties support proposals to protect children from addiction to social media. A fourth, also with bipartisan support, would impose transparency requirements.

Here is POLITICOS look at the state of play:

Conservatives efforts to ban social media from restricting users content ramped up last year, after the major social media platforms booted then-President Donald Trump following his supporters Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Since then, legislatures in more than two dozen states the vast majority Republican-led have introduced bills aimed at preventing social media companies from censoring users viewpoints or kicking off political candidates.

Two of those have become law: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill (SB 7072) into law in March 2021, later updated this past April, prohibiting tech platforms from ousting political candidates. Texas followed suit last September with a law (HB 20) banning social media companies from restricting online viewpoints.

Now those laws are going through the courts, where tech companies have succeeded so far with arguments that the measures infringe on their First Amendment right to decide what to content to host. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in May that Floridas law was largely unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court blocked the Texas law while an appellate court considers an industry challenge against the statute.

Proponents of the laws say they protect individuals free speech rights to share their views on the platforms. But Scott Wilkens, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said the Texas and Florida laws are pretty clear violations of the platforms First Amendment rights to speak themselves by actually deciding what they will and wont publish.

Social media companies have argued that if the Texas law goes back into effect, it may make it harder to remove hate speech, such as a racist manifesto allegedly posted online by the perpetrator of a mid-May mass shooting in Buffalo, N.Y. The major platforms eventually removed that posting after the shooting.

Additionally, the Texas and Florida laws had they been in effect could have left Facebook open to lawsuits for their decision in June to remove an ad from Missouri Republican Senate candidate Eric Greitens calling for the hunting of so-called Republicans In Name Only. Facebook took down the ad because the company said it violated policies prohibiting the incitement of violence. Twitter labeled the ad as violating its policy against abusive behavior, but left it visible to users due to the publics interest.

Other Republican-led legislatures have introduced similar bills in Ohio, Georgia, Tennessee and Michigan that would prohibit social media companies from censoring religious or political speech, or would ban platforms from removing political candidates.

Democrats have long pushed social media companies to do more to take down misinformation and disinformation, as well posts attacking people along lines of race, gender or sexual orientation. Legislatures in primarily Democratic-run states including New York and California have introduced bills requiring social media companies to establish mechanisms for users to report hate speech to the platforms.

New York is the only state where such a proposal has successfully been enacted. Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul signed S. 4511 in early June as part of a package of 10 bills aimed at curbing gun violence after the Buffalo shooting. The new law requires social media networks to make it possible for individuals to report hate speech on the platforms in a publicly accessible way and says the companies must directly respond to anyone who reports such speech. Companies could face fines of up to $1,000 a day if they dont comply.

The law takes effect in December.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul attends a press conference on August 26, 2021, in New York City.|Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Democratic New York state Sen. Anna Kaplan introduced the bill last year in hopes of curbing the radicalizing effects of social media. We are not in any way telling social media what policy to put in, she said in an interview. Its not about violating the First Amendment. Its about just empowering the users to be able to report hateful content.

But NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, lobbying groups representing tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Google, are analyzing whether the new Texas law could lead to First Amendment infringements. Both groups filed lawsuits against the Florida and Texas laws.

Were concerned about the laws constitutionality, and are raising those concerns with state lawmakers, said Chris Marchese, NetChoices counsel, said in an interview after the New York law was signed.

He said the New York law could violate the First Amendment because its definition of hateful conduct is too broad, and covers speech thats protected by the Constitution. He added that even though New York is different from Texas and Florida, the temptation for the government to step in is incredibly high no matter where you live.

In California, Democratic Assemblyman James Gallagher of Yuba City introduced a bill (AB 1114) that would require social media companies to explain how they handle content that involves obscenity, threats and incitements of violence that are not constitutionally protected. The bill failed to advance this session.

New York also has several pending bills that would require social media companies to provide ways to report election- and vaccine-related misinformation.

Legislation addressing childrens safety on social media platforms has some bipartisan support. Several bills have been introduced following last years revelations from Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen that Instagrams algorithms were pushing unhealthy body images on young girls.

Legislators from both parties in California and Minnesota have introduced bills to address the addictive nature of social media.

The California Assembly passed a bipartisan bill (AB 2408) in late May aiming to protect kids from addictive social media features by making the platforms liable to lawsuits and fines if their products knowingly harm children under the age of 18. A child user or their parent or guardian would be able to sue a platform if the child becomes addicted to a platform. Penalties in a successful class action brought under the bill would be at least $1,000 per individual, potentially adding up to very large sums given the number of children using social media in California.

The bill advanced through a California Senate committee in June and is expected to go to the floor in August.

Tech advocates are raising free-speech objections about the measure.

This has really serious First Amendment problems, said David Greene, the civil liberties director of the digital rights nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Dylan Hoffman, a California lobbyist for tech trade group TechNet, said the bill goes directly after platforms algorithms which are used to moderate user content and therefore infringes on their First Amendment speech rights.

Its clearly about the content and seeking to regulate any feature that you claim as addictive well, whats more addictive than showing good content? he said. Thats the inherent problem with this bill because you cant divorce those two ideas.

The bills sponsor, Republican state Rep. Jordan Cunningham, disputed that argument. It doesnt touch or regulate content at all, he said in an interview. Nothing in the bill tells any social media company what they can or cannot allow users to post on their platform.

Kosseff said ultimately he doesnt believe that going after algorithms gets rid of the free speech issue. He added, If youre restricting the ability for speech to be distributed, then youre restricting speech.

However, Wilkens, of the Knight First Amendment Institute, said that while the bill may implicate the First Amendment, it doesnt mean that it violates the First Amendment. He said that while its still up for interpretation, the legislation if it became law may be held constitutional because the states interest here in protecting young girls seems to be a very strong interest.

A bill (HF 3724) in Minnesotas Democratically controlled House also would bar social media companies from using algorithms directed at children, but it failed to advance this session. It would ban social media platforms with more than 1 million users from using algorithms directed at individuals under the age of 18. Companies could face fines of up to $1,000 per violation.

Legislators in Mississippi, Tennessee, New York and California have introduced bills this year requiring platforms to provide transparency reports on their content moderation decisions. Both the Florida and Texas social media laws have provisions requiring such reports. The 11th Circuit upheld disclosure and transparency disclosure requirements in Floridas social media law in its May decision striking down other parts of the law.

We have made the argument that there is room for government regulation in disclosure requirements, Wilkens said. He said he thinks those bills may very well be constitutional under the First Amendment.

This bipartisan approach on the state level is one federal legislators are contemplating emulating. Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) have drafted a bill to mandate that companies disclose some of their data and explain how algorithms amplify certain content.

It wont solve the problem, but it will help us identify what the problem might actually be, and increase the chances that Congress might responsibly legislate, Coons said in an interview.

Continued here:

Push to rein in social media sweeps the states - POLITICO

On the outside, it seems to be business as usual for Israeli high-tech. Layoffs are still relatively insignificant in comparison to the U.S., new unicorns continue to be born, albeit at a slower rate, there is no shortage in new funding rounds, and the restaurants at tech centers are still packed at lunchtime. However, a peek behind the scenes shows that all is not well in Startup Nation.

Calcalist examined three different indications which show that the month of June was a turning point for the local ecosystem and that stress levels are starting to significantly rise. These signs include a sharp increase in secondary deals completed by tech employees and early-stage angel investors who are being proactive in selling their shares rather than waiting to be courted by funds, willing to offload their holdings for a valuation lower than that received by the company in its latest funding round.

Other indications include the dramatic drop in the number of open positions advertised on company websites and the return of draconian terms dictated by venture capital funds before investing, terms not seen for over five years since the shift in power from the investors to the entrepreneurs.

2 View gallery

Empty eToro offices.

(Photo: Shaul Golan)

All of these changes have so far taken place behind the scene and arent even apparent to many of those employed in the industry. This allows tech executives to insist that journalists are being too pessimistic in their predictions, or are even gloating at the downfall of the sector. However, unless there is a miracle in the U.S. economy or Wall Street over the coming months, these changes will have widespread ramifications and affect the entire sector.

The stress is currently mainly being felt underground and it is in everyones interest to keep it that way. Or as a veteran VC put it last week: What entrepreneurs and investors least want right now is to meet, because they know that if they meet they will have to talk about the companys current valuation and no one wants to do that.

The funds specializing in secondary deals were the ones courting tech employees and investors other the past two years, but that has reversed over recent months. Employees werent rushing to sell their shares over recent years as they assumed that their valuation would increase when the next funding round came around. There were instances in which company executives had to convince junior employees to realize at least some of their holdings in order to reduce the overall risk. This situation has now changed, with Calcalist learning that many employees are currently the ones pushing for secondary deals after seeing what happened to the valuation of companies on Wall Street and considering the financial burdens they undertook during the heydays. These deals are taking place with the approval of management, but are being done at valuations lower than that which companies reached in their most recent fundraising.

For example, shares at Fundbox, one of Israels newest unicorns which raised $100 million at a $1 billion valuation last November, were recently sold at a valuation 20% lower than the recent rounds. Employees at Sisense, another unicorn that was valued at $1 billion in its latest round, have also been selling shares at a 10-20% discount compared to the recent valuation. Employers at eToro, who have understood that the company is no longer set to go public after the SPAC merger at a $10.3 billion valuation was abandoned, have realized some of their stock in deals that valued the company at between $3.5-5 billion.

The number of approaches by employees has surged by 30% over recent months, with early-stage angel investors also beginning to approach us in June, said Moran Chamsi, Co-Founder and Managing Partner at Amplefields Investments, a private equity fund that specializes in late-stage tech companies. I currently have on my desk 50 deals to acquire shares after we examined over 100 companies in recent months. Not everyone has fallen back down to earth when it comes to valuations, but the employees understand that it is better to have one bird in the hand.

Chamsi said that most deals with employees are being done at valuations 10-15% lower than what the company received in its most recent round. On average these deals are for 10,000 shares when it comes to employees, but when it comes to angels it can also reach 2-5% of the company, revealed Chamsi. What stands out at the moment is the panic and eagerness of employees to receive whatever they can before the valuation drops further. In many cases, we are approached by a group of employees who have grouped together to sell a more significant share in the company.

Recently we are beginning to also receive approaches from more senior employees, as well as early-stage investors. However, the vast majority are still relatively young employees who are in their 30s with one or two children and are trying to meet the financial obligations they have taken on. They no longer have millions, but most of the deals we have done were for several hundred thousand dollars per employee.

According to Amplefields website, the company holds shares in several notable unicorns, including Verbit, Via, Trax, OpenWeb, StoreDot, and Cybereason.

In addition to dropping valuations, recent months are also seeing more and more VCs include protection clauses in their investment offer sheets. This is something that was customary until five years ago, but virtually disappeared from around 2015 when the tide shifted in the favor of entrepreneurs. It is now the investors who are in control and they are making the most of the situation, so much so that sometimes an investment round that seems impressive on the face of it includes a dividends payment to investors even in the case of a lucrative sale that would leave entrepreneurs with very little, not to mention the employees. Most protection clauses are included in investments in later-stage companies that have already been valued at hundreds of millions of dollars.

2 View gallery

Natalie Refuah, General Partner at Viola Growth.

(Photo: Shlomi Ofir)

The market is undergoing adjustments. It started with the drop in valuations, continued with the fall in the number of deals, and now there are already situations in which there is too big a gap between the valuation in the previous round to the valuation investors are currently willing to invest at. In these cases, rather than conducting a down-round, they are looking for creative ways to reduce the risk being taken by the latest investors to enter. We have yet to conduct such deals, but Im hearing about more and more of them, Natalie Refuah, General Partner at Viola Growth, told Calcalist.

These creative ways include what is known as a dividend clause, which despite its name isnt similar to dividends distributed to shareholders of public companies, but is rather a mechanism in which the investors receive an accumulated dividend in the case of an exit.

For example, in a situation in which a fund invests $100 million in a company and agrees on a 12% dividend clause (this represents a real case), should the company be acquired after five years, the fund would be entitled to around $170 million, in addition to the value of its holding. So say the company sold for $500 million, more than half of the sum could be heading to a single investor, and this is before the entrepreneurs, not to mention the employees, have received a single dollar from the sale.

There are other clauses such as participating preferred stock in which the holder has the right to receive dividends equal to the rate that preferred dividends are paid to preferred shareholders, as well as an additional dividend, or SAFE loans (simple agreement for future equity), which became relatively popular at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic but quickly faded.

While banks and funds specializing in credit try to convince startups to take on debt, most of them still prefer equity funding rounds as taking on debt sends a signal to the sector that VCs didnt want to invest in you. Refuah also believes that despite draconian terms that are sometimes included in offer sheets, it is still preferable for startups to conduct funding rounds rather than receive credit.

I personally dont like taking on debt during a stressful period as that means you also have payments which you have to make and in a time of uncertainty it is best to avoid such situations. It is better to conduct another round at the same valuation and avoid debt or another round showing an increased valuation but with draconian terms.

Even more than money, the main point of interest when it comes to the tech sector is the employees. Israels unique position in the world of technology is a direct result of its workforce, which has turned the country into a global R&D center. While over 20,000 tech employees have already been fired in the U.S., in Israel the number hasnt even reached 1,000, and that is with the industry already short 10,000 skilled employees

In the meantime, the number of Israelis employed in the tech sector reached a record 431,000 this past April, making up 11.7% of the overall local workforce compared to 10.5% in 2020, according to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Almost all the employees that were recently fired have found little trouble landing a new job, with some even testifying that they did so at improved conditions compared to their previous position.

Nevertheless, according to data collected by data intelligence platform Lagoon, there has been a sharp decrease in the number of open positions being advertised by tech companies on their websites. Lagoon, which scans company sites, job websites, LinkedIn profiles, and more, discovered that there was a 20% drop in the number of these open positions. This is a similar rate to the 23% drop seen on the websites of American giants Salesforce and Coinbase.

The reality could even be worse as many employees have noted that after applying for a role listed on a company website they were notified that the position is no longer being filled. HR managers have also said that they were told to keep the openings listed on their website, but not make an effort to fill them.

The number of open positions still continued to rise in the first quarter, but in the second quarter the trend completely reversed and it became even worse in June, Omri Shtayer, Co-Founder and CEO of Lagoon told Calcalist. You can even see the change in the rate of recruitment in LinkedIn profiles, with a company like Riskified, which recruited over 100 employees in 2021, settling for just 20 recruits in the first half of this year.

According to the data, the drop in recruitment among public companies was greater than that of private companies. The public companies already slowed their rate of recruitment at the start of the year, while the private ones only followed suit in April. The Israeli companies in which there was the biggest drop in open positions were eToro (which abandoned its SPAC merger), Snyk (which also laid-off employees), and SimilarWeb (which went public last year and has seen its share price drop by over 50% since the start of 2022).

Elsewhere, Facebook Israel has cut the number of its open positions by almost 50%, while that figure has fallen by 15% at Microsoft. Not every reduction in open positions necessarily leads to layoffs, with most companies likely to settle for halting recruitment and forgoing filling roles that were vacated. However, Lagoons findings show that the situation in Israel isnt that different from what is happening in the U.S. and that the only difference is in the delay and level of intensity.

Go here to read the rest:

Three signs that high-tech took a turn for the worse in June - CTech

Following the decision of the US Supreme Court to overturn the right to abortion protected by Roe vs Wade, many concerns have been raised over online health data security.

Various groups of experts have been urging tech companies to revise their policies to better protect women's privacy. On May 24, lawmakers expressed their concerns in a letter (opens in new tab) to Google, urging the tech giant "to stop unnecessarily collecting and retaining customer location data".

At the same time, privacy advocates are warning users to safeguard their online anonymity with security tools - such as a VPN - together with strong digital hygiene practices.

"Search data matters. Location data matters. Health data matters," tweeted (opens in new tab) Eva Galperin, Director of Cybersecurity at Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

So, how can you keep your online health data protected in a post-Roe America?

Every activity that you carry out online leaves some kind of digital trace, from tapping in a query to your browser, to downloading and using an app on your smartphone, and posting holiday pictures on your social media feed.

Tech companies collect a large amount of user data, at all times. These can have a functionality purpose - essential information needed to provide their services - or be sold to third-parties for commercial reasons.

What's more, according to the 2018 US Cloud Act (opens in new tab), authorities can request US-based companies like Apple and Google to access this sensitive information for legal purposes.

This is why EFF listed a set of directives (opens in new tab) that tech companies should enact to safeguard their users' data privacy. These include allowing pseudonymous access, cut down behavioral tracking and enabling end-to-end encryption by default. They also urge companies to implement transparency practices while notifying individual users in case they disclose their sensitive information to third-parties.

Whether or not tech giants will enact a more ethical approach to data collection is yet to be seen. In the meantime, you can protect yourself by minimizing your sensitive health data going online.

1. Use an anonymous search engine

As we mentioned before, the queries that you conduct on your browser or search engine can be easily tracked down. This is why you should use a software that minimizes the collection and retention of data by default. One of the best around is DuckDuckGo, for example. Even some VPN providers offer alternatives nowadays. Surfshark, for instance, now includes a private search engine with its Surfshark One bundle.

2. Protect your sensitive communications

To minimize the risks that sensitive communications might be used against you, you should always use encrypted messaging apps like Signal and secure email services like ProtonMail. EFF's experts even suggest using a secondary phone number (opens in new tab) for boosting anonymity during phone calls. You can easily create one with Google Voice.

3. Ditch your hungry-data period app

Even though it looks like a hassle tracking down your period on paper calendars and notebooks, using a period-tracking app means that a lot of details about you and your menstrual cycle will be exposed. If you want to use one anyway, avoid those collecting an extensive array of sensitive data. Below, the list of the most data-hungry period-tracking apps on the Apple Store according to research from Surfshark (opens in new tab).

4. Minimize your phone location tracking

Your smartphone can say a lot about you, from the apps you download to the places you visit. In particular, geo-localization might be used as a way to determine whether or not you visit an abortion clinic. To reduce the risk you should make sure to disable the location tracking feature from your phone's settings and apps. You can even consider turning off your device completely when you're going to a location with increased surveillance.

5. Add privacy-focused browser extension

As mentioned before, tech companies collect data in several ways and for different purposes. For this reason, you should opt for adding privacy-focused extensions to your browser. These can vary from an ad-blocker to a password manager tool. NordVPN, for example, is offering its Threat Protection for free alongside its VPN subscription. While, our favorite service ExpressVPN comes with its own ExpressVPN Keys at no adding costs.

6. Use a secure VPN

vShort for virtual private network, the best VPNs allow you to safely browse anonymously as they mask your real IP address.Beside bypassing geo-restrictions, it makes it impossible to define your real location. What's more, it encrypts all of your data in transit inside its VPN tunnel so that neither hackers nor authorities can get hold of your information.

Make sure to choose one of the most private VPN services to have the guarantee of a strict no logs-policy. This means that none of your sensitive data can be stored, shared or leaked.

As a rule of thumb, you should avoid most free VPN services as they usually make a profit by invasive advertising practices or selling your browsing data to third-parties - exactly what you are trying to avoid if you are worried about your health data security.

The good news is that all the most premium providers all come with a risk-free money-back guarantee starting period, while others even offer a free trial for their mobile version.

View post:

After the fall of Roe vs Wade, learn how to protect your online health data - TechRadar

Digestible news on the latest developments across the fields of Web3, NFTs, blockchain, and metaverse in China and beyond, compiled for you every week by Pandaily.

This week: metaverse dating app Soul eyes Hong Kong IPO, ByteDance continues metaverse investments with the acquisition of VR startup PoliQ, Chinese tech giants vow to end NFT speculation, and more.

Tencent-backed social media and dating app Soul is vying for an IPO in Hong Kong, after abruptly withdrawing its plan to raise $185 million for a listing on the Nasdaq last year. The Financial Times first reported this story.

READ MORE: Tencent-Backed Social Networking App Soul Pulls US IPO Plan

TikToks parent company, ByteDance, has acquired Chinese virtual reality (VR) startup PoliQ as part of its plan to expand its portfolio in metaverse hardware, content, software and platforms. SCMP first reported this story.

READ MORE: ByteDance Acquired Metaverse Social Startup PoliQ

Babel Finance is hiring US investment banking firm Houlihan Lokey, a specialist in restructuring and distressed mergers and acquisitions, a few weeks after suspending withdrawals amid liquidity issues. CoinDesk and BlockWorks first reported this story.

Chinese tech giants including Tencent Holdings and Ant Group have signed an agreement to stop the secondary trading of NFTs and self-regulate their activities in the market. Reuters and TechCrunch first reported this story.

The European Commission, EU lawmakers and member states secured an agreement on what is likely to be the first major regulatory framework for the cryptocurrency industry. Reuters, CNBC, and Cointelegraph first reported this story.

Meta has begun the roll out of an NFT feature on Facebook, just a week after its chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, had announced the plan. TechCrunch and The Block first reported this story.

Thats it for this weeks newsletter thanks for reading! As always, we welcome any feedback on how to make this newsletter better. Write to us at [emailprotected]. See you again next week!

View original post here:

China NFT Weekly: Dating in the Metaverse - Pandaily

This story is syndicated from the Substack newsletter Big Technology;subscribe for free here.

Canadas news industryis falling apart. 450 news outletshave closed there since 2008. And more than 60 have shuttered in the past two years. So now, the Canadian government is advancing a bill that would force Facebook and Google to keep the countrys news publishers alive.

Inspired by anAustralian lawpassed last year, the Canadian billcalled C-18, or the Digital News Actwould compel big tech platforms to pay news publishers whose links appear on their services, or face arbitration. The Australian law caused an uproar after Facebookshut downnews, hospital, and emergency services pages to hamper it. But the Canadian bill is moving forward swiftly, quietly, and now seems inevitable.

We should see this pass no later than spring or summer of 2023, Canadian member of parliament Nathaniel Erskine-Smith told me. Probably even before that.

After Facebooks nuclear reaction to the Australian lawwhich passed after somewatering downother countries seemed uncertain to pursue similar initiatives. Nick Clegg, Facebooks president of global affairs, appeared confident in his companys approach in a recent interview. I dont think any business wouldve put up with a proposition where were just basically being asked to provide an uncapped subsidy to another industry, hesaid. Particularly an industry, in this case, the publishing industry, who derive all the value from us.

But now, Canada is demonstrating that Australias pay-for-news law may be the rule, not the exception. Erskine-Smith said Facebook hasnt responded as fiercely in Canada as it did in Australia, signaling it accepts whats coming. They learned their lesson from really battling in Australia, he said. They really just want to make the best of the situation.

Intriguingly, some of the strongest opposition to the Digital News Act in Canada is coming from news publishers themselves, particularly smaller ones who say the act could entrench larger publications at the expense of upstarts. In arecent open letter, more than 100 Canadian publishers made the case that the bills already led to secret backroom deals between the tech platforms and large publishers, and its passage may further separate the industrys winners and losers.

Google, meanwhile, hascriticizedthe bill, claiming it would break search and potentially lower Canadian journalism standards. Google CEO Sundar Pichai alsomet withCanadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau earlier in June, though the meeting was held behind closed doors. The lobbying appears unlikely to change the course of the bill, though. I dont think this legislation will ultimately be stopped or significantly slowed down from third-party efforts, Erskine-Smith said.

There is a flaw in relying on tech giants to save your business, namely that they may not remain giants forever. Meta, for instance, has lost more than 50% of its market cap this year. And if forced to share the wealth, it will have less of it to spread around. Erskine-Smith, though optimistic about the bill, acknowledged this weakness. I dont think this legislation is a silver bullet answer, he said.

See the original post here:

Canada Is Going to Make Big Tech Pay to Support Its Flagging Media Industry - Observer

Google has issued an unexpected update to its Chrome browser to address a zero-day WebRTC flaw that is actively being exploited.

The culprit is CVE-2022-2294, and is a problem in WebRTC the code that imbues browsers with real-time comms capabilities.

Details of the flaw, number 1341043, are not currently detailed in the Chromium project bug log, and details of the CVE have not been published at the time of writing. But Google's notification of a new browser version describes it as: "Heap buffer overflow in WebRTC. Reported by Jan Vojtesek from the Avast Threat Intelligence team on 2022-07-01."

The fix is installing Chrome 103.0.5060.114 for Windows and Chrome 103.0.5060.71 for Android, both of which will appear soon.

Google says the flaw is under active attack, but offers no insight into how one might detect it or defend against it other than by updating Chrome. Given the nature and purpose of WebRTC, it's probably best not to use browser-based comms tools until you can update.

The Chrome updates also address other flaws, namely:

All three flaws are rated High severity.

The release of new Chrome cuts is the fourth time in 2022 that Google has needed to issue emergency fixes. Thankfully, Chrome updates itself with little user intervention required, so the software's many millions of users should be protected from these latest issues in short order. Whether they're safe in the long run is another question.

The WebRTC flaw was reported on July 1 and Google's notification of updated Chrome cuts to fix it is dated July 4, suggesting folks on the Chrome team lost a weekend preparing the fix and did so with decent speed. But bad actors can make a lot of mischief in three days

Read more from the original source:

Google updates Chrome to squash actively exploited WebRTC Zero Day - The Register

Rohit Chopra, the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is laying the groundwork to rein in Facebook and other Big Tech companies with expanded oversight and potentially a public rebuke on how they collect and sell consumer data.

Meta Platforms Facebook has long been in Chopras sights. He wrote a scathing rebuke of what he called Facebooks illegal data practices in 2019 while serving on the Federal Trade Commission.

At the time, Chopra lamented that the FTCs $5 billion settlement with Facebook for privacy violations was too small given the social media giants status as a repeat offender of regulatory orders. Chopra wanted CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg to be held personally liable and has called for more restrictions on the tech giants ad-driven practices.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Since taking control of the CFPB in October, Chopra has made several moves to bolster the CFPBs authority to designate Facebook or any other Big Tech firm as posing a risk to consumers.

Its clearly one of Director Chopras desires to bring the Big Tech companies within the purview of the CFPBs regulatory oversight, said Jenny Lee, a partner at ArentFox Schiff. Its a new emphasis and there are a half a dozen ways to go after Big Tech.

For the past few months, Chopra has laid out an arsenal of tools against large financial firms that were informed by his analysis of the FTCs Facebook settlement. He has dug into the CFPBs broad authority, found obscure new mechanisms to use and highlighted existing Dodd-Frank Act rules to shine a light on Facebooks consumer practices.

The CFPB declined to comment for this story, and Facebook did not respond to a request for comment.

Taking action any Facebook, which had $86 billion in revenue last year, appears to be a priority though it could strain the CFPBs resources and may come at the expense of other enforcement actions.

It looks like hes taking his time to set up the chess pieces on the board, said Richard Horn, co-managing partner at Garris Horn and a former CFPB senior counsel and special advisor. Thats probably why we havent seen a lot of enforcement actions, in terms of quantity, because those investigations take a ton of research and back-and-forth between CFPB attorneys and Big Tech companies in general.

Here are the five main ways the CFPB could use its authority to enforce laws against Facebook and other technology firms.

Visit link:

Five ways the CFPB could rein in Facebook - American Banker