Daily Archives: July 11, 2022

Apple, Meta, Microsoft, and Uber also rely on large pools of TVCs or gig workers and have announced abortion travel benefits for their employees. When asked if nonemployee workers were covered, Microsoft spokesperson Michelle Micor declined to answer; the other three companies did not respond.

Ironically, the workers being shut out of abortion travel benefits are probably more likely to need it than full-time tech employees, given their generally lower compensation. In 2015, the Brookings Institution found that people with a family income below the federal poverty line, who tend to have less access to contraception and family planning education, were 5 times more likely than more affluent people to experience unintended pregnancy. Black and Hispanic people are overrepresented amongst abortion seekers.

People with lower incomes are also less likely to have health insurance that covers abortion. In 2014, the latest year for which the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion policy nonprofit, has data, only 31 percent of people seeking abortion care had any private health insurance at all. Another 35 percent were covered by Medicaid, which excludes most abortion coverage in 34 states that wont fund it.

Experts say there are many ways tech companies could support TVCs and gig workers in the post-Roe US, should they want to. Shelley Alpern, director of corporate engagement at Rhia Ventures, a social impact investment firm that submits shareholder resolutions pressing companies to support reproductive rights, says those steps include seeding a travel fund that temps and contractors could use, suspending political donations to anti-abortion politicians, and contacting lawmakers to oppose anti-abortion policy. Big companies are like sleeping giants on this issue, Alpern says.

Other options for corporations that want to make a difference include donating to local abortion funds in places they do business or have employees, says Liza Fuentes, senior research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute. That is pretty low-hanging fruit, and its desperately needed, Fuentes says. She says tech companies could work with the National Network of Abortion Funds, which lets donors earmark funds for specific communities, and groups like the Brigid Alliance, which arranges and funds abortion care and travel for people in need.

Some permanent employees inside tech companies have been pressuring their own bosses to take some of those steps to support abortion access. The Washington Post reported last month that workers inside Amazon, Microsoft, and Google have circulated petitions and internal messages calling on their companies to pledge to protect the privacy of users who seek abortions.

In her statement calling on Alphabet to extend abortion travel benefits to TVCs, AWUs Koul said the company should also end donations to anti-abortion politicians and establish privacy protocols to protect Google users seeking information about abortion access. History has proven that the Supreme Courts ruling will not stop abortions, it will only stop safe abortions, she wrote. Google can do more to ensure all workers and users have the information and resources necessary to safely access reproductive health services.

A day after the AWU made its statement public, Google announced its privacy updates, which include the deletion of abortion clinic visits from users location history. Software engineer and executive council member Ashok Chandwaney acknowledged the changes but reiterated that the company must go further in protecting user and worker privacy and expand abortion access for all of its workers. Our organizing will continue, he wrote.

See more here:

Tech Companies Will Cover Abortion Travelbut Not for All Workers - WIRED

Lobbying both for and against legislation to crack down on U.S. tech giants is intensifying as the Senate enters a critical month for the antitrust bills.

All eyes are on Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who will need to decide whether to prioritize measures to regulate Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta over other key bills prior to the August recess.

Much of the lobbying in recent weeks has centered around the Senates limited floor time before lawmakers leave town next month. Congress isnt expected to make much progress on major legislation after returning from their break, when lawmakers typically shift their attention to the November election.

In an effort to run out the clock, the big four tech firms and their Washington allies are warning Senate Democrats that their voters expect progress on other pressing issues entering Novembers elections.

Smaller companies that support the bills, however, are making the case that regulating Big Tech is a winning midterm issue.

Its basically a fourth and one situation right now, said Matt Fossen, the U.S. communications manager for Proton, a privacy-focused email service that supports the legislation.

Were incredibly close, we think, to getting this over the goal line, but its still a really tight window of opportunity, Fossen said. We simultaneously feel optimism and urgency.

The two bills, expected to be packaged together, take aim at the gatekeeper power of dominant tech companies.

The American Innovation and Choice Online (AICO) Act would bar tech giants most likely only those big four firms from giving preferential treatment to their own products and services on the platforms they operate.

The Open App Markets Act is more narrowly focused on mobile application stores. It would bar Apple and Google from favoring their own apps in stores, requiring developers to use their payment services or preventing users from downloading apps from third-party distributors.

Both measures advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in March, but momentum has stalled as industry lobbyists have bombarded senators with emails, calls, meetings and Washington-centric ad blitzes opposing them.

The coalition of medium and small businesses, civil society groups and pro-competition think tanks pushing the pair of bills have been arguing that they would result in both positive policy results and helping candidates going into the midterms.

Supporters argue that the legislation would get Big Tech off the back of American businesses and boost competition, ultimately improving the cost and quality of services available to consumers.

Theres a policy argument to be made that this is good policy it will unleash innovation, it will give a benefit [to] developers and consumers but theres also a political argument to be made, and were pushing that as well: Good policy makes good politics, said Rick VanMeter, executive of the Coalition for App Fairness.

Much of the focus in the home stretch has been on Schumer, given his ultimate say in bringing the bills to a floor vote.

The digital rights group Fight for the Future has had two mobile billboard trucks at the Senate leaders New York and D.C. residences all week playing a John Oliver segment about the antitrust bills.

That was our tongue-in-cheek idea to try to get his attention, said Evan Greer, the groups director. And Im sure it has gotten his attention.

Some proponents have been focusing their efforts on senators outside of the Judiciary and Commerce committees who are less well-versed on antitrust issues and therefore more susceptible to industry talking points.

When we meet with them, were often talking about really basic things about how were being affected, said Kate McInnis, senior public policy manager at the search engine DuckDuckGo. Then we get to the bills and they often are very, very surprised and interested to learn how we and other tech companies like ours have been affected by Big Techs encumbrances to competition and to user choice.

Big Tech allies argue that the bills would harm data security and privacy, limit access to popular features such as Amazon Prime, constrain content moderation efforts and undermine U.S. competitiveness and national security by weakening the nations tech giants.

As were talking with legislators and their teams and helping them better grasp the ramifications of this legislation, theyre realizing its not ready for prime-time, Matt Schruers, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, an advocacy group backed by the big four tech giants that spent more than $10 million on ads opposing AICO.

Competing forces are seeking to influence Schumers priorities as the majority leader confronts a packed agenda that includes a bipartisan measure to boost U.S. competitiveness with China, the annual Pentagon spending bill and a party-line budget reconciliation package that aims to lower drug prices and potentially address climate change.

A recent poll from the Coalition for App Fairness found that 79 percent of swing state voters support the Open App Markets Act, and 68 percent said that Big Tech firms have too much power.

That came after the tech-backed Chamber of Progress released a poll finding that tech regulation is toward the bottom of the priority list for voters compared to other issues such as controlling inflation and lowering prescription drug prices.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a top proponent of tech regulation, has said that both bills would win the support of 60 senators if they were to receive a floor vote.

Still, lobbyists with tech clients say that some senators would push for amendments to earn their vote, likely complicating the process. While Senate Republican leaders havent been rallying their ranks to oppose the antitrust bills, they would likely take advantage of the deliberative process to slow down other Democratic priorities, they say.

Leader Schumer supports the legislation and is working with Senator Klobuchar and others to get the necessary support to pass it, a Schumer spokesperson said in an email, referring to the antitrust bills.

Tech giants ramped up their lobbying spending to record levels as the antitrust bills gained traction earlier this year. Apple shelled out more than $2.5 million on lobbying in the first three months of 2022, up 71 percent from the same period last year. Meta and Amazon spent $5.4 million and $5 million, respectively, both first-quarter highs.

Dozens of Washington advocacy groups and think tanks that receive funding from tech giants, including liberal and conservative organizations, have spoken out against the antitrust bills. Former national security officials with ties to Big Tech are urging lawmakers to delay AICO to examine its impact on U.S. security.

Chief executives of Google, Amazon and Apple have personally met with Senate leaders to discuss their issues with the bills and suggest potential changes in the event that Schumer moves forward with them.

Tech executives are also writing large checks. Schumers campaign is the top recipient of donations from Apple employees, bringing in nearly $102,000 during the 2022 election cycle, according to research group OpenSecrets. His campaign received $170,000 from Google employees and its PAC. Most of those funds came from the tech firms executives and lobbyists.

Although they may not have the same financial muscle to flex, CEOs of smaller supportive tech firms have also been holding numerous meetings in Washington. Proton CEO Andy Yen, for example, will be returning for a second visit to the nations capital later this month in an effort to push the bills across the finish line.

Theres overwhelming consensus that people want these big tech companies reined in, Greer said. The feeling here is that this should be inevitable and if it doesnt happen in the coming weeks its going to be because of the corrupting influence of corporate lobbying and money in Washington, D.C.

Read the original post:

Battle over Big Tech bills goes down to the wire - The Hill

Even after a more than 50% year-to-date decline, the going could get even tougher for digital advertising platforms like Meta, Snap, and YouTube, according to a note from Barclays.

The Wall Street firm said "a perfect storm" has arrived for the digital advertising space that could translate into limited upside for the companies impacted in the near-term.

That perfect storm encompasses a three-part combination of factors that are adding to Barclays' concerns about the advertising space. According to Barclays, those factors include:

1. "A step-down in spend and conversions across the whole internet ecosystem (ex-travel) in the second quarter."

2. "Ascending trajectory from new challengers like TikTok and Apple, which are taking share at a time when macro is weakening materially."

3. "The obvious tough comparisons which are well documented."

"We think this cocktail of events is likely to generate the lowest growth rate for the sector in years," Barclays said, adding that current valuations only partially reflect this scenario. Barclays expects 3% year-over-year growth for the industry this year.

That's a marked slowdown from prior years when strong consumer spending habits drove strong demand for different advertising solutions. But as fears of an economic recession continue to rise, this years-long trend is starting to slow down.

Barclays expects second-quarter earnings from digital advertisers to see muted reactions from investors, and lowered its price target considerably for Meta, Snap, Alphabet, and Pinterest.

"Is there enough ad spend to go around in 2022? We think no," Barclays said, arguing that strong growth from TikTok's and Apple's budding advertising businesses will capture 33% of every incremental ad dollar in 2022.

Apple's advertising business, which includes its app store ad placements, has grown to about $7 billion, while TikTok is on pace to grow its advertising revenue from $4 billion to more than $12 billion this year, according to the note.

"This begs the question of who is slated to lose out? We think it's likely 'everyone' with growth figures from Snap, Meta, YouTube and the open web already reflecting some of the beating," Barclays said.

Barclays cut its price target for Meta and Snap to $280 and $20, respectively. Those levels represent limited upside for the stocks, and are nowhere near their peaks in 2021.

Read more:

Tech giants like Meta and Snap are facing a 'perfect storm' of weak growth prospects that could lead to limite - Business Insider India

Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee has branded the government's response to the challenges posed by emerging technologies as "incoherent and muted".

The report, produced by a cross-party handful of MPs,highlights the actions of threat actors originating from 'authoritarian' countries such as Russia and China,accusing these nation states of actively undermining the rules by which international systems are run.

The tech sector, the committee argues, is a key frontier which is at risk of being exploited by malign actors, unless the UK government works with other nation states to regulate activity within it.

It further acknowledges that emerging technologies in the private sector are intrinsically linked to this activity, and that the government needs to do much more to meaningfully engage with tech firms on matters of privacy and national security.

Multinational cooperation has been lacking under current government guidance, the report also states. This refers not only to governments but also non-state actors such as the worlds largest technology companies, with social media firms being given as an example of private bodies that hold great economic and social power.

It's immensely important to spark communication between the government andbig tech firms in order to maintain economic and national security, according to the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Togendhat MP.

Data is the most powerful new currency and never before have private companies had access to such a wealth of information on individuals. The products and platforms of Tech Giants permeate every aspect of modern life," he said.

Major tech companies have geopolitical influence that vastly outstrips many nation-states. If the UK is to shape the future, the conversation cant just be with other states. We need to bring in input from tech companies themselves, both big and small."

Social media platforms are now the key actors facilitating the dissemination and internationalisation of narratives that shape global political, social and diplomatic discourse," the report added, citing an example for how big tech firms are exerting power on the global stage.

To this end, the report makes clear that national security measures must not only be discussed through global diplomatic channels, but also through frank and transparent communication with leading tech firms.

The major role tech firms play in global events, such asMicrosoft supporting Ukraine following Russias invasion of the country, showcase thepower held by private firms. National security leaders recently warnedthat the war in Ukraine could form a playbook from which future threat actors draw their tactics, so the importance of tech firms combating cyber crime in the conflict speaks to their increasing role in international relations.

In light of this change in international power balance, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has been urged to acknowledge it needs to be involved in the regulation and governance of global tech going forward.

The Government now needs to extend the UKs influence within the global technology landscape, to ensure that future technologies are developed and used in ways that align with our values and, crucially, uphold the rights and freedoms of people in the UK and across the world, the report said.

The committee also recommends that a minister should be appointed to oversee this remit, with the individual then identifying work to be shared between departments when appropriate.

Further to this aim, the report argues there's an urgent need for the government to properly outline its position on data sharing and privacy regulations, to provide a strong foundation from which further discussions with the EU and US on such issues will be possible. Current confusion over biometric regulations in the UK have prompted calls for more oversight by cross-party MPs.

Pending parliamentary acts such as the Online Safety Bill, which was first published as a draft in May 2021, still hasn't passed into law and there are concerns that the final draft might not be enforced until 2024. Uncertainty over critical digital legislation like this, alongside the Data Reform Bill, has been exacerbated by the announcement this week that as caretaker prime minister, Boris Johnson will not enforce major legislation changes.

Join the 90% of enterprises accelerating to the cloud

Business transformation through digital modernisation

Delivering on demand: Momentum builds toward flexible IT

A modern digital workplace strategy

Modernise the workforce experience

Actionable insights and an optimised experience for both IT and end users

The digital workplace roadmap

A leader's guide to strategy and success

Read this article:

Engage with tech giants on foreign policy or risk national security, MPs tell government - IT PRO

This story is part of Focal Point iPhone 2022, CNET's collection of news, tips and advice around Apple's most popular product.

Apple will be offering a new "Lockdown Mode" for its iPhones, iPads and Mac computers this fall. It's designed to fight advanced hacking and targeted spyware like the NSO Group's Pegasus.

The move is Apple acknowledging, in a way, that the threat is serious and growing. Pegasus was used by repressive governments to spy on human rights activists, lawyers, politicians and journalists.

Cybersecurity watchers believe Apple may push customers and competitors to take stronger security postures. Ultimately, the way we all use technology may have to change.

Three years ago, Apple put up an ad in Las Vegas, showing the backside of one of its devices, with the phrase "What happens on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone." It was a bold, if cheeky, claim. But Apple is increasingly living up to it.

The tech giant has been ramping up its commitments to privacy and security with a string of new features that cybersecurity experts say are amounting to more than a bullet-point feature to differentiate its products from Samsung gadgets and other devices powered by Google's Android OS. Instead, Apple's moves have sent ripples through the advertising world and upset government officials -- signs, tech watchers say, that Apple is following through on its promises.

That's why many cybersecurity experts took notice of Apple's Lockdown Mode when it was unveiled last Wednesday. The feature isdesigned to activate "extreme" protections for the company's iPhones, iPads and Mac computers. Among them, Apple's Lockdown Mode blocks link previews in the messages app, turns off potentially hackable web browsing technologies, and halts any incoming FaceTime calls from unknown numbers. Apple's devices also won't accept accessory connections unless the device is unlocked. (Here'show to use Apple's Lockdown mode on an iPhone.)

Apple's cheeky ad in Las Vegas, in 2019.

Of the people using its roughly 2 billion active devices around the world, Apple said few would actually need to turn the feature on. But cybersecurity experts say these types of extreme measures may need to become more commonplace as governments around the world broaden who they target while stepping up their frequency of attacks.

In just the last week, the FBI and Britain's MI5 intelligence organization took the rare step of issuing a joint warning of the "immense" threat Chinese spies pose to "our economic and national security," and that its hacking program is "bigger than that of every other major country combined." Other government agencies have made similar warnings about hacking from other adversaries, including Russia, which the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in 2017has targeted think tanks and lobbying groups in addition to the government and political parties.

And unlike widespread ransomware or virus campaigns, which are often designed to spread as quickly as possible, targeted attacks are often designed for quiet intelligence gathering, which could lead to stolen technology, exposed state secrets and more.

Susan Landau, Tufts University

Apple itself said last week that it's tracked targeted hacking efforts toward people in nearly 150 countries over the past eight months. Apple has already begun a program of warning people when they may be targeted. When Lockdown Mode is released in the fall, cybersecurity experts say, it'll represent an escalation on Apple's part, particularly because the feature will be available to anyone who wants to turn it on.

"There were a number of attempts over the years to make highly secure devices, and it's great to have those things and having them put out there, but we haven't seen widespread adoption," saidKurt Opsahl, deputy executive director and general counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which advocates for privacy and other civil liberties in the digital world. And though Opsahl believes an up-to-date phone is probably good enough for the average person, he said that any way Apple can raise the cost of hacking a phone helps protect the devices.

"Make no mistake about it, Lockdown Mode will be a major blow," saidRon Deibert, a professor of political science and director of the Citizen Labfor cybersecurity researchers at the University of Toronto.

Much of Apple's approach to cybersecurity can be traced back to 2010, when company co-founder Steve Jobs discussed his view of privacy on stage at D8 conference.

"Privacy means people know what they're signing up for, in plain English, and repeatedly," Jobs said. "Ask them. Ask them every time. Make them tell you to stop asking them if they get tired of your asking them. Let them know precisely what you're going to do."

It was a departure from other internet giants, such as Facebook, whose co-founder, Mark Zuckerberg, was listening in the audience. Google, Facebook and Amazon largely make their money through targeted advertisements, which are often at odds with user privacy. After all, the more targeted the ad, more relevant and effective it likely is.

Apple, by comparison, makes little of its money from advertisements. Instead, the iPhone, iPad and Mac computers made up more than 70% of its sales last year, adding up to over $259 billion combined.

Accordingly, Apple offers security features by default across the board to all its users. When people download Facebook for the first time and start using it on their phone, they're quickly greeted with popups asking whether they want to give the app access to their microphone or camera.

Jeff Pollard, Forrester

Last year, Apple took it a step further, asking if people wanted to stop companies from tracking them across websites and apps, a feature Apple calls App Tracking Transparency. Research surveys suggest nearly all people answer thatthey don't want to be tracked, a move that Facebook owner Meta said hasmeaningfully hurt its finances, costing as much as $10 billion in lost sales this year. "It's a substantial headwind to work our way through," Meta CFO David Wehner said in February.

But offering effectively a new mode on iPhones altogether is an entirely new approach. When people activate Lockdown Mode on their device, by flipping a switch in the settings app, it then needs to restart -- effectively loading a new set of code and rules under Apple's "extreme" security measures.

"Apple is ultimately making it as easy as possible to make choices about security and privacy," saidJeff Pollard, a Forrester analyst who focuses on cybersecurity and risk. Pollard said this approach offers an opportunity for Apple to test the waters between usability and security, while following through on its promise to continually improve on Lockdown Mode over time. "We have to make it easier to do, so our adversaries have to try harder."

Lockdown Mode may be one of Apple's most significant security moves to date, but the company still has more it needs to do. Craig Federighi, Apple SVP and head of software, testified to a courtroom last year that his company's Mac computers face a "significantly larger malware problem" than its iPhones, iPads and other devices.

"Today, we have a level of malware on the Mac that we don't find acceptable," Federighi said during testimony defending Apple in a lawsuit with Fortnite maker Epic Games. Each week, Apple identifies a couple of pieces of malware on its own or with the help of third parties, he said back then, and it uses built-in systems to automatically remove malicious software from customers' computers. The nasty programs still proliferate, though. In the year ended last May, Federighi said, Apple had fought 130 types of Mac malware, and one program alone infected 300,000 systems.

Lockdown Mode doesn't directly address widespread malware issues, but it could end up forcing hackers to put even more time and resources toward finding security flaws they can exploit.

"Something has to be done," said Betsy Sigman, a distinguished teaching professor emeritus at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business.

Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, in 2010

An alarming problem to Sigman is that malware developers stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars from targeted hacks like Pegasus. The groups that have sprung up to fight them, meanwhile, are much smaller and need funding both to fight the threat and to help protect and educate potential victims.

"It's going to cost a lot of money," Sigman said. Apple pledged a grant of at least $10 million to theDignity and Justice Fund, which was established by the Ford Foundation, to help support human rights and fight social repression. Sigman said much more investment will be needed. "I hope Apple will get together with other high-tech companies and work together on this."

Meanwhile, many cybersecurity experts, including Susan Landau, are looking forward to trying out Lockdown Mode when Apple releases it in the fall, along with its annual set of major software upgrades. A cybersecurity and policy professor at Tufts University, and a former employee at Google and Sun Microsystems, Landau is already careful about what websites she visits and what devices she uses. She keeps a separate Google Chromebook for handling her finances, and she refuses to download most apps to her phone unless she knows she can trust the company that made them.

"It's convenience versus security," she said. Landau follows these protocols out of principle, because she -- like nearly all of us -- doesn't have the time or capability to validate every app or website's safety. Apple and Google both have established security tests for their respective app stores, but Landau said the new apps, capabilities and upgrades that arrive each year can make them more vulnerable. "Complexity is the bane of security."

To her, Lockdown Mode may help us all begin to understand the balance between gee-whiz features and security, particularly as state-sponsored hackers step up their attacks. "People have gotten used to the convenience without understanding the problems," Landau said. "The convenience we've all grown accustomed to has got to change."

Here is the original post:

Apple's Lockdown Mode: Why There's a New Level of Security for Your iPhone - CNET

Insider is looking to identify the hottest marketing-tech companies.

We will publish our fourth annual list of martech leaders later this summer and need your help identifying the companies taking on cloud giants and solving big problems for marketers. Maybe they're offering privacy-safe ways to handle consumer data, helping marketers retain the new customers they got during the pandemic, or building out ecommerce capabilities for small businesses.

Click here to see last year's list: Meet 19 execs at companies like Adobe and Shopify who are shaping the future of marketing tech

Please submit your nominations here by July 15. We will not be accepting acceptions after that date, and we will publish the list in August.

We're looking to identify a diverse group of companies shaking up industries like retail, TV, and technology.

We'll consider company revenue, headcount and funding as well as interesting business models and the scope of each company's ambitions.

Nominations should include examples of the company's performance with quanitative results. You should also be able to list some clients, and explain what problem your company solves in plain language.

This list is specific to marketing-tech companies and separate from an annual list Business Insider will publish later this year of the hottest adtech companies of 2022.

See more here:

Seeking nominations for the marketing tech companies who are leading the industry in 2022 - Business Insider

To fight disinformation, California lawmakers are advancing a bill that would force social media companies to divulge their process for removing false, hateful or extremist material from their platforms. Texas lawmakers, by contrast, want to ban the largest of the companies Facebook, Twitter and YouTube from removing posts because of political points of view.

In Washington, the state attorney general persuaded a court to fine a nonprofit and its lawyer $28,000 for filing a baseless legal challenge to the 2020 governors race. In Alabama, lawmakers want to allow people to seek financial damages from social media platforms that shut down their accounts for having posted false content.

In the absence of significant action on disinformation at the federal level, officials in state after state are taking aim at the sources of disinformation and the platforms that propagate them only they are doing so from starkly divergent ideological positions. In this deeply polarized era, even the fight for truth breaks along partisan lines.

The result has been a cacophony of state bills and legal maneuvers that could reinforce information bubbles in a nation increasingly divided over a variety of issues including abortion, guns, the environment and along geographic lines.

The midterm elections in November are driving much of the activity on the state level. In red states, the focus has been on protecting conservative voices on social media, including those spreading baseless claims of widespread electoral fraud.

In blue states, lawmakers have tried to force the same companies to do more to stop the spread of conspiracy theories and other harmful information about a broad range of topics, including voting rights and Covid-19.

We should not stand by and just throw up our hands and say that this is an impossible beast that is just going to take over our democracy, Washingtons governor, Jay Inslee, a Democrat, said in an interview.

Calling disinformation a nuclear weapon threatening the countrys democratic foundations, he supports legislation that would make it a crime to spread lies about elections. He praised the $28,000 fine levied against the advocacy group that challenged the integrity of the states vote in 2020.

We ought to be creatively looking for potential ways to reduce its impact, he said, referring to disinformation.

The biggest hurdle to new regulations regardless of the party pushing them is the First Amendment. Lobbyists for the social media companies say that, while they seek to moderate content, the government should not be in the business of dictating how thats done.

Concerns over free speech defeated a bill in deeply blue Washington that would have made it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail, for candidates or elected officials to spread lies about free and fair elections when it has the likelihood to stoke violence.

Governor Inslee, who faced baseless claims of election fraud after he won a third term in 2020, supported the legislation, citing the Supreme Courts 1969 ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio. That ruling allowed states to punish speech calling for violence or criminal acts when such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

The legislation stalled in the states Senate in February, but Mr. Inslee said the scale of the problem required urgent action.

The scope of the problem of disinformation, and of the power of the tech companies, has begun to chip away at the notion that free speech is politically untouchable.

The new law in Texas has already reached the Supreme Court, which blocked the law from taking effect in May, though it sent the case back to a federal appeals court for further consideration. Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed the legislation last year, prompted in part by the decisions by Facebook and Twitter to shut down the accounts of former President Donald J. Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, violence on Capitol Hill.

The courts ruling signaled that it could revisit one core issue: whether social media platforms, like newspapers, retain a high degree of editorial freedom.

July 8, 2022, 5:01 p.m. ET

It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a dissent to the courts emergency ruling suspending the laws enforcement.

A federal judge last month blocked a similar law in Florida that would have fined social media companies as much as $250,000 a day if they blocked political candidates from their platforms, which have become essential tools of modern campaigning. Other states with Republican-controlled legislatures have proposed similar measures, including Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa and Alaska.

Alabamas attorney general, Steve Marshall, has created an online portal through which residents can complain that their access to social media has been restricted: alabamaag.gov/Censored. In a written response to questions, he said that social media platforms stepped up efforts to restrict content during the pandemic and the presidential election of 2020.

During this period (and continuing to present day), social media platforms abandoned all pretense of promoting free speech a principle on which they sold themselves to users and openly and arrogantly proclaimed themselves the Ministry of Truth, he wrote. Suddenly, any viewpoint that deviated in the slightest from the prevailing orthodoxy was censored.

Much of the activity on the state level today has been animated by the fraudulent assertion that Mr. Trump, and not President Biden, won the 2020 presidential election. Although disproved repeatedly, the claim has been cited by Republicans to introduce dozens of bills that would clamp down on absentee or mail-in voting in the states they control.

Democrats have moved in the opposite direction. Sixteen states have expanded the abilities of people to vote, which has intensified pre-emptive accusations among conservative lawmakers and commentators that the Democrats are bent on cheating.

There is a direct line from conspiracy theories to lawsuits to legislation in states, said Sean Morales-Doyle, the acting director of voting rights at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan election advocacy organization at the New York University School of Law. Now, more than ever, your voting rights depend on where you live. What weve seen this year is half the country going in one direction and the other half going the other direction.

TechNet, the internet company lobbying group, has fought local proposals in dozens of states. The industrys executives argue that variations in state legislation create a confusing patchwork of rules for companies and consumers. Instead, companies have highlighted their own enforcement of disinformation and other harmful content.

These decisions are made as consistently as possible, said David Edmonson, the groups vice president for state policy and government relations.

For many politicians the issue has become a powerful cudgel against opponents, with each side accusing the other of spreading lies, and both groups criticizing the social media giants.

Floridas governor, Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has raised campaign funds off his vow to press ahead with his fight against what he has called the authoritarian companies that have sought to mute conservative voices.

In Ohio, J.D. Vance, the memoirist and Republican nominee for Senate, railed against social media giants, saying they stifled news about the foreign business dealings of Hunter Biden, the presidents son.

In Missouri, Vicky Hartzler, a former congresswoman running for the Republican nomination for Senate, released a television ad criticizing Twitter for suspending her personal account after she posted remarks about transgender athletes. They want to cancel you, she said in the ad, defending her remarks as what God intended.

OnMessage, a polling firm that counts the National Republican Senatorial Committee as a client, reported that 80 percent of primary voters surveyed in 2021 said they believed that technology companies were too powerful and needed to be held accountable. Six years earlier, only 20 percent said so.

Voters have a palpable fear of cancel culture and how tech is censoring political views, said Chris Hartline, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

In blue states, Democrats have focused more directly on the harm disinformation inflicts on society, including through false claims about elections or Covid and through racist or antisemitic material that has motivated violent attacks like the massacre at a supermarket in Buffalo in May.

Connecticut plans to spend nearly $2 million on marketing to share factual information about voting and to create a position for an expert to root out misinformation narratives about voting before they go viral. A similar effort to create a disinformation board at the Department of Homeland Security provoked a political fury before its work was suspended in May pending an internal review.

In California, the State Senate is moving forward with legislation that would require social media companies to disclose their policies regarding hate speech, disinformation, extremism, harassment and foreign political interference. (The legislation would not compel them to restrict content.) Another bill would allow civil lawsuits against large social media platforms like TikTok and Metas Facebook and Instagram if their products were proven to have addicted children.

All of these different challenges that were facing have a common thread, and the common thread is the power of social media to amplify really problematic content, said Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel of California, a Democrat, who sponsored the legislation to require greater transparency from social media platforms. That has significant consequences both online and in physical spaces.

It seems unlikely that the flurry of legislative activity will have a significant impact before this falls elections; social media companies will have no single response acceptable to both sides when accusations of disinformation inevitably arise.

Any election cycle brings intense new content challenges for platforms, but the November midterms seem likely to be particularly explosive, said Matt Perault, a director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina. With abortion, guns, democratic participation at the forefront of voters minds, platforms will face intense challenges in moderating speech. Its likely that neither side will be satisfied by the decisions platforms make.

View post:

The Fight Over Truth Also Has a Red State, Blue State Divide - The New York Times

The writer is chief market strategist forEurope, Middle East and Africa at JPMorgan Asset Management

A fellow panellist at a recent conference proclaimed: The low inflation decades were a golden era for investors. The audience nodded furiously and then became increasingly glum as all panellists agreed this era was behind us.

In a similar vein, I often hear the argument that low or negative interest rates, and the other monetary tactics which central banks deployed to combat low inflation, boosted all asset prices. And so higher interest rates should naturally depress the valuation of all risk assets.

Both arguments sound compelling. But neither are necessarily right. Or perhaps I should say the low-rates-boosts-returns argument isnt right for all assets.

Some asset classes did benefit. Companies that produced decent earnings growth when their peers were languishing were able to command ever higher premiums. The global tech giants are the most obvious example. In the 2010s decade, when the US 10-year Treasury yield fell from nearly 4 per cent to about 2 per cent, the global tech sector produced an average annual return of 17 per cent.

This was partly due to strong earnings growth and also to investors willingness to pay higher valuation multiples. Low interest rates also made potential pay-offs in the distant future more attractive.

However, there were many segments of global asset markets that had a much more dismal time in the era of low inflation. These were the assets struggling with chronically weak demand and dismal pricing power.

Take the global energy and materials sector, for example, which suffered a decade of lacklustre or non-existent earnings growth and stock returns. This malaise served as a drag on entire benchmark indices for some regions. Europe is the prime example, where low nominal growth was at least part of the reason why the MSCI Europe index companies had average earnings growth of just 3 per cent and the average return of just 9 per cent in the 2010s. This is roughly half the growth of earnings and returns experienced in the 1990s when inflation was not so desperately low.

When one considers a multi-asset portfolio, its even more obvious that the low-inflation era was far from golden.

Persistently low inflation led to ever declining and, in some cases, even negative short and long-term bond yields. Bonds increasingly failed in the two functions they were supposed to play in a portfolio to provide a nice steady source of income and to diversify risk exposure by going up in price when stocks are falling. At such low interest rates, they were fulfilling neither function and investors had to suffer lower total returns and more portfolio volatility. In other words, less comfortable days, and potentially more sleepless nights.

To demonstrate, lets take a simple balanced portfolio comprised of 40 per cent UK gilts and 60 per cent FTSE 100 stocks. In the 1990s, a period in which inflation averaged 3.3 per cent, this portfolio gave you an average return of 14.5 per cent per annum in nominal terms and 11.2 per cent in real terms. In the 2010s that was just 7.2 per cent in nominal terms, and 4.9 per cent in real terms.

Many reading this will rightly point out that inflation isnt doing investors much good this year with both stocks and bonds experiencing double-digit declines in most sectors, regions and asset classes. This is where I need to clarify the type of inflation Im alluding to, because inflation comes in good and bad forms. Good inflation is a reflection of healthy demand, enough for companies to have a degree of pricing power and confidence to invest for expansion. Then there is bad inflation a cost shock which serves as a tax on growth.

While we are experiencing bad inflation now, I believe this cost shock should pass within a year. Moreover, inflation will probably settle at a modestly higher rate of good inflation since the cost shock will serve as a catalyst for more robust demand and healthier nominal growth in the future as it encourages households, governments and businesses to invest in labour and energy-saving technologies.

Contrary to popular opinion, the new inflation regime should eventually prove to be a good thing for investors. Stronger nominal demand will mean stronger earnings and sustainably higher interest rates. Multi-asset investors will benefit from stronger returns but only if they are brave enough to consider reorientating their portfolio towards those sectors of the economy that have languished for much of the last decade and away from those that needed economic stagnation to thrive.

Read more here:

Why a higher inflation regime will eventually be good for investors - Financial Times

The new season of Vox Media Podcast Networks award-winning narrative podcast Land of the Giants debuts next week, on July 13. This time, Recode senior correspondent Shirin Ghaffary teams up with her co-host, The Verges deputy editor Alex Heath, to tell the story of Meta, formerly known as Facebook, at a pivotal moment both for the tech giant and for the billions of people who use its products.

Under the leadership of CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the same man who co-founded Facebook from his college dorm room in 2004, Meta is trying to transition away from its complicated legacy as a social media company to a futuristic metaverse vision that aims to reshape the future of the internet. This transition is happening while criticism from users, regulators, and even its own former employees is at an all-time high. They are worried the company and its products Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and others are harming society, from how global democracy functions to the mental health of teenagers. They think Meta is too big and too powerful and perhaps needs to be broken up. Meanwhile, Zuckerbergs business is under pressure like never before. Both Facebook and Instagram are quickly losing ground to TikTok, forcing Meta to rethink its approach to social media entirely.

The new season of Land of the Giants will bring you original reporting on Metas current challenges and the future its building; the show will also explore critical moments from its origin as a scrappy startup to its current status as a tech behemoth. Ghaffary and Heath will take you inside the company by talking to current and former executives, including Metas top policy executive Nick Clegg and head of WhatsApp Will Cathcart, as well as preeminent critics and leaders outside the company like whistleblower Frances Haugen and Zynga founder Mark Pincus.

The first episode of Land of the Giants: The Facebook/Meta Disruption comes out on July 13. You can find it on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Listen to the trailer below.

Read more:

The inside story at Meta as it moves beyond Facebook - Vox.com

Last weeks poll brings unexpected results Augmented Reality glasses are the type of XR that holds the most promise. That being said, there just isnt much confidence that XR tech is ready for mass adoption or even useful.

The technology has been improving at a rapid pace, riding on the coattails of smartphones high quality displays with high refresh rates and the efficient chipsets that power some of the experiences could only have been developed in the cutthroat smartphone business.

No one has perfected the formula yet. Several comments mentioned the Ready Player One movie, which portrayed the OASIS a virtual reality platform used by millions. That is what Mark Zuckerberg is trying to build with the Metaverse, but its a long way away. And while headsets like Project Cambria have full color passthrough, which will enable AR experiences, VR is still seems to be the primary use-case for Metas projects.

Commenters also mentioned various VR games that they have enjoyed. However, VR headsets havent found their Halo title yet that game was responsible for most of the Xbox sales in the early days. There are popular games, just not must-have games that will have you buying a VR headset just for them.

Mentioning AR glasses may bring memories of Google Glasss very public failure, but AR headsets have been adopted as workplace tools in some industries. Thats how computers got their start too people were using computers at the office for years before buying one for the home. Of course, it took a while for early computers to come down in price and be user-friendly enough to have a place in the home.

That is where AR seems to be at the moment useful enough to do a job, not good enough to spend all day on. Especially with concerns about comfort and eye fatigue. But with multiple tech giants hard at work we have seen components get lighter and optics improve. It may be just a matter of time before regular reality has some solid competition.

Continue reading here:

Weekly poll results: AR more promising than VR, but neither is guaranteed success - GSMArena.com news - GSMArena.com