Category Archives: Big Tech

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996has been called the "Internets First Amendment." Its also been calleda tool for Big Tech to avoid accountability. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court may decide its fate.

The provision was meant to block internet companies from liability for what users do on their platforms. It was not explicitly meant to refer to social media, as 1996 was the era of AOL and Compuserve, and neither Facebook nor Twitter existed yet. But more recently, Section 230 has been viewed by supporters and foes alike as something that keeps those platforms from liability.

While then-President Donald Trump in late 2020vetoed a must-pass National Defense Authorization Act bill because he wanted Section 230 repealed, calls for overturning or modifying the provision are not the province of any one political party;the Biden White House has also called for the removal of the section.

Per NBC News, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case alleging that YouTube "helped aid and abet the killing of an American woman in the 2015 Islamic State terrorist attacks in Paris. The court also agreed to hear a different case, brought by Twitter, about whether the company can be liable under a federal law called the Anti-Terrorism Act.

What would happen if Section 230 were to be repealed? It would likely cause social media companies to begin moderating content much more aggressively, possibly leading them to remove anything that could potentially cause them liability. This could include everything from incendiary posts by politicians to music videos on YouTube. Its been alleged that absent Section 230, Twitter probably would have banned Trump years before it did.

Internet activists have argued strongly against any Section 230 repeal, whether it comes from the Supreme Court or Congress.

The two cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear both deal with horrific crimes related to terrorism. One case deals specifically with liability around online recommendation algorithms, like those used by YouTube. Weve written before about how attempting to regulate algorithmic recommendations by changing Section 230 is a dangerous idea. Most legislative attempts to do this will run smack into the First Amendment, which protects platforms ability to make editorial decisions, Evan Greer of the group Fight for the Future said in a statement to the press this week.

The Supreme Court should leave Section 230 alone. So should Congress. Instead, lawmakers should focus their efforts on enacting privacy legislation strong enough to effectively end the surveillance-driven business model of harmful tech giants like Facebook. The best way to address the harms of algorithmic manipulation without making matters worse is to regulate surveillance, not speech. The Biden administrations FTC should also do everything in its power to crack down on corporate data harvesting and use of personal data to power harmful and discriminatory algorithms.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Image: Reuters.

Read more:

What Happens to Big Tech if Section 230 Gets Overturned? - The National Interest Online

Plaintiffs in a case charging that the Biden administration was deeply involved in censoring users across Big Tech platforms are preparing to ask a judge to allow them to depose top government officials.

The Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana said on Oct. 10 that they will file a motion soon asking U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty,a Trump appointee overseeing the case, for the depositions.

The plaintiffs have provided an initial list of people they want to depose to the Department of Justice, which is representing the government in the case. They said the motion will ask Doughty to greenlight depositions of a number of key defendants, according to a statement fromMissouri Attorney General Eric Schmitts office.

A spokesman for Schmitt, who brought the case with Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, declined to provide more details.

The most well-known defendants are President Joe Biden, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Health Secretary Xavier Becerra, presidential adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

The case was filed earlier this year, and discovery produced after Doughty rejected the administrations attempt to get the case dismissed bolstered the evidence of Big Techgovernment collusion, including a series of exchanges between White House and Facebook officials concerning cracking down on users who posted alleged misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.

While 20 officials or agencies were named as defendants in an earlier version of the case, an updated complaint filed on Oct. 6identified 47 more, including the FBI, the Food and Drug Administration, and Rob Flaherty, a White House deputy assistant.

Messages showed Flaherty pressuring Facebook workers to step up content moderation, leading to meetings between Facebook and the White House.

We remain concerned about mis -and -disinformation [sic] on feed and in groups, and the wide reach of hesitancy-inducing content across your platform, Flaherty wrote in one message to a Facebook employee, whose name was redacted.

Additionally, Facebook began steering regular reports to Flaherty and other White House officials outlining how many posts were deleted, labeled, or demoted for violating COVID-19 and vaccine policies.

Missouri and Louisiana filed a landmark lawsuit, seeking to expose that the federal government has worked hand-in-hand with social media companies to censor freedom of speech on their platforms. Our lawsuit has done exactly thatweve found a staggering censorship enterprise that extends to a multitude of federal agencies and implicates government officials at the highest levels of government, but were not done yet, Schmitt said in a statement.

Now, weve added 47 additional defendants to our lawsuit, including several FBI agents and more top-ranking White House officials. Were also asking the Court to allow our offices to take depositions to question these officials under oath. Were only just getting started.

Follow

Zachary Stieber covers U.S. and world news for The Epoch Times. He is based in Maryland.

Read the original:

Plaintiffs to Seek Depositions of Top Biden Administration Officials in Big Tech Censorship Case - The Epoch Times

Microsoft (MSFT) and the NBA are doubling down on their partnership at a moment when tech companies and professional sports are more connected than ever.

Microsoft and the NBA recently launched a free new-and-improved app, which they hope will now serve as a hub for fan experiences. It's a notable expansion of a partnership that began in 2020. The announcement comes as the NBA season is getting underway, but also as Big Tech and Big Sports have been increasingly partnering up for new ventures. Just look at the NFL, where Amazon has (AMZN) taken on "Thursday Night Football," and where Apple Music (AAPL) has scored an exclusive sponsorship of the Super Bowl Halftime Show.

This app is in part a data-gathering exercise meant to help the NBA build a more personalized fan experience, according to Microsoft North America President Deb Cupp. The broader partnership between Microsoft and the NBA also includes CourtOptix, which collects and displays advanced metrics and video-tracking stats for fans' favorite teams and athletes.

"It's powered by Microsoft Azure and is, in essence, machine learning," Cupp said. "It's a solution that analyzes actions on the court, generates insights behind shots, passes, plays. It gives fans the opportunity to see significant moments, and learn more about the athletes and teams they're interested in."

The new app is geared to consolidate a fan experience that's historically come from a world of different vendors and partners. The goal is to honor that ecosystem, while bringing fans a central platform they can always circle back to, NBA Executive Vice President of Direct-to-Consumer Christopher Benyarko told Yahoo Finance.

Basketball - NBA Pre-season game - Milwaukee Bucks v Atlanta Hawks - Etihad Arena, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates - October 6, 2022 Milwaukee Bucks' George Hill in action with Atlanta Hawks' Aaron Holiday REUTERS/Christopher Pike

There are so many brands and partners that are involved in making the NBA experience happen," he said. "From a fan perspective, it would be great to say, hey, the NBAs taking the lead in bringing all these experiences together. We want this app to serve as connective tissue and help build this long-term direct relationship with consumers that also involves partners We want this app to be a center, a home.

Story continues

Big Tech's been getting into Big Sports in the quest for growth, and that's no different for Microsoft. By expanding its partnership with the NBA, Microsoft's claiming space in that dialogue and on that stage.

However, the streaming piece of this venture isn't as straightforward as is the case in Apple's and Amazon's NFL partnerships, which are centered around broadcast rights. In contrast, the partnership both Cupp and Benyarko describe is fluid and seeks to be an ongoing dialogue. You can stream NBA games on the new app, but you can also buy merchandise or game tickets, or follow the news on teams you most care about. Over time, the app may gain other capabilities that users want, added Benyarko.

However, Microsoft's Cupp was very clear about drawing the distinction between getting involved in sports streaming, and generating content Microsoft, which is the official cloud partner of the NBA, isn't interested in the latter.

For Microsoft, were not content providers and we dont intend to be content providers," she said. "So were very clear about delivering our platform and capabilities and allowing our customers to be the content providers. Were in the streaming business with our customers.

Still, this announcement does highlight that Microsoft, like Amazon or Apple, has live-streaming capabilities of its own and is ready to compete.

For fans in different parts of the country or the world, you can watch basketball games and not have to worry about whether a local network carries it," Cupp said. "Its this chance to really immerse yourself in the experience and continue to benefit from what you want to see more of and its a platform, so were all going to learn collectively and continue to offer opportunities. To me, its an inclusive experience you also can look at buying merchandise, tickets, all in one experience on the app.

The Microsoft-NBA partnership began amid COVID-19. In 2020, as the NBA was returning to TV screens, Microsoft Teams started appearing at games, bringing fans virtually to the NBA "bubble" in Orlando, Fla. The partnership has naturally expanded out over time and, last year, Microsoft began working with the NBA on CourtOptix, Cupp said.

Ultimately, from the NBA's perspective, the same way its collaboration with Microsoft is fluid and focused on feedback, so is what happens next for the just-launched app.

We dont want to make an assumption about how people will be using the app," Benyarko told Yahoo Finance. "We want to try and always be testing. Thats what the platform allows us to do.... The advancements that were making are about improving the overall NBA ecosystem.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly suggested CourtOptix is part of the app when it's part of the broader partnership. The error has been corrected.

Allie Garfinkle is senior tech reporter at Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter at @agarfinks.

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance.

Download the Yahoo Finance app for Apple or Android.

Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

Read more from the original source:

Microsoft's new NBA app is just the latest partnership between big tech and sports - Yahoo Finance

The best way to understand the ways that Big Tech companies do and don't compete with one another is to use the old Watergate adage: Follow the money.

Why it matters: How Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft make their revenue today shapes the battles they will fight tomorrow.

The big picture: For years, the largest tech companies each had their own fiefdom where they garnered the lion's share of revenue and profits.

Yes, but: As they have each become enormous, their search for growth has begun leading them onto one another's turf.

Be smart: Like wealthy families that have run a town for decades, these companies share a vast web of dependencies and grudges as in the recent privacy war between Facebook and Apple, or Apple's slow and steady effort to wrest the mobile maps market out of Google's control.

Here's what you find when you "follow the money" for each of tech's Big 5:

Hardware mostly phones and computers still generates the bulk of Apple's sales and makes the company's other businesses possible. But the company has significantly diversified its revenue in recent years.

For all its talk of the metaverse, the social networking giant still gets nearly all its revenue from ads on Facebook and Instagram. Those cash cows have proven vulnerable thanks to the constraints of the operating systems they run on most importantly, when changes Apple made to tracking significantly dented Facebook's mobile revenue.

Google is rightly described as "the search giant," but its ambitions extend into the kinds of cloud computing offered by Amazon and Microsoft. And, while it doesn't charge directly for Android, it generates a significant amount of its ad revenue from mobile devices.

The online retail giant also has an omnivorous appetite for other kinds of businesses, including its massive web services arm as well as offline groceries (via Whole Foods), video and audio content, ebooks, prescription drugs and medical services. And any time Amazon enters a business, it brings the enormous power of its distribution network and access to hundreds of millions of Prime subscribers.

The dominant giant of the desktop era still casts a long shadow over the tech world, with massive revenue streams rooted both in its venerable Windows and Office products as well as a highly successful newer business line in cloud services.

Competition among these companies is increasingly a global affair, as the search for growth draws them onto terrain outside the U.S. where they face big challenges based on culture, language and economics.

See the rest here:

To trace Big Tech competition, follow the money - Axios

When it comes to the harmful effects social media is having on young people, Clare Morell and fellow researchers at the Institute for Family Studies and the Ethics and Public Policy Center see the writing on the wall and its a devastating story.

If we dont take action soon, I do really think were going to see a public mental health crisis among the teens and kids who are growing up on social media today, says Morell, co-author of the new report,Protecting Teens from Big Tech: Five Policy Ideas for the States.

Increasingly, the data is clear that these social media apps cause anxiety, depression, self-harm, eating disorders, and suicide, Morell says. Were going to see an epidemic and its already starting of online pornography addiction, and what that means for the future of our country is the destabilization of marriages and families. I dont think its inappropriate to say without taking any action, within a few years, within one generation, we could be headed toward a civilizational crisis, like in Japan, where the birth rate has fallen below replacement.

The authors warn in the report:

One day, we will look back at social media companies like ByteDance (Tiktok) and Meta (Facebook and Instagram) and compare them to tobacco companies like Philip Morris (Marlboro) and R.J. Reynolds (Camel). For a time, Big Tobacco enjoyed immense profits and popularity. But eventually, Big Tobaccos culpability in causing immense physical harm to Americans and in trying to obscure the science regarding that harm became known. They were eventually held accountable for their deceptive advertising to children using Joe Camel. We are living at a moment when we are just learning of the social and psychological harms of social media, and of Big Techs efforts to obscure those harms from the public.

Morell says the new report was prompted not only by the research she and fellow scholars were already doing, but also by a growing desire by different states and state legislators to do something about this issue.

The report points to the federal governments inaction on the increasingly urgent problem of kids and social media as the impetus for states to take matters into their own hands. The authors write that while national indecency laws have limited harmful content in motion pictures and on television, Federal law has not focused on the unique disruption to childrens psychological development that social medias pervasive presence appears to cause.

The Child Online Protection Act (COPA)of 1998 sought to require age verification for minors visiting sites with obscene content, but after several rounds of litigation, the law never took effect.

TheChildrens Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998 is, in theory, supposed to allow parents to control the interaction between websites (which now include social media platforms) and children, but due to several loopholes, it fails. In fact, the authors write, because it preempts state torts in the area of childrens online privacy, it is arguably worse than nothing.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act passed in 1996 was also intended to protect children online, but Morell says this code has been all carrot and no stick, because it empowers companies to take down lewd content without liability for those decisions, giving them immunity and protection to moderate that type of content but theres no corresponding, legal duty or penalty tomakethem take it down. They know these types of things are proliferating on their platforms, kids are seeing it, and there is protection if they do decide to be Good Samaritans and remove it, but pornography and obscene content is whats most sensational and keeps people engaged on these platforms its how companies sell more ads and make more revenue, so they have no incentive to do anything about it.

Morell and her co-authors advocate for Congress updating COPPA and Section 230.

We need to hold these companies accountable for not removing content that is objectionable, Morell says. The Trump administration said there should be a Bad Samaritan carveout, meaning if youre a company just allowing criminal content to circulate, then you shouldnt get the immunity that Section 230 provides.

Companies arent being held accountable for failing to keep kids off platforms, the authors note. To date, companies have had few incentives to require robust age-verification because they have not been held liable for minors under age 13 being on their platforms. That occurs becauseCOPPAcurrentlyonly covers platforms that have actual knowledge that users are underage. This is one of the highest legal liability standards and almost impossible to prove in a court of law. If Congress changed COPPAs standard to constructive knowledge, it would help this issue by making platforms responsible for what they should know, given the nature of their business and the information they already collect from their users.

It is, of course, the parents responsibility to oversee their childs activities, but parents cant be everywhere all the time and are sometimes just simply unaware of the harmful forces that are influencing their children. Whats more, even some parents who would like to monitor their childrens online interactions more closely are restricted by the cost of privacy control software (which often falls short anyway).

The emphasis [of our proposals] is to empower parents to protect their kids, Morell says. Certainly there are uninvolved parents out there, and thats part of the reason that we propose the solutions that we do. We want to protectallchildren, whether their parents are taking an active role or not, by requiring parents to be involved. If a child says, Mom, I need you to put in your information to create this account, parents would have to play a part. If companies require a parent on an account with a child, the parent will see friend requests that come in, bad actors, who their kids are interacting with, posts theyre seeing, and so forth.

Morell and her fellow policy experts list five actions that states can take now while they wait for Congress to enact more rigorous requirements for online companies. They include: mandating robust age-verification measures for social media platforms by requiring a drivers license, credit card numbers, or another form of identification to create an account; requiring parental consent for minors under 18 to open a social media account; mandating full parental access to minors social media accounts; requiring social media companies to shut down access to their platforms for all 13- to 17-year-olds accounts during bedtime hours (generally 10:30 p.m. 6:30 a.m.); and including a private cause of action to enable parents to bring lawsuits on behalf of their children against tech companies for any violation of the law.

Morell foresees internet companies dislike of patchwork state laws as working to the benefit of parents and children, since altering how they do business in one state would likely spur them to make their policies identical across the country.

Morell adds that the private cause of action clause is key, because, If individual parents are empowered to bring a private lawsuit against these tech companies for violating the law, that could be very costly to their business, and they would take that seriously. [Private cause of action suits] are one of the most effective means of enforcing laws.

Morell says the proposed state laws are novel and have been created by taking different legal precedents used in other settings and applying them to protecting kids online. TheTexas Public Policy Foundation also recently called for banning social media for minors.

As parents wait for lawmakers to hold tech companies accountable for profiting off the vulnerable minds of children, it is critical that parents monitor their childrens online activities with special scrutiny and impress upon fellow parents the vital importance of remaining vigilant.

Teresa Mull is an assistant editor of Spectator World and writes from the Pennsylvania Wilds.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Excerpt from:

Big Tech Is The New Big Tobacco - The Federalist

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer sent a letter Wednesday to the heads of big tech companies calling on them to take immediate measures to protect privacy of users as states restrict abortion access.

We have already begun to see instances of private data used to prosecute women seeking health care. Absent strong and transparent protections, such instances will erode trust in your platforms and products, Whitmer wrote to the heads of Amazon; Meta, which owns Facebook; Alphabet, the parent company of Google; Apple; and Microsoft.

It is critical users understand how companies interact with law enforcement, Whitmer said. Companies should notify users when they receive requests for data where legally possible.

In a news release, Whitmer, often emphasizing her work supporting abortion rights in her campaign for reelection, linked to an NPR story about a Nebraska woman prosecuted for helping her daughter illegally abort a pregnancy. Facebook messages, obtained through a warrant sent to Facebook, proved it was an abortion, not a miscarriage, according to National Public Radio.

Every Michigander deserves privacy and control over their data, which includes so much personal information about our health, habits, and lives, Whitmer said in a statement. We know the risks of someone getting access to our data. If it fell into the wrong hands, our digital footprint could tell someone where we are, who we were with, what we bought even intimate details about our health.

This comes a week after Google, in response to pressure from U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Holly, said it has extra layers of verification in place to help confirm places labeled as abortion clinics on Google maps and search offer abortions.

When someone in the U.S. searches for abortion clinics near me, the local search results box will display facilities that have been verified to provide abortions, Google said in a Thursday letter signed by Mark Isakowitz, vice president of government affairs and public policy in the U.S. and Canada.

We continue to update our local search services for local health-related queries, including those related to abortion services, to improve the accuracy and relevance, reads the letter, sent Aug. 25 to Slotkin and U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat.

In June, Slotkin and Warner wrote Google, asking them to address misleading results. Slotkin said before the updates, women searching for providers were often directed to pregnancy resource centers. Often faith-based, these centers do not provide or refer for abortion services. Instead, they offer material support, counseling, free pregnancy tests and other aid.

RELATED: Michigan has about 100 pregnancy resource centers. They are not fake clinics, directors say

On Google Maps, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a U.S. nonprofit, found 37% of search results were for anti-abortion fake clinics or crisis pregnancy centers, the lawmakers wrote in their letter.

Google said it implemented in 2019 a policy that advertisers must complete an abortion certification process to verify whether they provide abortions. Those who are not certified cannot run ads using keywords related to obtaining an abortion in the U.S. The company is continually exploring ways to make disclosures more effective. They have recently made them more noticeable, it reported.

Theres a lot more that needs to be done at the state and federal level to protect womens rights to make their own health care choices, but this is an important step, Slotkin wrote last week on Twitter.

RELATED: Slotkin, Barrett advance to November in tossup Michigan congressional race

In Michigan, abortions remain legal, but only because of two orders issued in two separate but related lawsuits filed by Planned Parenthood and Whitmer intended to block the enforcement of a 1931 law that criminalizes, almost without exception, providing abortion and establish abortion rights as protected by the state constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court, when it overruled Roe v. Wade in June, gave potential effect to Michigans law, unenforced, but unrepealed during the five decades Roe stood.

A proposed ballot initiative could amend the state constitution to guarantee rights to make decisions about abortions. It was expected to make the November ballot, but the Board of State Canvassers deadlocked on Wednesday, meaning it is likely the Supreme Court will decide whether the issue is put to voters.

Read more on MLive:

Toxic algae hits Newaygo area lake as Michigan blooms spike

Michigan police say faulty marijuana tests could impact more than 3,250 cases

Board deadlocks on Michigan voting rights proposal; court fight likely

Michigan gets $50M to fix roads and bridges after 2020 flood

Excerpt from:

Whitmer asks big tech to protect data potentially used in abortion prosecutions - MLive.com

Dive Brief:

The +Oscar tech platform aims to help healthcare organizations transition to risk-based payment models, better engage patients and control medical spending. New York-based Oscar has held up the platform as a success, saying the platform has resulted in a 13% reduction in emergency room visits, a 20% reduction in no-shows and a 15% increase in annual wellness visits.

But the insurtech has struggled with implementing large deals for the platform.

The Health First partnership to give the payers Medicare Advantage and individual members access to the platform was slated to go live at the start of 2022.

But the deal faced post-launch challenges due to the complexity of a comprehensive integration at this scale, Oscar CEO Mario Schlosser told investors in August.

Oscar decided as a result not to seek out any new deals, though the payer is continuing negotiations with potential new clients, citing demand from hospitals and payers, CFO Scott Blackley told investors on the call.

In the past, Oscar aimed to sign one to two new +Oscar agreements each year.

In Tuesdays filing, Oscar said it is committed to growing the +Oscar business and continuing to serve current clients. The company declined to share how many existing clients are using +Oscar, but said marquee clients include Cigna, which Oscar works with on its small group offering, along with Holy Cross Health and Memorial Healthcare System, which it works with on its Medicare Advantage plan in South Florida.

Despite the struggles facing full-service tech deals, Oscar is moving forward with the development and sale of a +Oscar platform that helps plans and providers manage risk, called Campaign Builder, the company said.

+Oscar will provide services to Health First at least through the end of December, at which point Health First will bring those services in house, according to the filing. Health First did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

Original post:

Oscar loses big tech customer amid platform implementation snags - Healthcare Dive

Big tech names such as Microsoft , Apple and Amazon aren't getting enough love from active portfolio managers. But that could be a good thing for their stocks and investors going forward, according to Morgan Stanley. "The 2Q ownership data leaves us incrementally more positive on the leading tech platforms; MSFT, AAPL, AMZN and GOOGL & META , given these stocks continue to be underowned vs. their weighting in the S & P 500," wrote analyst Erik Woodring in a note to clients Tuesday. Technology stocks have slumped this year as investors steer clear of growth areas in the face of rising inflation and higher interest rates. That's pushed the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite and the S & P 500's information technology sector about 24% and 27% off their 52-week highs, respectively. An evaluation of recent 13F data from Morgan Stanley seems to support that trend, showing that active managers own less of big tech shares when compared to their S & P 500 weightings. However, the bank said this could end up being a positive going forward. "A quant analysis on this historical data shows that on average, after adjusting for market cap and earnings beats, there is a statistically significant relationship between low active ownership relative to the S & P 500 and future stock performance," Woodring wrote. "This indicates that on average, stocks appear to experience a technical pull higher when active ownership is much lower than the market, and vice versa." Microsoft was the most underowned of the large-cap technology stocks followed by Apple, Nvidia , Amazon and Alphabet, the data suggests. On the flip side, Intuit reigned as the most heavily owned stock, with its weighting versus the S & P 500 up from last quarter and its historical levels. At the end of the second quarter, the spread between big tech ownership among actively managed portfolios versus the their S & P 500 weightings reached negative 69 basis points. However, that gap fell behind the rest of tech and their S & P 500 weightings on average, the bank found. Although Apple's spread decreased in the recent quarter, it still boasted the widest gap after Microsoft among big tech stocks. "For reference, the gap between Apple's institutional ownership and its S & P 500 weighting over the last 3 years has been 101bps on averages vs.125bps currently," Woodring wrote. "We believe this largely reflects investor concerns regarding deteriorating consumer electronics demand." Shares of the iPhone maker have slumped about 11% this year and are more than 13% from their highs. CNBC's Michael Bloom contributed reporting.

Here is the original post:

Big tech stocks such as Microsoft are 'underowned.' Morgan Stanley says that's a good thing - CNBC

Fight for the Future, a liberal tech organization, has filed a petition to the Federal Trade Commission, requesting that it limit Big Tech's ability to enter the auto market.

The group argues that the Lina Khan-led regulatory agency needs to use its powers to prevent companies such as Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and Google from unnecessarily extending their influence into the auto industry through the implementation of apps, such as CarPlay, due to concerns about the companies' data collection practice.

MAN GETS SHOCKING $30K QUOTE TO REPLACE ELECTRIC VEHICLE'S BATTERY

The FTC should implement "a structural separation that prevents the 'big four' tech platforms from entering the auto industry and requires them to sell off their existing assets in the sector," the petition argues, according to a copy acquired by the Washington Examiner.

The petition claims that Big Tech's "actions threaten the data privacy of hundreds of millions of American consumers due to their inadequate data security protections and their history of the non-consensual collection and use of consumer data."

The document notes several questionable data collection practices, including Google's constant gathering of location data, Siri's recording of consumer discussions, and other security concerns. The petition also mentions allegations of Amazon employees having broad access to internal data alongside understaffed security teams.

If the FTC wishes to implement rules that create a "structural separation," the commission must have reason to believe the practices addressed in the rules are "prevalent," according to current FTC guidelines.

While FFTF did not attempt to make a case that the data collection practices were "prevalent," it did try to make a case for implementing rules separating the two industries through the current FTC chairwoman's legal interpretations. The petition referenced the prior work of Khan, who argued in a 2019 paper that the FTC could make rules dividing two markets by attempting to regulate "unfair or deceptive acts" under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The FTC has begun taking action to curb the influence of Big Tech. Most notably, the commission filed a suit to block Meta's acquisition of Within, a virtual reality fitness app developer. While the lawsuit is pending, FTC employees were opposed to Khan's suit before its filing. Amazon has also accused the FTC of "harassing" its executives amid its investigation into Amazon Prime.

Fight for the Future is a privacy advocacy organization that claims it fights to "ensure that technology is a force for empowerment, free expression, and liberation rather than tyranny, corruption, and structural inequality."

Continue reading here:

Privacy group petitions FTC to stop Big Tech from getting into the car industry - Washington Examiner

Competition between Big Tech and banks in attracting borrowers can lead to greater privacy but could also result in more defaults and reduced investment, according to research from the BIS.

Large technology firms have access to massive amounts of data about firms that operate on their platforms. While this information can be harnessed to improve the assessment of a firm's credit risk, it may also lead to "data dominance", when the Big Tech can extract rents from the firm.

In contrast, banks collect deposits at cheaper rates but make do with more limited information on clients.

The paper argues that when banks and Big Tech compete for borrowers, the latter has an incentive to temper their drive to collect information about firm characteristics and extract rents, leading to greater privacy.

But, this greater privacy has a cost: if Big Techs limit their capacity to recognise a firm's type, this may increase the number of costly defaults and reduce investment in profitable opportunities.

The authors suggest that this can be mitigated if Big Tech and banks focus on their comparative advantages: the former can share processed information with banks, while the latter can finance the loans using their cheaper and more ample sources of funding.

Read the full paper:Download the document now 365.4 kb (Chrome HTML Document)

Read this article:

Competition between Big Tech and banks for borrowers can boost privacy - BIS - Finextra