Category Archives: Big Tech

In late July, after finalizing plans to break itself up last year, General Electric announced that the new companies would be called GE Aerospace, GE Vernova, and GE Healthcare. A few months earlier, cereal manufacturer Kellogg Co. announced it would also be splitting itself into three companiesfor cereals, snacks, and plant-based foods. Just a few years ago, Dow Chemical and DuPont merged, but with the plan of reorganizing and then spinning off three separate companies: Dow for commodity chemicals, DuPont for specialty chemicals, and Corteva for agricultural chemicals.

Its not just American companies either. Recently, British pharmaceutical giant GSK completed a spinoff of its consumer healthcare business to create an entirely new company, Haleon PLC.

Corporate breakups are a routine part of capitalism. So why is it deemed an irreparable interference in markets when regulators break up companies, instead of CEOs or activist investors?

When we think of breaking up companies, famous examples such as Standard Oil in 1911 or AT&T in 1982 come to mind. In these cases, trustbusters in the government split the company to restore competition or to rein in the power of one dominant firm.

Less known is that when the U.S. Supreme Court broke it up into 33 separate companies, it became worth more to investors in pieces than it was together. Rockefeller was on the golf course when he heard the news. Buy Standard Oil was his response, which proved an excellent stock tip. Today, some investors make similar arguments in favor of breaking up Facebook and Alphabet.

Not a death sentence

While antitrust breakups are rare by comparison, they are conductedin theoryfor reasons of public benefit. Public figures like Elizabeth Warren and Zephyr Teachout have advocated for them, but antitrust breakups are often painted as radical, ineffective, or impractical. Fiona Scott Morten, a professor of economics at Yale, has written that Just break them up is an oversimplified sound bite, not a real policy that would restore competition in digital markets and benefit consumers. Other tech journalists have called them a messy proposition and even a nuclear option.

As federal and state antitrust investigations ramp up against Google, Facebook, and Amazon by the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, and state attorneys general, narrative resistance also builds.

When it comes to breakup rulings, defenders of free markets and corporate sovereignty usually rely on a few key claims. First is the omelette argument: Just as it is impossible to unscramble an egg, it is impossible to unwind companies. Proponents of this view claim that it is a technical nightmare to separate internal functions and infrastructure, organizational arrangements, and technical specifications for products that have been built together. The American Action Forum, a conservative public policy think tank, has said that for highly integrated tech firms, breakups are a death sentence.

However, as investors and corporate executives regularly show us, where there is a willand a balance-sheet incentivethere is a way. Painting the breakup of companies as radical not only ignores the fact that this is regularly (and voluntarily) done by corporate executives but also flouts the legal remit of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice to administer these remedies.

In 1961, Justice Brennan of the Supreme Court observed in a DuPont case, Divestiture has been called the most important of antitrust remedies. It is simple, relatively easy to administer, andit should always be in the forefront of a courts mind when [an anticompetitive merger] has been found.

Other arguments against breakups include the notion that investors are better market watchdogs than governments or that markets will self-correct in favor of competition. Government action is seen as a slow, cumbersome, and blunt toola boulder thrown into the otherwise smooth waters of market efficiency.

Proponents of this view also argue that governments respond to the whims of popular political sentiments, politically charged talking points, and the electoral pressures of whichever politician happens to be in power. Current FTC commissioner Christine Wilson has previously tweeted about her need to fight for the integrity of [The FTC], sound (not subjective and politicized) antitrust enforcement; the rule of law and due process; and free markets, which beget free people, because command & control economies fail.

However, markets are not abstract forces guiding companies to better and more efficient business decisions. They are public creations that are governed by politically determined rules. Right now, we have markets governed by one set of rules that allows constant mergers and acquisitions, which has resulted in one of the most concentrated economies in American history.

Only recently, under the leadership of Chair Lina Khan, has the FTC begun challenging mergers, like the recent attempt to block Metas acquisition of app creator Within. Over the previous decade, the FTC did not block a single Amazon, Google, or Facebook merger, as tech companies amassed unprecedented market power.

A different set of rules could lead to fairer markets, a more level playing field, and better outcomes for consumers.Breakups are routine for business and should be similarly routine for antitrust enforcers. Breaking up companies is not a baseless interference in markets, the politicization of legal precedent, or a Herculean task. When warranted, breakups are just good commercial governance, as investors regularly show us.

While tech companies and their networks of paid academics and advisors will try to color breakups as a radical last resort, enforcers should take courage from private sector precedent. They can look to the vast literature on voluntary corporate divestitures to guide them.

Breaking up companies can be good for consumers, workers, small businesses, and even investors. Breakups may be a rare example of a true win-win scenario. As the FTC takes on an aggressive campaign to rein in big tech, the agency aligns itself with capitalists the world over who regularly break up companies to keep markets competitive.

Denise Hearn is a senior fellow at theAmerican Economic Liberties Projectand co-lead of theAccess to MarketsInitiative. She is co-author ofThe Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competitionand writes theEmbodied Economicsnewsletter.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs ofFortune.

Sign up for theFortune Features email list so you dont miss our biggest features, exclusive interviews, and investigations.

See the rest here:

Corporations break themselves up all the time. So why shouldnt regulators break up Big Tech? - Fortune

The bombshell allegations by Twitters former head of cybersecurity, who accused the company of being lax with user data and lying to the feds about it could give regulators an opening to crack down on large tech firms, experts told The Post.

Peiter Mudge Zatko, a famed hacker who was hired by then-CEO Jack Dorsey to overhaul Twitters porous cybersecurity infrastructure two years ago, told the Securities and Exchange Commission that he was fired after company executives told him to downplay his safety concerns.

Zatko alleged that Twitter executives also allowed low- and mid-level employees to gain access to sensitive controls making the system vulnerable to potential espionage.

Zatkos allegations were first reported by the Washington Post and CNN.

Industry analysts told The Post that Zatkos claims appear to have merit and that he deserves credit for coming forward.

The whistleblower is doing the right thing here, Bryan Hornung, CEO and founder of Xact IT Solutions, told The Post.

Everything Zatko points out is exactly why companies get hacked at the level they do today.

Hornung said it is common for American companies to overlook the importance of cybersecurity. Those that do are playing with fire.

Businesses big and small think it will never happen to them, he said.

CEOs like to gamble with their data security and, ultimately, their business.

Cybersecurity experts and legal analysts told The Post that Zatkos claims will likely prompt more intense regulatory scrutiny of Twitter.

Prof. Steve Stransky, a business litigation expert who teaches at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, told The Post that the Federal Trade Commission could find Twitter in violation of its consent decree obligations again.

Earlier this year, Twitter was ordered to pay a $150 million fine and to install new safeguards after the company was found to have violated a 2011 agreement with the FTC to protect user data.

Twitter could facenewscrutiny from various state regulatory authorities who may view Zatkos allegations as evidence that Twitter is violating the representations it has affirmatively made to its consumers with respect to how it collects, uses, and safeguards consumer data, Stransky told The Post.

In recent years, we have seen state regulatory authorities more willing to investigate social media companies over consumer protection issues, and Zatkos allegations may be a catalyst for further investigation in this area.

Aron Solomon, the chief legal analyst for the digital marketing firm Esquire Digital, thinks Zatko could give government regulators a pretext to impose restrictions on Twitter as well as other powerful tech companies.

The danger here for Twitter is real, Solomon said.

There is a potential for fines, but the greatest risk is that Twitter themselves could be empowering legislators looking for reasonsto create new laws to limit what Big Tech (particularly social media companies) can and cant do.

New government regulations could potentially be a nightmare for large tech firms since they may strike right at the social media companies business model because an overly-regulated platform is far more difficult to monetize.

Zatko was critical of his former boss, Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal, particularly over his allegedly lax attitude toward securing user data and the proliferation of bots and spam accounts.

Art Shaikh, the founder and CEO of Chicago-based software company CircleIt, says spam and bot accounts a major bone of contention between Twitter and Elon Musk are prevalent throughout social media.

Tech firms have financial incentive to maximize user engagement, though spam and bots are also created for more nefarious reasons, such as scamming people, according to Shaikh.

Agrawal is a fine CEO, Shaikh told The Post.

However, this is a problem throughout the social media landscape, so it is unfair to single him out.

Shaikh thinks Twitter could land in even more hot water over Zatkos claims that the company is a prime target for foreign spies due to its lack of a stringent security apparatus.

Earlier this month, Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter manager who holds dual US-Lebanese citizenship, was convicted of acting as an agent of Saudi Arabia, according to CNN.

Abouammo was accused of accepting Saudi money in order to provide the government in Riyadh with information about Twitter accounts belonging to Saudi dissidents and critics of the regime.

Zatko also alleges that the government of India forced Twitter to put one of its agents on the company payroll this at a time when the authorities in New Delhi have been accused of curbing civil liberties and public protests.

[T]here could be national security implications, Shaikh said.

It is appalling to me, as someone that has been advocating for security and data privacy and have built my company with those principles at their core, that any company could be flippant toward these issues.

Go here to see the original:

Here's how the Twitter whistleblower may impact Big Tech: 'The danger is real' - New York Post

You already know most traders are on cruise control as they wait to hear what Fed Chairman Jay Powell says on Friday at the Jackson Hole symposium. That aside, the bulls managed to hold their ground on Wednesday with the Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ) , SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) spending most of the regular session above the day's volume-weighted average price (VWAP). Unfortunately, such a weak response from buyers, with the ETFs trading at or beneath their short-term moving averages, makes it look increasingly likely that SPY, QQQ and IWM all have a date with their 50-day simple moving averages even if a bounce is in the cards following the Jackson Hole event.

Away from the indexes, Wednesday's after-hour session was as busy with tech earnings. Nvidia (NVDA) , Salesforce (CRM) and Splunk (SPLK) disappointed, while Snowflake (SNOW) and Autodesk (ADSK) delivered decent results. On the stock side of things, NVDA, CRM and SPLK all crashed through their 50-day SMAs during the after-hours session, with CRM falling especially hard. On the upside, SNOW came through with a monster after-hours gain of more than 7%.

It is a rare occurrence that we can say something positive about the cannabis space, so let's focus on that for a moment.

On Aug. 15, I mentioned that if you pulled out your magnifying glass you would see the AdvisorShares Pure US Cannabis ETF (MSOS) had finally started closing above its 50-day SMA. Much to my surprise, buyers finally showed up during Wednesday's session and drove the stock above its downtrend line on halfway decent volume.

If I'm going to complain about anything, it's that giant area of supply between $13.50 and $14.75. Barring an incredible surge of buying, I suspect it will take quite a bit of work to chew through that supply zone from May.

From a trading perspective, we don't want to see much trading under $12.25, and from a proper breakout perspective, we need to see demand surge -- again -- above $13.

Get an email alert each time I write an article for Real Money. Click the "+Follow" next to my byline to this article.

Go here to read the rest:

Big Tech Produces a Mixed Earnings Bag, but This Cannabis ETF Finally Perks Up - RealMoney

August 24, 2022 The Federal Communications Commission said it in a notice on Monday that it is extending the term of the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, which provides guidance and recommendations on communications issues to the commission.

The IACs term was set to expire on September 22, but was extended by two months to November 22, according to a public notice.

The IAC has been an important source of information and guidance to the Commission over the past 20 years and the extension will provide additional time to further its contributions to the FCC, the notice said.

Low-earth orbit satellite provider E-Space announced Wednesday the addition of two new executives to its ranks.

Gunjan Murarka was named chief financial officer and Dalibor Djuran was hired as the chief satellite systems engineer.

The addition of these two valuable positions will enable E-Space to accelerate its novel LEO network, which will be both the safest satellite constellation ever, and make space affordable and accessible for everyone to solve problems on Earth, a press release said.

Murarka previously worked as a CFO with aerospace company LeoStella, while Djuran previously held the role of director of satellite manufacturing at earth imaging company Planets Labs.

The news comes as the LEO space heats up. As SpaceXs Starlink constellation has thousands of satellites in the sky, Amazon is preparing its own constellation of over 3,000 satellites under the Project Kuiper moniker.

The Free State Foundation has reiterated a recommendation Tuesday that Congress allow the Federal Communications Commission to expand the contribution base to include big technology companies for a fund that provides basic telecommunications services to rural and low-income areas.

The think tank had previously recommended in a submission to the FCC that it should expand the contribution base of the Universal Service Fund, a nearly $10-billion fund that relies on dwindling voice service revenues, to include big technology companies that rely on the internet, such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google.

Since that submission, which was part of the commissions proceeding on the future of the USF, the FCC released its report on the matter last week, recommending that Congress institute changes to its mandate that would allow it to make the necessary changes to the contribution base. That included the possibility to expand the base to include those big technology companies.

Requiring Internet companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, and Twitter to pay into the USF may be the best way to ensure future universal broadband service for Americans who have low incomes or live in areas that are difficult and more costly to serve, the FSF said in a blog post on Tuesday.

One way it suggests is for Congress to pass legislation that authorizes the Commission to require universal service contributions from online companies that generate the most Internet traffic as well as the most revenues via universally-accessible broadband networks.

Another approach, it suggested, is a bill that would require the FCC to report to Congress on the feasibility of requiring contributions from online services like search engines, social media platforms, streaming media content, app stores, cloud computing, and e-commerce platforms.

Read more:

FCC Advisory Committee Gets Extension, E-Space Adds to Ranks, Think Tank Wants Big Tech in USF - BroadbandBreakfast.com

Above Phone will now ship with Presearch as default web browser and search engine.

TORONTO, Aug. 25, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- In an age of increased concern about surveillance, big tech tracking and security for crypto assets, Above Phone provides users with a private, secure phone that leverages the best in open source, privacy-focused software to create a full suite of apps to replace big tech.

Through a new collaboration with Presearch, the community-driven, decentralized search engine that respects user privacy, the Above Phone is now even more secure and private.

This partnership makes the Presearch search engine and secure web browser app the default search and browsing experience for Above Phone users, bringing them a private and functional search experience right out of the box.

The Above Phone is not just an alternative to big tech phones but a platform for ensuring your privacy on the go, featuring the latest cutting edge alternative operating systems. Above Phone and the Above Privacy Suite provide encrypted voice calls, video calls, text messaging, email, video conferencing, VPN, and now the leading decentralized search engine!

By setting Presearch as the default web browser and search engine, the Above Phone hides your searches from big tech and the surveillance state, all while providing world-class search results. Search queries are not stored and users can remain totally anonymous.

Big tech companies have made billions selling consumer data to third parties. sometimes illegally. With the Above Phone powered by Presearch, theft of consumer data are blocked by default. Users are now empowered to control their data.

"Are you Degoogled?" is a growing trend as consumers take back their data from the big tech giants. The Above Privacy Phone powered by Presearch is a powerful tool in this arsenal.

More About Presearch

Presearch operates a search engine with more than 4 million registered users, making it one of the largest blockchain projects in the world. Its users conduct over 100 million searches a month.

Why do people use Presearch? There are three main Unique Value Propositions (UVPs):

About Above Agency

Above Agency is a digital agency that builds friendly technology ecosystems for people who value privacy & freedom. We got our start helping activist organizations and movements build robust presences without relying on abusive big tech companies.

The Above Phone is a mobile privacy solution that combines five different components

The fifth and final component is user education accompanied by a change in mindset, and real-world practice. These are supported by our migration support calls and knowledge base. We hold migration support calls to help transition customers to the Above Phone from their existing device, with the goal of a complete transition. Our Knowledge Base is open and free to the public to inspire and share what is possible here and now!

Media Contact:

PresearchJefferson Nunn(650) 248 2897[emailprotected]

SOURCE Presearch

See the original post here:

Above Phone Partners with Presearch on Secure, Private Phone - PR Newswire

Google is the most invasive of Big Tech companies, tracking 39 different private user data points, more than any of its peers.

StockApps.com conducted an analysis of what data Google, Twitter, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook collect. Of the companies analyzed, Google was the most invasive, tracking 39 different points of private user data. Apple was the least invasive, only tracking 12 data points necessary to maintain users accounts.

Twitter collected the second-highest number of data points at 24, while Amazon came in at 23. Surprisingly, Facebook only tracked 14 data points.

Twitter and Facebook both save more information than they need to, writes Edith Reads for StockApps.com. However, with Facebook, most of the data they store is information users enter.

One of the biggest challenges for users interested in limiting Big Techs data tracking is the difficulty in understanding the long and complicated privacy policies most companies utilize.

Most people do not have the time or patience to read privacy policies that can be several pages long for each website they visit, says Reads. Also, it is quite unlikely that all users have a background in law to properly grasp the privacy policy. Besides, users lack time, patience, or energy to try to figure out what information websites are storing and how they are using it to their advantage. As a result, users end up allowing Google to harvest all the data they need by agreeing to the privacy policy terms.

Go here to read the rest:

Google Tops Big Tech Data Tracking With 39 Types of Private Data - WebProNews

By Amanda Kavanagh

European start-ups had a landmark year in 2021.

American venture capital firms invested almost $118 billion (118 billion) in deals this side of the Atlantic last year, according to financial data company PitchBook.

A boom year by all accounts, and so far, 2022 displays strong confidence too.

Unicorn companies are those which reach a valuation of $1 billion without being listed on the stock market, and some 30 VC-backed start-ups in Europe joined the unicorn stable from January to June this year.

In Europe, invested capital is still on track to exceed 99 billion ($100 billion) for a second consecutive year, though it is predicted to slow down in the second half of 2022, amid cost-cutting measures in the tech industry.

Meanwhile, fundraising has noticeably slowed in the US and Asia, where just 118 and 35 companies, respectively, exceeded the threshold valuation for unicorn status in 2021.

There are many theories on why Europe has lagged behind Silicon Valley in breeding tech unicorns.

Many US unicorn founders have previously worked at large US-headquartered multinationals, in particular PayPal, and have leveraged that experience to start successful tech companies of their own.

The college alumni network in the US is also particularly strong. Both of these factors are very useful for fast-tracking investor connections.

In comparison, according to London-based Series A investor Mosaic Ventures, 65 per cent of 197 European unicorn founders surveyed are repeat founders.

Some 55 per cent had no previous industry experience of the sector their unicorn operates in; less than 10 per cent had worked at another unicorn or big tech company; and the top five alma maters account for less than 15 per cent of founders in the sample.

In Europe, real-world experience in operating a business matters more, as does total years work experience, and taking an outsider perspective to tackle an industrys pain points.

Today, some 150 tech unicorns are European, just 13 per cent of the worlds total. Though only a fraction of the US market in terms of investment a third the size specifically European unicorns have doubled in number since 2020.

A "virtuous cycle" is expected. As successful European companies produce experienced founders, more future unicorns will form. A bright future lies ahead, led by founders with a mix of experience and education, making Europes start-up scene even more dynamic and innovative.

According to M&A firm i5invests 2022 European Unicorn & Soonicorn report, Germany is Europes fastest unicorn breeding ground, with the top four fastest unicorns ever originating in Berlin, while the UK, Germany, France, Sweden and Austria are home to the most European unicorns, in that order.

Some 76 per cent of funds going into Europes high-valued tech companies are headquartered in the US, followed by China and Russia, with about a 3 per cent stake each.

Some fast-growing start-ups predicted as soonicorns (or soon-to-be-unicorns) include Helsing, a German AI technology platform pitched at government organisations, Blackshark.ai which makes 3D simulation environments, plus The Stryze Group and Heroes both companies which buy Amazon sellers and scale them.

But theres no shortage of aspiring companies in Europe, and many are scaling and hiring rapidly. Here are three jobs from Euronews.jobs to consider.

Fintech Lightyear was founded by brothers and entrepreneurs Chris and Roger Gregg in 2017. It specialises in automating data entry and streamlining the accounts payable process for businesses of all sizes.

Its now seeking an Implementation Consultant for a Belfast-based role to provide account set-up and training services to businesses and partners, ensuring software is successfully embedded within their processes.

Two or more years experience in a similar software implementation and training role is preferred, as is an aptitude for tech and the ability to learn new systems quickly.

Find out more about this Implementation Consultant role.

HERO Software is a fast-growing tech start-up operating in the crafting space, and provides customers with intuitive software for project planning and processing.

The Full-Stack Engineer will design and develop new features for Heros cloud platform. The successful applicant must be in Heros Hannover office once a quarter, but otherwise can be remote, and will ensure the quality of software through code reviews and testing and will work closely with the product team on concepts.

Youll need experience in full-stack web development (PHP, JavaScript, MySQL) and knowledge dealing with modern MVC frameworks and PHP8.

Find out more about this Full-Stack Engineer role.

Amadeus has been around for over 30 years, but the travel giant never sits still. It is now seeking a Product Manager for Hospitality Payments, where youll define and shape the overall vision and strategy for the payments product and department.

The successful candidate will support the delivery of MVPs (minimum viable products), product evolution and bespoke customer developments by liaising with engineering and ops teams, as well as third-parties.

Youll need hospitality payments experience, with particular experience with hotels direct channels. Payments experience working with APIs, SDKs, tokenisation and hosted payment pages is preferred.

Get more information on this Product Manager role.

See which European start-ups are hiring. Check out Euronews.jobs, set up alerts and bookmark the link for regular check-ins

Read more here:

Who will be Europe's next big unicorns? - Euronews

After years of watching traditional media dominate live sports, tech giants have decided it's time to get in the game by paying up for live sports rights.

Why it matters: The value of sports rights has been in the stratosphere and the inclusion of trillion-dollar tech giants will only lift those numbers higher.

State of play: Disney, Comcast, Paramount, and Fox will pay a combined $24.2 billion for sports rights in 2024 alone, according to data from MoffettNathanson.

Yes, and: Apple and Amazon are battling for the NFL's Sunday Ticket package a deal that is expected to include a stake in the league's media business with Apple seen as the heavy favorite.

Yes, but: Most of the sports rights still reside with the established media giants that now have their own streaming services.

Between the lines: Traditional media companies love sports for their ability to drive huge viewership that turns into big ad dollars. Big tech has a different goal.

What's next: The NBA's upcoming rights renewal will be closely watched next year.

See more here:

Big tech crashes big sports - axios.com

Hopes for a congressional vote this summer on a major tech antitrust bill have all but fizzled out as the August recess quickly approaches.

The big picture: It's more likely than ever that this Congress will push efforts to pass Big Tech competition rules into the fall, where they will face slim chances with lawmakers distracted by midterm elections.

Catch up quick: The American Innovation and Competition Online Act, co-sponsored by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), would ban Big Tech companies from favoring their own services in an anticompetitive way.

Driving the news: The American Innovation and Competition Online Act has bipartisan support. But floor time is dwindling as a list of Democratic priorities, including budget reconciliation and protecting same-sex marriage, take precedence.

What they're saying: Supporters are grappling with the idea that their bill may not see floor time until after the August recess, per conversations with sources from advocacy groups and companies pushing for a vote.

Yes, but: Advocates tell Axios that if the bill hits the floor at any point before a new Congress is sworn in, it will pass with at least 60 yes votes.

Flashback: The House began this current antitrust legislative push in 2020, with a sweeping report charging the biggest U.S. tech companies, including Meta, Amazon, Apple and Google, with putting their own products and services ahead of competitors'.

Originally posted here:

Congress' push to regulate Big Tech is fizzling out - Axios

Businesses these days need to be extra-careful in their dealings with other industries - especially the oil industry. Guilt by association is instantaneous for anyone that does business with the pariahs of the corporate world. And now Big Tech is in the spotlight.

Microsoft, Amazon, and their peers have been working with the oil industry for years - ever since the oil industry realized that entering the digital age might not be such a bad idea.

Big Techs software has been essential for optimizing oil and gas exploration and production, making the industry crucial for Big Oils recent financial success, along with oil prices.

Bloomberg recently noted in an article on Big Oil and Big Tech how Big Tech had been making transition commitments, but in the meantime, it has been helping Big Oil increase production, which has prompted criticism.

According to the article, Big Tech is justifying its continued work with the oil industry by arguing that its work is actually helping to bring about the transition to a lower-carbon energy future. Some critics, however, are not convinced. The report cited a former Microsoft engineer who noted, if you do anything more efficiently, it gets done more.

This appears to be a problem for those who advocate for oil staying in the ground.

Indeed, efficiency enhances output. But judging by the oil market balance forecast, Big Oil has not exactly been in an all-out production growth mode recently. Big Oil has been itself in a transition mode, very much like Big Tech, advertising its acquisitions in the wind and solar space, promoting its emission-cutting efforts, and in Shells case, urgently selling assets to comply with a court ruling that ordered it to slash emissions by 45 percent from 2019 levels by 2030.

The critic cited by Bloomberg above quit Microsoft because of its continued work with oil supermajors. Employee activism is a well-documented phenomenon in the Big Tech sphere: employees from Amazon and Google, for example, staged protests and pressured management to stop its dealings with Big Oil because of the climate before the pandemic.

At Microsoft, some workers challenged the companys continued business dealings with Big Oil at a meeting in 2019, suggesting it was unethical. According to a USA Today report about that meeting, chief executive Satya Nadella defended Big Oil, saying these companies were investing heavily in sustainable production research and development.

Theres no fossil fuel CEO who sits there and says, You know, Im just gonna deny climate change, Nadella said, according to a transcript provided by Microsoft workers who were at the meeting. If anything, theyre all saying, Let us have, in fact, the regulation, the pricing mechanisms that get us to this future.

Critics insist that Big Techs affair with Big Oil contributes to more emissions. Yet the truth of the matter is that the increased efficiency that this affair actually saves energy - because it saves effort.

A big part of what Big Tech does for Big Oil is crunching massive amounts of data generated during exploration activities. This data analysis helps the oil company pick the optimal drilling spot, reducing the danger of a well coming up dry. The fewer wells you need to drill, the less energy you use. This will not be enough for critics who want all oil production to stop, but this is not happening anytime soon.

Thats not all, either. Technology is helping the oil industry become safer. Smart tech for oil field workers and site inspectors and drone deployment for pipeline monitoring are but a couple of the ways in which technology can be good not just for the oil industry but for the environment.

Those exclusively focused on carbon emissions, however, are not happy. Big Techs cloud computing services are boosting Big Oils output. This is bad for Big Techs own emission-cutting targets. But blaming it all on Big Oil would be taking it too far.

Amazon, for instance, reported an 18-percent annual increase in its emissions for 2021 because of its booming business during the pandemic. Compared to 2019, when the company first reported emissions, its footprint was 40 percent higher. This had nothing to do with its doing business with Big Oil. It had to do with the need for more planes and trucks to deliver products to customers amid a pandemic that kept millions at home for months on end.

In 2019, Big Oils investments in cloud computing were estimated at some $20 billion. While Google is out of this market after employees won the pressure game they played against the companys management, the world still needs more oil than it is getting right now. The world desperately needs cheap energy, and Big Tech is helping Big Oil to provide it.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

The rest is here:

Big Tech Is Under Pressure To Turn Its Back On Big Oil - OilPrice.com