Category Archives: Big Tech

The digital revolution promised amazing new opportunities and it delivered. Digital platforms promoted social interaction, democratized information and gave us hundreds of new ways to have fun.

But digital innovation has had a dark side. Giant digital platforms have provided new avenues of proliferation for the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, human trafficking, drug trafficking and bullying and have promoted eating disorders, addictive behaviors and teen suicide. Parents like Kristin Bride, whose teenage son killed himself after being mercilessly cyberbullied, have shared heartbreaking stories with Congress and the public about the potentially deadly consequences.

Nobody elected Big Tech executives to govern anything, let alone the entire digital world. If democracy means anything, it means that leaders on both sides of the aisle must take responsibility for protecting the freedom of the American people from the ever-changing whims of these powerful companies and their unaccountable C.E.O.s. Today were stepping up to that challenge with a bipartisan bill to treat Big Tech the way we treat other industries.

A few Big Tech companies generate a majority of the worlds internet traffic and essentially control nearly every aspect of Americans digital lives. Platforms are protected from legal liability in many of their decisions, so they operate without accountability. Big Tech companies have far too much unrestrained power over our economy, our society and our democracy. These massive businesses post eye-popping profits while they suppress competition. Google uses its search engine to give preference to its own products, like Google Hotels and Google Flights, giving it an unfair leg up on competitors. Amazon sucks up information from small businesses that offer products for sale on its platform, then uses that information to run its own competing businesses. Apple forces entrepreneurs (and thereby consumers) to pay crushing commissions to use its App Store. A few Big Tech companies stifle all competition before it poses any serious threat.

Big Tech companies also prey on ordinary users. They vacuum up our personal data, often with little care for whether their practices are responsible or even legal. Some Big Tech platforms mislead us when we try to limit the data we share, and they regularly fall prey to massive data leaks that leave us vulnerable to criminal activity, foreign interference and disinformation. Adversaries in China and other countries often store or process our data. And if we want to know how our data is being used or why our posts are being taken down, good luck getting an answer. Were usually in the dark about where our data goes or how it is used.

Enough is enough. Its time to rein in Big Tech. And we cant do it with a law that only nibbles around the edges of the problem. Piecemeal efforts to stop abusive and dangerous practices have failed. Congress is too slow, it lacks the tech expertise, and the army of Big Tech lobbyists can pick off individual efforts easier than shooting fish in a barrel. Meaningful change the change worth engaging every member of Congress to fight for is structural.

For more than a century, Congress has established regulatory agencies to preserve innovation while minimizing harm presented by emerging industries. In 1887 the Interstate Commerce Commission took on railroads. In 1914 the Federal Trade Commission took on unfair methods of competition and later unfair and deceptive acts and practices. In 1934 the Federal Communications Commission took on radio (and then television). In 1975 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission took on nuclear power, and in 1977 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission took on electricity generation and transmission. We need a nimble, adaptable, new agency with expertise, resources and authority to do the same for Big Tech.

Our Digital Consumer Protection Commission Act would create an independent, bipartisan regulator charged with licensing and policing the nations biggest tech companies like Meta, Google and Amazon to prevent online harm, promote free speech and competition, guard Americans privacy and protect national security. The new watchdog would focus on the unique threats posed by tech giants while strengthening the tools available to the federal agencies and state attorneys general who have authority to regulate Big Tech.

Our legislation would guarantee common-sense safeguards for everyone who uses tech platforms. Families would have the right to protect their children from sexual exploitation, cyberbullying and deadly drugs. Certain digital platforms have promoted the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, suicidal ideation and eating disorders or done precious little to combat these evils; our bill would require Big Tech to mitigate such harms and allow families to seek redress if they do not.

Americans deserve to know how their data is collected and used and to control who can see it. They deserve the freedom to opt out of targeted advertising. And they deserve the right to go online without, say, some A.I. tools algorithm denying them a loan based on their race or politics. If our legislation is enacted, platforms would face consequences for suppressing speech in violation of their own terms of service. The commission would have the flexibility and agility to develop more expertise and respond to new risks, like those posed by generative A.I.

Our bill would set clear rules for tech companies and impose real consequences for companies that break the law. For the giant companies, anticompetitive practices like exploiting market dominance, tying the sale of one product to another, charging customers different prices for the same product and preventing employees from working for competitors would be prohibited. The bill would set a high bar for mergers and acquisitions by dominant Big Tech platforms and make it possible to block and reverse harmful deals.

Reining in tech giants will be hard, but its a fight worth fighting. If we win, Americans finally will have the tools they need to combat many online evils harming their children and ruining lives. And small businesses will have a fighting chance to innovate and compete in a world dominated by tech monopolies.

No company, no industry and no C.E.O. should be above the law. These reforms will ensure that the next generation of great American tech companies will operate responsibly while remaining on the cutting edge of innovation.

Its time for Congress to act.

Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) has served in the Senate since 2003. Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) has served since 2013.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

See the article here:

Opinion | Lindsey Graham and Elizabeth Warren: When It Comes to Big Tech, Enough Is Enough - The New York Times

Earlier this month, countries that are party to a global deal on corporate taxation decided to delay implementing new rules by one year, to 2025. The agreement will overhaul decades-old rules on how to tax multinational digital giants such as Amazon and Google, who tend to book profit in low-tax jurisdictions to reduce their bills. New rules would see governments agree to tax the companies based on their share of sales in each country.

Of the 143 countries in the deal, 138 endorsed the latest agreement. Five did not. They were Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Russia, Belarus and Canada.

Ottawa instead will go it alone and start rolling out new tax rules in 2024.

The United States, in defence of the tech companies nominally based there, said it is considering retaliation against Canada. The U.S. could introduce new tariffs to punish Canadian industry.

Such a trade dispute is pointless. One year of tax revenue is not worth being so offside with our major global partners.

The Liberal government is right to push back on giant global technology corporations. But doing so unilaterally is both naive and ineffective for a medium-size country like Canada. Ottawa must move in concert with allies and could learn some things from their approaches.

When the Liberals came to office, they loved Big Tech. Justin Trudeau even attended the unveiling of Googles ill-fated Sidewalk Labs experiment in Toronto in 2017. But as the zeitgeist turned against Big Tech, the Liberals turned with it.

The Liberals began to introduce a raft of bills to modernize Canadas approach to the tech giants. Among them was the once-derided, but totally sensible, Netflix tax, aka a sales tax on digital services; changes to corporate taxation, as discussed above; reforms to privacy law to address how tech giants hoovered up and monetized Canadians personal information; a law to bring streaming services under Canadian content rules; and a bill to force Google and Facebook to negotiate with news publishers to share ad revenue.

The latter two seek to force tech companies to compensate Canadian media for disrupting their business models.

On the news bill, Google and Facebook have reacted as they warned they would: by beginning to block news content and, in effect, pulling out of Canadian news. They can do so because Canada is not a big enough market for them to sweat over. The companies made a deal with Australia after much discussion but they also successfully blocked Spanish news for years over a similar law, until Spain amended it.

The Liberals may score political points for looking tough. But at a steep cost to Canadian industry. This isnt to say the Liberals should do nothing. They should. One place to start is to strengthen Canadian competition and data privacy laws, as this space has argued before.

The real problem with the tech giants is the enormous market power they have amassed globally. Google handles more than 90 per cent of search queries in Canada, and search is one of the most critical pieces of infrastructure in the digital economy. It uses this dominance to make billions of dollars through online advertising, a field it grew to dominate by buying up rivals.

It is this market power that other jurisdictions have aimed at. The United States and the European Union are taking legal action against Google to break up its advertising business on competition grounds.

In Canada, by contrast, Facebook paid a $9-million penalty to the Competition Bureau in 2020 for allegedly mishandling Canadians personal information. The penalty is so paltry for a company of Facebooks size that one imagines the fine was paid off through loose change found in an office couch.

Canada should make sure competition and privacy laws are as robust as those of other countries, so it has the tools to join in a concerted global push to regulate the tech giants.

It can also lean on diplomacy: as tech entrepreneur Jim Balsillie has argued, Canada played a role in promoting financial stability after the 2008 financial crisis why could it not play a role in the global stability of the digital economy? Indeed, Canadas diplomacy leans heavily on multilateral institutions, underscoring the reality that smaller countries need to pool their influence.

In concert with allies, Canada can and should help regulate global tech behemoths. But not if it keeps picking fights it cant win.

The rest is here:

Globe editorial: Canada can't tackle Big Tech on its own - The Globe and Mail

More Big Tech earnings and the jobs report are in the week ahead as investors wrap up a strong week that included a historic run for the Dow Jones Industrial Average . The Dow and the S & P 500 notched their third straight week of gains on Friday . On Wednesday, the 30-stock Dow posted a 13-day advance that matched the index's longest streak of gains going back to 1987. One more positive session would have tied the Dow with its record 14-day rally in 1897. Back then, Queen Victoria was still the reigning monarch in the United Kingdom. And, the index listed just 12 stocks in total, such as American Cotton Oil and American Sugar. Of those original names, General Electric remains in business with its name intact, though it was kicked out of the blue chip index in 2018. Even so, markets continued their upward momentum as more inflation data pointed toward signs of cooling, and earnings came in far better than feared. That added to the bull case that the U.S. economy can manage a soft landing. "While the economy isn't like white hot, it ain't bad," said Kim Forrest, founder and chief investment officer at Bokeh Capital Partners. This week alone, investors digested Friday's data for personal consumption expenditures price index that continued to show cooling inflation in June. The gross domestic product report showed the U.S. economy is growing faster than expected, and also suggested price pressures are easing. And, mega-cap tech stocks Alphabet and Meta gained more than 10% this week after their respective earnings beats. To top it off, the Federal Reserve hiked rates to their highest level in more than 22 years after passing a much-anticipated quarter-point hike. Even more important, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said the central bank could pause here, taking a data-dependent approach going forward. "All of this fuels the buying frenzy, and it's more than certain stocks now, right? It's spreading out," Forrest said. "So yeah, I think that this market is merited." Jobs report out Friday Investors will digest the latest data from the July jobs report due out next Friday. Market participants are not expecting any major surprises from the report, which could continue to show solid results in what has been an extraordinarily strong labor market. It could also hold some signs of easing in jobs growth similar to the June report. Nonfarm payrolls increased 209,000 last month, lower than the Dow Jones consensus estimate of 240,000. The unemployment rate was 3.6%, in line with expectations. "I don't expect any huge surprise from this jobs report next week," said Liz Young, head of investment strategy at SoFi. "Maybe it's a little lighter. But I don't think it's going to be a huge surprise to the downside or the upside. I think it probably is a little bit more of the same." Investors will be watching the wage numbers closely. Market bears worry that persistent wage growth could mean inflation will spiral higher, as it did in the 1970s and early 1980s. In those years, average wages typically jumped 7%, 8% or 9% year over year, according to the Pew Research Center. However, Bokeh's Forrest said those concerns have yet to materialize. While wages have increased, she said they're not driving the sort of price pressures that occurred during those high inflation decades. "The wage inflation is not driving the inflation because people are slowly getting raises that allow them to kind of match the new pricing environment," she said. Bokeh's Forrest would like to see average hourly earnings rise 4.4% from the year-earlier period, which is what they were in the June report, or lower. She'd also like to see the average workweek stay around the 34-hour mark, or "the golden number for hours worked." "Higher than that means things are getting hot, people are being overworked, working more, and that hiring will pick up," Forrest said. "Less, it means people aren't being worked as much and layoffs may occur." Big Tech earnings continue with Apple, Amazon Wall Street is at about the halfway mark for second-quarter earnings season, with results thus far coming in stronger than anticipated. Of the 255 companies that have reported in the S & P 500, about 81% have posted positive surprises, according to FactSet. Earnings will continue to pour in next week, with key results from Big Tech companies Apple and Amazon on Thursday. Both companies, whose stocks are up more than 50% each year to date, will have to justify their valuations amid criticism that they have gotten too frothy. "CEOs need to justify these valuation levels. And we've gotten some of them but not all, so rolling through the rest of the tech and communications, and basically the growthy names will be very important," SoFi's Young said. "Much like other quarters, the results are important, but the guidance is even more so because now when we look out a 12-month view, we've got 2024 in that picture as well," Young added. Other companies will be monitored for any signs of weakness in the consumer. Bokeh's Forrest said she'd keep an eye on the back-to-school trade, particularly in computer companies such as Apple or the semiconductors, which should get a boost as students require electronics in the fall. Chip company ON Semiconductor reports Monday, and Advanced Micro Devices posts results Tuesday. Outlook ahead Even with markets posting yet another positive week, market skeptics continue to urge traders to take caution, especially as the effects of tightening monetary policy start to make its way through the economy. For instance, there's the decision by the Bank of Japan on Friday to ease its yield curve control , a move that SoFi's Young said have investors uncertain how it will affect markets. She also worried about the path forward for inflation. "I think inflation could prove to be kind of a tricky situation for the rest of the year, meaning we've gotten used to this linear decline since last summer in the inflation measures. It may not continue along that path," Young said. "Now, it may not spike back up, but it could stay steady, if not rise a little bit given what's happening with commodity prices right now." "Momentum is a very, very strong force," she said. "And I think it's at play until there's a reason for it to turn around." Still, cooling inflation, strong jobs market and a resilient economy could spell a happy path for Wall Street. Bokeh's Forrest said, "This would be the soft landing. The mythical soft landing." Week ahead calendar All times ET. Monday 9:45 a.m.: Chicago PMI SA (July) 10:30 a.m.: Dallas Fed index (July) Earnings: ON Semiconductor , Arista Networks , Western Digital , Monolithic Power Systems Tuesday 9:45 a.m.: Markit PMI Manufacturing SA final (July) 10:00 a.m.: Construction Spending SA M/M (June) 10:00 a.m.: ISM Manufacturing SA (July) 10:00 a.m.: JOLTS Job Openings (June) Earnings: Merck & Co., Stanley Black & Decker , Caterpillar , Marriott International , Altria Group , Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings , Pfizer , Marathon Petroleum , Molson Coors Beverage , SolarEdge Technologies , Advanced Micro Devices , Caesars Entertainment , Electronic Arts , Starbucks Wednesday 8:15 a.m.: ADP Employment Survey SA (July) Earnings: CVS Health , Fidelity National Information Services , Generac Holdings , Humana , The Kraft Heinz Co. , Yum Brands , MetLife , Marathon Oil , Occidental Petroleum , PayPal Holdings , Qualcomm , Etsy , The Clorox Co ., Costco Wholesale , MGM Resorts International Thursday 8:30 a.m.: Continuing Jobless Claims SA (7/22) 8:30 a.m.: Initial claims SA (7/29) 9:45 a.m.: PMI Composite SA (Final) 9:45 a.m.: Markit PMI Services SA final (July) 10:00 a.m.: Durable Orders SA M/M final (June) 10:00 a.m.: Factory Orders SA M/M (June) 10:00 a.m.: ISM Services PMI SA (July) Earnings: EPAM Systems , News Corp ., Constellation Energy , Moderna , Warner Bros. Discovery , Hasbro , Iron Mountain , ConocoPhillips , Kellogg , Booking Holdings , Amazon.com , Expedia Group , Fortinet , Motorola Solutions , Apple , Monster Beverage Friday 8:30 a.m.: Hourly Earnings SA preliminary (July) 8:30 a.m.: Average Workweek SA preliminary (July) 8:30 a.m.: Manufacturing Payrolls SA (July) 8:30 a.m.: Nonfarm Payrolls SA (July) 8:30 a.m.: Private Nonfarm Payrolls SA (July) 8:30 a.m.: Unemployment Rate (July) Earnings: Dominion Energy

Go here to read the rest:

July jobs report and more Big Tech earnings are in the week ahead after markets notch historic run for Dow - CNBC

When Lina Khan, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on July 13th to discuss the F.T.C.s record under her leadership, she faced almost comically hostile questioning. Leading up to the hearing, the Republican-led committee had described its goal as to examine the agencys mismanagement and its disregard for ethics; the meetings tone followed predictably from this blueprint. In his opening remarks, Jim Jordan, the committees chair, thanked Khan for appearing and then went on to condemn her tenure, describing Khan as trying to usher in a radical departure from the norms that made the American economy great, to a system where her and her cronies have unchecked power over business practices in our country. He called the agencys investigation of Twitters data-security practiceswhich have been the focus of public attention and whistle-blower complaints since 2020, following major breachesa shakedown. (Some of the lawmakers comments echoed a request that Twitter filed in federal court that morning, asking a judge to end the F.T.C.s monitoring of its data-security practices.) Later on, Darrell Issa called Khan a bully, and Kevin Kiley, referring to recent court setbacks for Khans agency, said, You are now zero for four in merger trials. Are you losing on purpose?

Throughout the proceedings, Khan seemed unperturbed. At times, she wore a tight facial expression that suggested she was trying not to smile. But the hearing comes at a challenging moment for Khan and her ambitious agenda for the F.T.C., which has launched a campaign to restrain the economic reach of tech giantsinstitutions, such as Meta and Amazon, that Khan and many other members of the Biden Administration believe harm the economy and threaten democracy. Khans plans have been dogged by controversy and legal setbacks from the beginning, and, last week, a federal judge issued a fresh blow to the agency by ruling that it could not prevent Microsoft from acquiring the video-game producer Activision Blizzard, a merger that would create the third-largest company in the gaming industry by revenue.

Microsoft and Activisionwhich produces, among other games, Candy Crush and the Call of Duty franchisewent public with plans to merge in January, 2022. The F.T.C. announced it would challenge the Microsoft-Activision deal in court that December, an aggressive move that signalled the agency was not afraid to pursue potentially controversial, high-profile cases. In its complaint, the F.T.C. asserted that Microsoft, which manufactures the Xbox, could make it harder to access Activisions most popular games outside of its own universe of products. Its argument was based on two ideas that have not traditionally been central to antitrust law, but which Khan and the F.T.C. believe should be taken more seriously. One is the notion that vertical mergersdeals that unite companies operating on different levels of the same businesscan create serious problems for competition by making it more difficult for new firms to enter markets. The other is that considering how a market might evolve is as important as considering its present state. In this case, the F.T.C.s underlying concern revolved around the idea that the evolution of online gaming and virtual reality will be one of the next major advances in the tech industry; given that Microsoft produces the HoloLens, a V.R. headset, the combined companys advantage might suppress competition. Everyones in a race to control this market, and I think network effects are going to be really important here, Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who specializes in antitrust issues, told me. Being a first mover, being a dominant player, is extremely valuable. So, its a really big deal from that perspective. All the things that Professor Kahn was writing about before she became the F.T.C. chair are going to be front and center.

Microsofts rationale for purchasing Activision is that integrating a game studio into its business will make it easier for the company to develop new products and cut costs, leading to lower costs for consumers. The companies have also vigorously defended themselves against the F.T.C.s charge that they would limit the availability of what are currently Activisions products from players using consoles produced by other companies. As part of Microsofts campaign to gain approval for the merger in other jurisdictions around the world, it promised to sign an agreement with Sonywhich produces the PlayStation and is one of Microsofts chief competitors in the gaming industryto keep Call of Duty available on the PlayStation for ten years. Microsoft has already indicated that several games produced by another company it recently acquired, ZeniMax, will only be available on Microsofts own hardware. Still, the F.T.C. has faced a steep challenge trying to prove the risk that Microsoft might eventually restrict Activisions products from other companies machines. As a former agency official told me, Usually, because companies make money by selling more, not less, you have to do some complicated math modelling to see why they would withhold their games. The official noted that the most similar recent case, wherein the Justice Department challenged the merger of A.T. & T. and Time Warner, in 2019, on the ground that the combined firm could limit access to its content, also resulted in the governments loss. Vertical-integration cases, of the sort that Khans F.T.C. has indicated it will continue to pursue, are particularly difficult to win, the official noted, because the theory of harm requires some pretty complex math about the future, and because you have to weigh any harm against the benefits of integration.

Khan, who was appointed to the F.T.C. by President Biden, was sworn in as its Commissioner in June, 2021. She was the youngest Commissioner on record at the time and had relatively little experience inside the political bubble. Partly for that reason, she came into the office as the object of high hopes, both within the organization and among critics and activists who were concerned by the tech industrys growing power. In 2017, when she was still a law student at Yale, Khan established a reputation after publishing a paper called Amazons Antitrust Paradox, which argued that although Amazon offers the apparent benefit of low prices to consumers, it ultimately harms them by crushing smaller businesses that cannot afford to compete, reducing choice over time and doing damage to the wider economy. Although seeming obvious in retrospect, the article identified many aspects of the tech industry that have since come to be widely seen as negative, and presented a view of how antitrust enforcement should work that has gained traction across the field. A lot of people say, Its incredible that that paper was written by a student, but, from another perspective, it could only have been written by a student, Allensworth said. She was an outsider. There is a more commonsense way of thinking about markets and competition, and, in fact, its the way the companies themselves think about markets and competition.

But applying these principles to the real world, in a partisan political environment shaped by entrenched corporate influence, has proved difficult. Khans setbacks at the F.T.C. have been significant and high-profile, while the advances have been more subtle. One of the F.T.C.s most notable moves under its new chair was to refile a case against Meta which argued that the company had monopolized the social-media market, and which had been dismissed in 2021 owing to lack of evidence. Last January, a judge permitted the refiled casewhich featured a significant amount of new material and argued that Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram should be broken upto proceed. The ruling noted that, while winning at trial might still be a tall task for the F.T.C., the agency had now presented enough facts to plausibly establish that Facebook holds monopoly power in personal social networking, and that its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp may have constituted anti-competitive conduct. (The case is pending.)

Last July, the F.T.C. went after Meta again, filing a lawsuit to block the company from acquiring a Los Angeles-based virtual-reality startup called Within Unlimited, which is known primarily for the V.R. fitness app Supernatural. In this case, the F.T.C. presented a similar theory to one underlying its attempt to prevent the Microsoft-Activision merger: that Meta was trying to buy a competitor in a market where it was currently a minor player but could easily become the dominant one in the future, reducing competition for fitness-related virtual-reality products. Following a trial in federal court, a judge rejected the F.T.C.s arguments, leading the F.T.C. to withdraw the case. Meta completed the takeover.

This loss loomed over the Microsoft-Activision challenge. In late June, both sides presented evidence at a five-day-long hearing in San Francisco in order to obtain a ruling before July 18th, after which the acquisition agreement could have been terminated by either party. During the hearing, Microsofts C.E.O., Satya Nadella, said that the company would have no financial incentive to block other console makers from access to Call of Duty, while the head of Microsofts gaming division reportedly raised his hand and pretended to take an oath: My testimony is: we will continue to ship future versions of Call of Duty on Sonys PlayStation. The judge hearing the case, Jacqueline Scott Corley, seems to have accepted these promises as genuine, noting, in her decision, that Microsoft had committed to making the game available on rival platforms, such as Sony and Steam. The F.T.C. appealed the ruling but quickly lost.

Allensworth noted that, while Khans commitment to pursuing big cases despite unencouraging odds had benefits, there were also risks, such as alienating the F.T.C. staff, who, according to staff surveys cited during the congressional hearing, have been suffering from low morale. Unfavorable court decisions also create precedents that could increase the legal burden for the next cases to come along. On the other hand, something had to be done. Professor Khan could have come in, been milquetoast, and done it the same way weve done it for forty years, Allensworth said. I think shes right. You cant be afraid of bringing the hard cases. I think its too early to say whether its working.

An earlier version of this article misstated the status of Microsofts agreement with Sony.

Follow this link:

A Setback in the F.T.C.'s Fight Against Big Tech - The New Yorker

On his popular podcast Real Talk, host Ryan Jespersen recently asked me if I thought the federal government should back down from its standoff with Google and Meta.

Absolutely not! I said. Ottawa needs to double down.

Big Tech is trying to crush Canadas efforts to sustain its news industry by making scary threats and attacking Canadians right to freely access local news.

But Canada must not back down.

The Online News Act, passed a few weeks ago, aims to divert $300 million per year from the approximately $10 billion in untaxed revenue Google and Meta make on ad sales in Canada. That money will be redistributed to sustain a healthy independent press something that benefits all Canadians. But as they have done when facing government regulation in Australia, France, Spain and elsewhere, both companies retaliated by threatening to stop sharing news links from Canadian publishers on their platforms.

Canada needs to have a strong, free and independent press, Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez said a couple of weeks ago when discussing the legislation. Its fundamental to our democracy.

Then last week, Big Tech began meting out punishment. Google announced it was withholding its new artificial-intelligence chatbot from Canada. Meta began running ads opposing the law and explaining why it shouldnt have to pay.

Sandy Garossino, a noted columnist and podcaster with Canadas National Observer, has called their tactics mob-like.

What the hell kind of people act this way? she asks in her recent column. Nice little newspaper youve got there be a shame if something happened to it.

Its not like theyre strapped for cash, she points out. In 2022, they generated combined global earnings of some US$400 billion. Thats more than half a trillion in Canadian dollars, thank you very much. Plus, she notes, they paid no taxes on their Canadian earnings.

The threats seem to be working. A couple of weeks ago, the heritage minister appeared to soften his stance. That worried me coming so soon after Meta and Googles threats. When I read about it, I had to put my head in my hands and take three deep breaths.

Media commentator Michael Geist wrote a post that sums up the revisions, which he called, Caving in on Bill C-18 Government Outlines Planned Regulations that Signal Willingness to Cast Aside Core Principles of the Online News Act.

What rankles me about Rodriguezs yielding even slightly is that its way too early in the process for Canada to give in on any points. This could be easily misread as Ottawa relinquishing precious power in a grossly uneven struggle.

Big Tech can seem almighty. But its possible to push back.

In 2020, Australia stood up to Google and Meta with legislation that forced the tech giants to pay for news. And heres what happened: threats, bullying and, eventually, capitulation.

Australia hung tight. According to those working on the legislation, the issue was competition Australias news industry should have been compensated for helping Google and Facebook attract eyeballs.

Google and Facebook did not leave, Australias communications minister, Paul Fletcher, told Wired Magazine. They paid up, striking deals with news organizations to pay for the content they display on their sites for the first time.

This has resulted in millions of dollars for Australias news industry across the spectrum from Rupert Murdochs corporate empire to independent news sites. Not all publications seem to have benefited from the deals, however some have had as much as 30 per cent of their newsroom costs paid for by the platforms, according to news reports..

Tech companies like Google cant be trusted to act in the best interests of the news industry or democracy, as history has already shown us. Thats why governments must step in. The need for reliable daily news and intensive investigative reporting has never been greater.

Gathering quality news is expensive. It takes thousands of news reporters to provide us with the information we need as a nation to navigate threats to climate stability, public health and democracy. Ottawa is right to ask the tech giants to step up more. Canada is not alone in demanding this.

As my colleague Sandy wrote: Make no mistake, this attack is a proxy fight by these tech giants. A very similar bill, the California Journalism Preservation Act, is making its progress toward passage in that state with bipartisan support. Its facing similar threats, no doubt because legislatures everywhere will do the same. In other words, the world is watching how we respond.

This is an important moment in an international fight. This is Canadas moment. This is our moment. Join me in standing strong for democracy and independent journalism in Canada.

Read this article:

Be strong in the fight against Big Tech, Canada - Canada's National Observer

What is CryptoSlate Alpha?

A web3 membership designed to empower you with cutting-edge insights and knowledge. Learn more

Welcome! You are connected to CryptoSlate Alpha. To manage your wallet connection, click the button below.

If you don't have enough, buy ACS on the following exchanges:

Access Protocol is a web3 monetization paywall. When users stake ACS, they can access paywalled content. Learn more

Disclaimer: By choosing to lock your ACS tokens with CryptoSlate, you accept and recognize that you will be bound by the terms and conditions of your third-party digital wallet provider, as well as any applicable terms and conditions of the Access Foundation. CryptoSlate shall have no responsibility or liability with regard to the provision, access, use, locking, security, integrity, value, or legal status of your ACS Tokens or your digital wallet, including any losses associated with your ACS tokens. It is solely your responsibility to assume the risks associated with locking your ACS tokens with CryptoSlate. For more information, visit our terms page.

The rest is here:

Decoding volatility: Are big tech stocks as stable as we think? - CryptoSlate

Patients think their health data will be leaked and dont trust big tech firms | Image Credit: Rawpixel.com - Rawpixel.com - stock.adobe.com.

Data and technology are vital in todays health care world, but that doesnt mean patients trust any of it.

In fact, a survey from Atlas VPN and Health Gorilla found that 95% of patients are concerned about a potential data breach or leak of medical records, with 70% having extreme (28%) or moderate (40%) concerns.

Medical data breaches can result in identity theft, financial fraud, reputational damage, and even endanger a patient's physical well-being if sensitive medical conditions are disclosed, the survey notes.

The findings also showed that25% of patients heldslight concernsabout potential data breaches. These patients reflect a cautious outlook on their information and highlight the need for enhanced data protection measures and transparency within the health care industry, according to the report.

Only5%of respondents displayeda lack of concernregarding the possibility of their medical records being leaked. The report states that this group may feel reassured by existing data protection measures or lack awareness of the potential risks.

Low trust in Big Tech

Data is a prized commodity and technology giants wield unparalleled influence, but the public's trust in Big Tech companies like Amazon, Apple, and Google, is not good. Many people are skeptical about large technology companies offering services to store sensitive medical information.

A significant38%of respondents expressed anoutright lack of trustin Big Tech. Many people are hesitant to trust Big Tech with their health data. Concerns come from the knowledge of past breaches, the potential for misuse or unauthorized access, and doubts about the profit motives of these companies, according to the report.

Similarly,27%of peopleslightly distrustBig Tech's ability to manage their health data securely. This group remains cautious, acknowledging the potential benefits of such services but remaining wary of the risks associated with sharing their health information with technology giants, the report states.

Only21%of those surveyed placedslight trustin Big Tech. Despite the majority's concerns, some people are still willing to give these companies the benefit of the doubt. They recognize the companies' technological capabilities and broad influence, hoping that they will handle their health data with responsibility.

In addition, only14%of respondents showedconfidencein Big Tech's ability to manage their health data securely. This group trusts these technology giants, seemingly unbothered by past controversies and fully willing to entrust their most sensitive medical information to their care, according to the report.

Health care providers must actively advocate for patient rights and data autonomy. Patients should be empowered with the knowledge of their data's value, ownership, and control. By offering stringent data protection measures, health care providers can create an environment where patients feel in command of their health information, the report reads in part.

This article was initially published by our sister publication, Medical Economics.

Originally posted here:

Patients think their health data will be leaked and don't trust big tech ... - Contemporary Pediatrics

This weeks Big Tech earnings season showcased the central role of artificial intelligence (A.I.). Despite varying financial results, Meta and Alphabet reported stronger-than-expected advertising revenues, while Snaps forecast fell short. However, the buzz around A.I. was consistent across all earnings calls.

Executives from Intel, Microsoft, and Meta all mentioned A.I. several times. At Microsoft, A.I. discussions even surpassed references to the cloud, which is a key focus for the companys CEO, Satya Nadella. Yet, Alphabet emerged as the winner of the A.I. contest, with executives uttering the term 82 times during their 60-minute call. In contrast, search, which represents 60% of Alphabets business, was only mentioned 30 times.

Of course, its important to note that quantifying buzzwords isnt the sole indicator of a companys business priorities. The questions posed by analysts during earnings calls can also influence the language used by executives. Nevertheless, counting mentions of A.I. provides an interesting glimpse into the current trends and concerns across different tech companies.

At Meta, CEO Mark Zuckerberg emphasized efficiency eight times, in line with his companys focus on streamlining operations. The term metaverse, which the company renamed itself after, appeared 11 times, compared to 63 mentions of A.I.

On the other hand, Meta executives made just three references to social networking, despite its importance in Facebooks user base of 3 billion. Similarly, Microsoft executives mentioned Activision, the video game company they are acquiring for $69 billion, only three times. This deal, once completed, will be the largest in Microsofts history.

In other news, the Senate advanced the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the Children and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0), signaling efforts to address the mental health crisis among young people. However, digital rights groups have expressed concerns about potential online surveillance resulting from KOSAs age restrictions.

There was positive news for Intel, with CEO Pat Gelsinger leading the company back to profitability, thanks in part to a slowdown in the decline of PC shipments. In terms of A.I. safety, researchers have demonstrated methods to bypass the safeguards implemented by A.I. companies, highlighting the need for ongoing vigilance in this area.

Lastly, a notable issue emerged in the gaming world, as malware reportedly spread through hacked lobbies in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. This worm, transmitted from player to player, prompted Activision to temporarily take the games multiplayer mode offline for investigation.

Overall, A.I. remains a prominent theme in the tech industry, with companies dedicating significant attention to its development and integration into their products and services.

Read this article:

The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Big Tech Earnings Season - Fagen wasanni

The European Union might be making strides toward regulating artificial intelligence (with passage of the AI Act expected by the end of the year), but the US government has largely failed to keep pace with the global push to put guardrails around the technology.

The White House, which said it will continue to take executive action and pursue bipartisan legislation, introduced an interim measure last week in the form of voluntary commitments for safe, secure, and transparent development and use of AI technology.

Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Inflection, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI agreed to prioritize research on societal risks posed by AI systems and incent third-party discovery and reporting of issues and vulnerabilities, among other things.

But according to academic experts, the agreements fall far short.

The elephant in the room here is that the United States continues to push forward with voluntary measures, whereas the European Union will pass the most comprehensive piece of AI legislation that weve seen to date, Brandie Nonnecke, founding director of UC Berkeleys Citris Policy Lab, told Tech Brew.

[These companies] want to be there in helping to essentially develop the test by which they will be graded, Nonnecke said. That, combined with cuts to trust and safety teams in recent months, is cause for skepticism, she added.

Emily Bender, a University of Washington professor who specializes in computational linguistics and natural language processing, said the vagueness of the commitments could be a reflection of what the companies were willing to agree to (the agreements voluntary nature at work).

We really shouldn't have the government compromising with companies, she said. The government should act in the public interest and regulate.

Tech Brew informs business leaders about the latest innovations, automation advances, policy shifts and more to help them make smart decisions.

Bender also voiced concerns about the measures approach to potential future risks, pointing to commitments to give significant attention to the effects of system interaction and tool use and the capacity for models to make copies of themselves or self-replicate.

And that to me doesnt sound like grounded thinking about actual risks, she added. I suspect that one of the through threads here isthis AI hype train of believing that the large language models are a step toward what gets called artificial general intelligence, which humanity needs to be protected from because of this weird fantasy world that it becomes sentient or autonomous and takes over, Bender said. I dont see Nvidia and IBM playing that game so much, so that might be part of why theyre not there.

Both Bender and Nonnecke pointed to the Federal Trade Commission, which opened an investigation into OpenAI in July, as an effective regulatory player in the absence of federal AI legislation. But neither expects much to come from the voluntary commitments.

I could imagine that the White House was interested in coming to the table because they might feel stymied by the split Congress, and so they cant directly do that much in terms of regulation, Bender said. They want to look like theyre doing something, but theres no teeth here. This is not regulation. The title is Ensuring Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy AI, and I dont think it does any of that.

See the rest here:

The problem with Big Tech's voluntary AI safety commitments - Emerging Tech Brew

Crypto and traditional finance find themselves in the spotlight once more as investors prepare for significant announcements in the United States.

The tech giants will release their earnings after the close of trading on Tuesday. Meanwhile, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will shed light on the future of interest rates during its July 25-26 meeting.

The economic health of the United States presents an interesting backdrop for Big Tech. Particularly Alphabet and Microsoft, as they gear up to reveal their quarterly earnings.

Despite prevailing market uncertainties, these tech stalwarts are expected to indicate a halt to the almost year-long deceleration in their cloud businesses. The surge in technology expenditure and digital advertising could offset this lull.

Indeed, their stocks already showcase this anticipation, with Alphabet registering a 0.40% decline and Microsoft a 0.65% uptick.

The Nasdaq Composite Index, a technological barometer, has also flourished, registering an impressive rise of around 33.40% this year. A significant portion of this rally can be attributed to large-cap growth firms that are rate-sensitive.

The bullish trend is further fueled by the immense promise of artificial intelligence, combined with expectations of the culmination of the US Federal Reserves rigorous tightening cycle.

The real test will be for companies that have significant exposure to artificial intelligence as investors are eager to see if these companies can report strong enough results to support their significantly elevated share prices in recent months, said James Demmert, CIO at Main Street Research.

With inflation rates tapering and a gentle economic retreat, the Federal Reserve faces a pivotal decision. Will it heed the softer economic data and decide against additional rate hikes?

The market anticipates a 25-basis point rate increase, marking the highest level in approximately 17 years.

If inflation does not continue to show progress and there are no suggestions of a significant slowdown in economic activity, then a second 25-basis-point [quarter-point] hike should come sooner rather than later, but that decision is for the future, said ChristopherJ.Waller, member of the Board ofGovernorsat the Fed.

As the FOMC wades through its deliberations, it is evident that inflation remains a formidable concern.

While things seem to be heading in the right direction with inflation, we are only at the start of a long process, saidKaren Dynan, economist at Harvard University.

Despite fluctuating macroeconomic directives, Bitcoin has largely maintained its trading range, oscillating between $29,000 and $31,500.

Bitcoin is still fluctuating within a narrow range for a little more than a week, and it will likely continue to do so until the conclusion of this weeks FOMC meeting, said Yuya Hasegawa, analyst at Bitbank.

While traditional markets await the verdict from tech giants and the FOMC, the crypto industry also watches closely as the impending rate hike could have further implications for inflation.

The FOMCs rate decisions henceforth will likely continue to be live, and Bitcoin may not successfully break out of $31,500 for another while, concluded Hasegawa.

In adherence to the Trust Project guidelines, BeInCrypto is committed to unbiased, transparent reporting. This news article aims to provide accurate, timely information. However, readers are advised to verify facts independently and consult with a professional before making any decisions based on this content.

View original post here:

How the Crypto Market Prepares Ahead of Big Tech Earnings ... - BeInCrypto