Category Archives: Big Tech

Danielle RoseContributor

It may have taken congressional hearings, but America is starting to wake up to the negative effects the unexamined use of technology has on our society particularly our young people.

From the Facebook Papers to the ongoing Elizabeth Holmes trial, were facing a clear reminder that in the tech industry, there is a pervasive preference for slick marketing over real results. But then why, when it comes to solving big issues, from healthcare to education, are we still so willing to trust Big Tech?

Having moved from corporate America to the tech industry to my current role leading advocacy efforts supporting racial justice in the education space, Ive seen firsthand the harm in prioritizing flashy promises over real, measured impact and neglecting to engage existing expertise.

I also know all too well that we need to reimagine our education system particularly in the STEM fields to effectively prepare our next generation for the world they will inherit. But Im not sold on the seemingly given fact that the tech industry should be the ones leading this effort. Supporting it? Yes.

With the seemingly exponential demand for individuals who can fill skilled tech jobs, major tech companies have a natural talent-building agenda to increase tech education. This has resulted in high-profile efforts to get coding and computer science education to K-12 students from Tim Cook pressuring the White House to make coding mandatory for school curricula to early investors in Facebook and Dropbox founding Code.org to get computer science into public schools. In the past 10 years, over 100 million students around the world have participated in the Hour of Codeand about 70% of parents now say its important for their children to study computer science.

But we need to be careful not to treat a powerful vision as an accomplishment in itself, such as rewarding Elizabeth Holmes with significant investment dollars as she donned a Steve Jobs turtleneck and accepted accolades for promises yet to be kept.

Right now we have some of the worlds most brilliant tech minds backing innovative efforts to boost access to tech education. And yet the populations that stand the most to benefit from new pathways to opportunity are still being left behind. Since 2009, the percentage of women computer science (CS) undergraduates in the U.S. declined from 20.7% to 18.7% and African-American CS undergraduates dropped by 3%.

Short-term educational interventions the orgs creating free online coding modules, mentorship event series or global hackathons have been very successful in accumulating private-sector attention and donor investments with eye-catching branding.

But when I was a young student passionate about STEM, while Im sure I would have enjoyed these engagements immensely, momentary resources did not sustain my journey from initial interest to a masters degree in mechanical engineering at one of the top institutions in the country.

To accomplish that feat, I needed relatable and accessible educators and professionals who radiated a belief in my potential. It was having a community of peers who could reassure me during challenging periods and validate my frustration when facing constant othering in predominantly white spaces. And then, at minimum, I needed access to a continued and rigorous STEM education and the technical resources to complete assignments.

For communities of color, breaks in the tech pipeline arent restricted to access to laptops or the availability of AP computer science courses. With gaps appearing from secondary education to college admissions to hiring practices in techs top companies, disjointed interventions are just Band-Aids, even when applied at scale.

If the current scrutiny facing social media giants tells us anything, its that tech doesnt erase cultural differences or societal problems: It amplifies them. For the tech industry to make a meaningful investment in improving our education system, it needs to heed this lesson and seek to understand not just whats missing, but how to meaningfully support the existing work underway.

At SMASH, a STEM justice education nonprofit founded in Oakland to close the opportunity gap in tech, 79% of our scholars graduate the program to complete a bachelors degree in STEM. Our national average for the same demographic is 39%.

Scholars start with SMASH Academy as they begin their high school academic career. This is our flagship program that provides a multiyear, immersive and culturally relevant STEM education year-round and hires predominantly instructors of color who are trained to offer both technical and career mentorship with a focused lens on student voice and choice. These scholars move in cohorts through the pipeline of programs. High school seniors are paired with a college admissions coach and attend essay and financial aid workshops. Once their college admission is locked, students are then placed into paid internships and start building workplace experience with company partners like Raytheon.

Long-term educational interventions like this are more costly, time-consuming, complex to implement and, ultimately, most effective at actually changing student outcomes.

The good news is that countless community-based organizations across the country have already laid the groundwork to complement the long-term investment and holistic approach that our organization takes.

As long-standing racial and socioeconomic divides in STEM education widen, donors now have a critical role to play. The necessary knowledge and talent are in place to effectuate the change we all know our nations future depends on, but we need to redirect available resources to ensure theyre able to deliver the full weight of the results theyre capable of. When determining investments, define and stress test the impact metrics of potential recipients.

What does success look like? How will this programs benefits be relevant in the next six months versus the next four years? Does this initiative substantively address obstacles inhibiting students of color?

The Tim Cooks and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world have a role to play in all this but their biggest impact might actually happen outside of a high school computer lab. If these companies are serious about closing achievement gaps in public education, we need to prioritize tech equity policies and educational programming that offer tangible results and do more than simply create a good narrative.

This not only means sectorwide advocacy but funding education policies and partnering with existing community-based interventions that ensure the over 20 million Black and Latinx students in K-12 public schools are taught culturally relevant computing education and are prepared to materially contribute to a strong, diverse and socially conscious tech workforce.

The future of STEM education wont become more equitable by placing the newest technologies in every students hand or creating a free coding course but by seeing the solutions already before us and acting accordingly. Tech companies driven to help in the education space shouldnt fall back on bad Silicon Valley habits.

For our youth, we cant afford to spend time on solutions that sound good on paper but dont drive real impact. Big Tech leaders, this is not a call out, but a calling in. Lets talk.

Here is the original post:

The US has an education problem, but is Big Tech really the answer? - TechCrunch

Google just suffered a major defeat in its legal battle with Sonos. A judge ruled that Google infringed on five of Sonos' audio patents. If the ruling is upheld, Google could pay hundreds of millions and face a ban on importing everything from Pixel smartphones to Nest speakers.

This isn't a trivial development. It's the latest in a string of lawsuits intended to stop Big Tech from pilfering from smaller companies. In recent years, Big Tech firms have increasingly infringed on smaller rivals' IP. Those smaller firms have started fighting back. Now, the largest tech companies could face tens of billions in damages.

If Big Tech executives continue, their firms could suffer irreparable financial and reputational damage. Stealing rivals' IP is no longer merely unethical it's a business decision so disastrously short-sighted that it constitutes a breach of duties to shareholders.

For a long time, giant technology firms like Apple figured they could freely prey on smaller competitors, who wouldn't have the financial firepower to fight back. That's no longer the case.

Small firms have decided suing is worth the cost and have won big. In three cases this past year, juries awarded small firms more than $1 billion.

In August, Apple was ordered to pay PanOptis $300 million over 4G technology infringement. Last year, a court ordered the company to pay $1 billion to VirnetX, a VPN patent holder. Last October, a federal court ordered Cisco to pay nearly $2 billion to Centripetal Networks, a cybersecurity firm.

IP theft has the potential to put a dent into Big Tech's bottom lines. Cisco's payout cost it 4% of its annual revenue. Apple recently threatened to pull out of the United Kingdom entirely rather than face a $7 billion patent-infringement fee in British courts.

Even if big firms can weather the financial penalties, the reputational damage is considerable. Congressional committees regularly haul executives into their chambers for hearings about anti-trust and privacy infractions. Consumers increasingly regard Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon with distaste. If politicians and customers learn these companies' profits rest on persistent theft, their reputations will take a pounding.

Big Tech executives have a duty to their shareholders. Executives who turn a blind eye exposing their firms to immense legal and reputational risk will eventually find their morally questionable decisions reflected in share prices.

Shareholders, rank and file employees, and other stakeholders should hold executives to account. It's in the interest of investors to pressure Apple and others to settle cases and hash out licensing agreements.

If Big Tech starts operating within the bounds of IP law, they'll prime the entire sector for success. Consumers and shareholders should want both small and large firms to thrive. Smaller firms develop software, applications, and hardware that often end up in consumer-facing products.

But when the big guys bully the little guys, pillage their best ideas without paying, the little guys have no incentive to innovate.

It's time for Big Tech to stop patent theft.

Andrew Langer is President of the Institute for Liberty. This piece was originally published in TechCrunch.

Originally posted here:

OPINION | Is Big Tech bad at business? | Op-Ed | livingstonparishnews.com - The Livingston Parish News

Big Tech companies Google, Amazon, and Microsoft as well as cloud infrastructure platform Oracle are going to battle it out for a multi-billion-dollar government contract and there's a chance they all might win.

The Department of Defense (DoD) said on Friday that it had issued formal solicitations to Microsoft which has just announced plans to build its own metaverse and three other companies regarding the Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability contract.

The news comes after years of legal battles, scrapped programs, and disagreements between tech companies desperate to get their names stamped on the lucrative government program.

In 2017, the Pentagon began to formulate plans for a Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract, with the goal to commission a company to build a centralized cloud infrastructure system that could be used to view, manage, and transfer confidential information safely across all security clearance levels, for all employees from the Pentagon to the edge of the battlefield.

The contract ended up being awarded to Microsoft not once, but twice, with the process marred by various lawsuits brought against the Department of Defense and the US government by companies like Amazon, who raised issues with how the contract was awarded.

In July, the Pentagon announced that it was scrapping the $10 billion, decade-long JEDI contract that had previously been awarded to Microsoft, on the grounds it was now obsolete due to long delays.

With the shifting technology environment, it has become clear that the Jedi Cloud contract, which has long been delayed, no longer meets the requirements to fill the DoD's capability gaps. US Department of Defense (DoD).

However, many believe it was then-president Donald Trumps animus towards Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos who owns the liberal-leaning paper The Washington Post that played a decisive role in Amazon initially missing out on JEDI and the subsequent decision to scrap it.

The decision left the door open for Microsoft and Amazon to bid for a new contract the JWCC along with other technology companies. However, only Amazon and Microsoft were initially contacted with pre-solicitation bids as they appeared to be the only two companies capable of delivering what the DoD need.

The JWCC is an IDIQ contract which means whoever is awarded it will have to provide an indefinite number of services over a specified time period.

The Pentagon has stiff criteria for what it expects to be developed, including tactical edge devices, pieces of technology used in battle scenarios or crisis environments that can function away from data centers and work for employees at all levels of government.

Whilst the JEDI contract took a winner-takes-all approach and Microsoft and Amazon are still very much favorites in the Pentagons eyes its a possibility that all of the companies in contention may end up with responsibility for at least some part of the project.

The Government anticipates awarding two IDIQ contracts one to Amazon Web Services, Inc. (AWS) and one to Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) but intends to award to all Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) that demonstrate the capability to meet DoDs requirements. the US General Services Administration (GSA).

Google has, since July, instituted the security provisions needed to be in the running for a cloud service, but didnt previously bid for JEDI because it was thought the contract would conflict with its AI principles. IBM is also rumored to be interested in playing some part.

The disconnect between the wealthy executives populating Big Techs boardrooms and the staff that make their companies cogs turn has peppered the news over the past few years.

With workers rights and user safety already bones of contention that have been borne out in the public domain, the development of a war cloud may be the frontier upon which disagreement manifests.

Amazon Web Services, for instance, told CNBC that its commitment to supporting our nations military and ensuring that our warfighters and defense partners have access to the best technology for the best value is stronger than ever, illustrating that the company is staunchly in favor of working closely with the military.

And theres plenty of evidence that employees moral compasses tend to point in a different direction. Just recently, for instance, staff at Amazon as well as Google decried the involvement of their employers in Project Nimbus, a cloud service contract with the Israeli government that staff argue will be used to ramp up surveillance on Palestinian civilians.

What's more, dissent on these issues is often widespread the letter referenced above regarding Project Nimbus, which was published anonymously, claims to have over 300 Amazon and 90 Google employee signatures.

Google employees also protested the companys involvement in a drone program that utilized AI to improve accuracy, and a year later, Microsoft employees expressed their concern after their company was awarded a $480 million contract to develop augmented reality headsets for troops in combat zones.

It remains to be seen how the staff-exec relationships at these companies will fare under the strain of new, ethical quandaries like company involvement with military programs, but one thing's for sure: it'll take a lot more than an appeal to the better nature of Big Tech's profit-chasing chiefs to force them to turn down multi-billion-dollar contracts.

Read this article:

Big Tech Is Fighting Over Who Gets to Build a Cloud for the Pentagon - Tech.co

Monday, November 22, 2021

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)recently thwarted an attemptby big tech companies such as Apple, Cisco, Google, and Intel, to rid themselves of discretionary denials under theFintivfactors. While these companies will almost assuredly seek other avenues to dismantle such discretionary denials, last weeks developments are a win for patent owners in the short term. On November 10, 2021, Northern District of California Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed a suit challenging the application of theNHK-Fintivfactors, finding that Supreme Court precedent prevents their challenge under 35 U.S.C. 314(d), stating that decisions to instituteinter partesreviews (IPRs) are final and nonappealable.

The IPR process allows parties to challenge the validity of patents at the USPTOs Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). IPRs are popular with companies accused of infringing patents and are used as tools to invalidate patents, often while fighting infringement claims.

However, these companies have been irked by rejections of IPRs due to the agencysNHK-Fintivrule. This rule, created in two precedential decisions, identifies a six-factor holistic test used by the PTAB to decide when to deny petitions based on the advanced stage of parallel proceedings (among other things). The USPTO states this policy is necessary to preserve their limited resources, especially when another forum may resolve validity first. Precedential decisions are binding on PTAB judges.

In August 2020, Apple, Google, Cisco, Intel, and others sued, alleging theNHK-Fintivrules vague factors lead to speculative, unpredictable, and unfair outcomes. These critics claim the policy undermines the role of IPRs in protecting a strong patent system by drastically reducing the availability of IPRs.

The USPTO moved to dismiss. CitingCuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. 261 (2016) andThryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020), Judge Davila found that under 314(d) of the America Invents Act (AIA), only constitutional challenges and jurisdictional violations related to institution decisions may be appealed. Plaintiffs suit did not fit those categories. More to the point, Judge Davila found that an analysis into the lawfulness of theNHK-Fintivrule would require one to address questions closely tied to IPR institution decisionswhichCuozzoforbids. Judge Davila held that he could not deduce a principled reason why that precedent would not extend to the Directors determination that parallel litigation is a factor in denying IPR.

While it is unclear if the tech companies involved will appeal this particular decision, their attacks on theNHK-Fintivfactors are likely far from over. Congress is also considering legislation that could eliminate most of the USPTO directors discretion to deny IPRs. Finally, where USPTO director nominee, Kathi Vidal, stands on discretionary denials may play an even more important role in this fight. In short, the fight over PTAB discretionary denials, and the PTAB generally, is far from over.

1994-2021 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 326

Read the original post:

USPTO Dodges Attack from Big Tech to Rein in Discretionary IPR Denials - The National Law Review

Jen-Hsun Huang, president and chief executive officer of Nvidia Corp., speaks during the company's event at Mobile World Congress Americas in Los Angeles on Oct. 21, 2019.

Patrick T. Fallon | Bloomberg | Getty Images

(This article was sent first to members of the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer. To get the real-time updates in your inbox, subscribe here.)

The CNBC Investing Club is now the official home to my Charitable Trust. It's the place where you can see every move we make for the portfolio and get my market insight before anyone else. The Charitable Trust and my writings are no longer affiliated with Action Alerts Plus in any way.

As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Typically, Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust's portfolio. If the trade alert is sent pre-market, Jim waits 5 minutes after the market opens before executing the trade. If the trade alert is issued with less than 45 minutes in the trading day, Jim executes the trade 5 minutes before the market closes. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. See here for the investing disclaimer.

(Jim Cramer's Charitable Trust is long CRM, NVDA, F)

See the article here:

What Cramer is watching in the market Monday, including a big tech trend emerging - CNBC

These days, when the world's most important and powerful people gather to talk about matters of global consequence, executives from the world's most powerful tech companies are usually in the room.

Discussions aboutClimate changeare no exception. From power-hungry data centers to planet-spanning supply chains, tech can be a carbon-intensive business if not run correctly. And as the effects of the climate crisis -- fires, floods, hurricanes and droughts -- are being more keenly felt, technology companies have been increasingly vocal in the conversation about how to tackle the climate crisis.

Beyond making commitments to reducing their own carbon footprints, this means showing up at events like COP26, the UN climate summit, which took place in Glasgow, Scotland, the first two weeks of November.

Though world leaders and energy company execs took the most vocal roles at COP26, many of the biggest US tech companies also attended the summit, even though their levels of visibility varied.

Here's what they were up to.

By far the most visible tech figurehead at COP26 was former Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos -- perhaps to his detriment. His presence at the UN summit got a mixed reception.

During his brief trip to Glasgow (he attended the two-week-long summit for somewhere between one to two days) Bezos announced that through his climate foundation, the Bezos Earth Fund, he'd donate an additional $2 billion toward landscape restoration and food systems transformation after being inspired to take care of the Earth after seeing it from the edge of space.

This made headlines but failed to impress climate activists, many of whom seemed deeply frustrated by the way Bezos engaged with the summit. It wasn't so much his presence at COP26 that bothered them, but the fact that he used it as a PR opportunity rather than as a chance to listen to the voices of those most affected by the crisis, they said.

"These kinds of people, they shouldn't be here giving speeches, they should be here and being targeted as responsible for these changes,"said Txai Surui, a 24-year-old Indigenous activist from Rondnia in Brazil.

"Why does he have more voice than young people that are suffering, or will suffer the consequences of the climate crisis?" asked Nicki Becker, a climate activist from Argentina. "Of course he has to be included in the conversation because he needs to first change his lifestyle."

She added that billionaires and other top 1% earners like Bezos are most responsible for the climate crisis, so it's hypocritical for them to turn up with purported solutions without making any effort to change their ways (Bezos flew in and out of Glasgow on his private jet).

Throughout the marches and climate protests that took place over the course of the summit, multiple people were carrying signs bearing variations on the words "We're burning the wrong Amazon."

Amazon was a popular target of protestors.

Former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates had a quieter presence at the summit than Bezos, attracting less criticism (even though he, too, appeared to fly in and out on a private jet).

Gates addressed world leaders, updating them on the progress of his climate initiative Breakthrough Energy Ventures and calling on them to come together to start a "green industrial revolution."

He said he was spending his three days at the summit trying to encourage people to scale clean technology. "If we're going to avoid the worst effects of a climate disaster, it's not enough to invent zero-carbon alternatives -- we need to make sure they're affordable and accessible enough for people all over the world to use them," he said.

He also urged rich- and middle-income countries to do more to help the areas that've done the least to cause climate change but are most affected by it.

It's not clear, though, whether Gates spent any time at the summit talking with people from these areas. A criticism of many white, male leaders at the summit has been that they spent too much time talking and not enough time listening -- especially to young black and Indigenous women who are leaders in the climate justice movement.

"Everybody brings us a different perspective on this," Microsoft Chief Environmental Officer Lucas Joppa said in an interview, commenting on the role tech figureheads could play at COP. "Some of these individuals, they've grown businesses from nothing not just to global scale," but to a scale that the world's never seen before. "That is exactly what the world needs to do in its transition, when you look at renewable energy penetration in the markets, for instance."

Ahead of the summit Apple, Facebook, Google and other companies announced new pledges to further improve their own sustainability credentials. But at the event they kept a fairly low profile.

Apple's VP of Sustainability Lisa Jackson, posted on Twitter about attending COP26 and meeting with USPresident Joe Biden while there. At the summit Apple and Amazon signed on to the World Economic Forum's First Movers Coalition, which aims to scale up emerging technologies essential to transitioning the globe's economy to net-zero carbon by 2050.

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said in a statement that joining the Coalition would "help further accelerate our efforts to decarbonize our operations through real business change and innovation." (Jassy didn't attend COP, but other execs from the company did.)

In an interview, Facebook Director of Global Sustainability Edward Palmieri said his role at the summit was to ensure the company was engaging in the right partnerships and coalitions to tackle the climate crisis.

"Our foundational work on sustainability, if it has taught us anything it's that we not only have to take care of our own house and make sure that we're in order from a sustainability perspective, but that global solutions are going to take us all working together to kind of get it done," he said.

One of Palmieri's focuses at the event was learning more water stewardship, so Facebook is able to meet its goal of restoring more water than it consumes by 2030. Water plays a huge role in cooling and maintaining the right level of humidity in Facebook's global data centers, but the company says it recognizes water is also a shared community resource that needs to be restored so it doesn't become polluted or scarce.

Microsoft also came to the summit hoping to learn as well as contribute, said Joppa. He was spending a portion of his time in Glasgow learning more about carbon removal and carbon accounting.

"The carbon removal markets today are wildly oversubscribed, and we need to fix that for the world and for Microsoft to meet its own goals," he said. "We need much more common kinds of standards and definitions around the way we do accounting."

Microsoft was one of COP26's principal sponsors, so as well as having its logo everywhere, it also had a stand in the "Green Zone" (the part of the summit open to the public). At its booth, it welcomed school children and other attendees to explore the company's different initiatives as it works toward its goal of becoming carbon negative by 2030. The space also provided a platform for smaller companies to showcase their climate tech. These included NCX, a company Microsoft has invested in that uses aerial imagery and AI to survey forests.

Microsoft's Green Zone stand.

Financing these companies is important, said Joppa, but so is giving them exposure to clients and customers via Microsoft's platform. "How you all kind of hold hands and lift each other up is to actually help people become aware of all the solutions that are out there," he said.

Other tech companies also focused their COP26 efforts on trying to use their reach to broaden access to the summit.

Google used its Arts and Culture project to take people from all over the world inside the Green Zone. Meanwhile, Facebook livestreamed conversations about climate science from a small booth within the UN pavilion at the summit.

Public awareness has been growing around COP for several years, and Facebook's platforms can be harnessed to make and keep conversations around what happens at the UN climate summits on a global level, said Palmieri.

Instagram, in particular, has been a crucial platform for young climate activists from all over the world to engage their audiences and educate them about the climate crisis. During COP26, Emma Watson used her own Instagram presence to introduce her followers to many of these activists, who as well as doing vital work in their own communities, form a loosely grouped online activist network.

But one thing Palmieri hopes to see happen is ensuring that information flows in both directions.

"What's really important, and that I'm hoping our platform will be able to do more and more of, is to bring some of the experiences of climate change from certain parts of the world that maybe are less represented to decision makers and communities that are wealthier and have more of a voice," he said.

See the rest here:

Big Tech at COP26: Here's who attended the climate talks and what roles they played - CNET

Missouri Republican joins 'Kudlow' to explain why Big Tech companies are monopolies that need broken up.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., blasted Big Tech Friday, claiming technology companies thought they were above the law and sought to deny Kyle Rittenhouse the presumption of innocence.

"Big Tech think theyre above the law," he said in a statement provided to FOX Business. "They made up their minds on this case months ago, sought to deny Kyle Rittenhouse the presumption of innocence and censored those who disagreed."

His comments came just hours after a jury announced it had found Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts, including homicide, from his shootings in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last summer.

BIDEN CALLS FOR CALM BUT SAYS RITTENHOUSE NOT GUILTY VERDICT LEAVES HIM ANGRY AND CONCERNED

At the time, Facebook reportedly labeled the event "mass murder" and blocked searches for Rittenhouse's name. Twitter, meanwhile, suspended an account that claimed Rittenhouse did "nothing wrong." More recently, the social media giant censored another post claiming that Rittenhouse did nothing wrong.

Senator Josh Hawley, R-Mo., speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, Sept. 29, 2021. (Tom Williams/Pool via REUTERS / Reuters)

Twitter and Facebook did not immediately respond to FOX Business' request for comment.

The Rittenhouse verdict prompted many on social media to suggest the teen should sue those who accused him of murder or terrorism.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

Besides Big Tech, legislators like Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., have come under fire for comments about Rittenhouse.

Wendy Rittenhouse, left, talks to her son Kyle Rittenhouse, before the start of his trial at the Kenosha County Courthouse in Kenosha, Wis., on Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2021. (Mark Hertzberg/Pool Photo via AP / iStock)

"A 17 year old white supremacist domestic terrorist drove across state lines, armed with an AR 15," she tweeted. "He shot and killed 2 people who had assembled to affirm the value, dignity, and worth of Black lives. Fix your damn headlines."

Here is the original post:

Josh Hawley blasts Big Tech after Rittenhouse verdict: 'Think they're above the law' - Fox Business

Theres a lot to catch up on during this years Thanksgiving meal, and its not all related to the pandemic, either. Despite global computer chip shortages and shipping issues, the US has made progress on a few other pressing tech issues. Changes to Facebook and some of its more concerning practices, increased governmental funding for services like cybersecurity and transportation, and better accessibility to electronics repairs on the consumer side are a few of the major tech happenings to be thankful for this year.

Nearly three million tons of e-waste makes it into landfills each year, as gadgets that are out of date or cannot be repaired are tossed for faster, fresher electronics. A major reason that so many items are scrapped in favor of new ones is the costs and difficulties associated with fixing a gadget in the first placebut the US has taken recent steps to make this a little bit easier.

First came an executive order from President Joe Biden over the summer aimed at reducing monopoly that makes it difficult to get smartphones, laptops, and other products repaired directly. The order calls on the Federal Trade Commission to hold manufacturers accountable for restricting access to needed parts for repairs and making in-house repairs pricey.

Tech companies, including big names like Microsoft, Apple, Motorola, HP, and Dell, have begun to make it easier to send in goods to get fixed, or for consumers to even make the fixes themselves, in light of the executive order and right to repair activism. Apple just announced its intent to make self-service repairs available for iPhones 12 and 13 this November, and Microsoft agreed in October to expand their repair options for devices, directly acknowledging the amount of electronic waste they produce every year.

The bipartisan infrastructure act signed into effect by the president on November 15 will provide funding for some much needed infrastructure areas, although critics argue that its not enough in some cases. Cybersecurity, internet access for all, and transportation are just a few of the issues the legislation seeks to address.

The package allocates $2 billion for cybersecurity over four years, half of which will go toward state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. Another $21 million chunk will make its way to the Office of the National Cyber Director, a newer agency responsible for advising the president on cybersecurity. And another $100 million will go to dealing with significant hacking or ransomware situations, as chosen by the Department of Homeland Security.

The act also includes the largest ever US investment in broadband internet with $65 billion. This is a rough estimate of how much it might cost to get internet access to everyone in America, as many go without the ability to connect to broadband infrastructure. When many were working from home during the first year of the pandemic, this lack of access became even more evident. Of that $65 billion, $42.4 billion will go toward a Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program, $14.2 billion will go toward subsidies for making internet more affordable, and $2 billion will go toward making sure Indigenous communities have workable connections as well.

The legislation includes a lot for transportation toobut ferries, a vital form of transport for some in rural areas connected by waterways, got special attention with a $1.6 billion allocation. From Manhattan to Southeast Alaska, these boats make a massive difference in the lives and commutes of individuals. The stream of funding can help combat problems ferry systems are facing, like staff shortages and aging vessels. Some of it is specifically designated for bringing in electric and low-carbon emission ferries.

Facebook, which continues to receive negative attention from across the board, made a few essential changes to its platform over the course of the year. One included dismantling their Face Recognition system, which the company announced in early November. Account owners can still manually tag someone in a photo, but will not receive suggestions of whom to tag, as the system will not automatically store and recognize facial data. More than a third of the daily users on the site opted into this system since its existence, according to Facebook, and will all have their individual templates removed.

The controversial Instagram Kids project has also been put on hold after criticism from parents, elected leaders, and more. Facebook was called in front of Congress after documents from the Wall Street Journal showed the platform had an interest in attracting and maintaining a younger audience. It has since put the project on the backburner.

Facebook is also making changes to the way it pushes advertisements. Meta, its newly dubbed parent company, will no longer suggest targeted ads related to sensitive topics, a broad description that could include anything from religiously affiliated information to lung cancer awareness.

If thats not enough good news to keep the wheels of conversation turning over dinner, feel free to bring up how SUVs and pickup trucks are increasingly going electric, space food technology is pushing the boundaries, and online tutoring continues to grow more accessible.

Go here to read the rest:

Good tech developments and changes in 2021 - Popular Science

We have seen several cryptocurrencies linked to the increasingly interesting Metaverse space make huge gains in recent weeks. Projects such as The Sandbox (SAND), Decentraland (MANA), and Enjin Coin (ENJ) have witnessed an upside driven by investor interest in the concept of a Metaverse.

Crypto and blockchain projects could be among those to benefit massively from the idea, but according to DBS senior investment strategist Daryl Ho, investors could do well to look at two key sectors likely to play a big role as the initiative takes shape.

In aninterview with CNBCs Squawk Box, Ho said that companies and platforms that are already deep in the digitisation space could have the front seat when it comes to defining the Metaverse and thus benefitting the most.

If you dont already realize it, we are already moving somewhat towards a digital world, so the Metaverse is simply the next step, the next frontier, Ho explained.

Recently, Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook), took a giant step in announcing plans for developing the Metaverse, and major companies around the world are looking to follow suit as the reality of a virtual world grows.

Its with this perspective that the investment strategist says two particular sectors could take the lead and be highly profitable to investors.

He believes the computer gaming industry has the upper hand here, given the sector is already immersed in the virtual world. Notably, it's in the Metaverse would see people live, work and collaborate and gaming platforms have represented this in many ways in their gaming projects.

I think these are the companies [investors] should look out for, he said, adding that the sector is likely to be the one that shape[s] the metaverse as we know it.

Ho also believes that big technology companies have all it takes to maintain a leading role in the Metaverse and will be big beneficiaries.

Apart from Meta, other Big Tech companies towatch out for are Google, Apple, Microsoft and game company Valve.

Go here to see the original:

DBS Bank strategits sees Big Tech as big beneficiaries of the Metaverse - CoinJournal

China's State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) has fined tech giants 43 times with Alibaba, Baidu and Tencent told to pay up for failing to declare deals deemed to violate anti-monopoly legislation.

According to SAMR, more rigorous anti-monopoly law enforcement has seen businesses file more paperwork, sometimes about past transactions. SAMR's own probes have spotted acquisitions that weren't reported at the time.

Those efforts turned up 43 transactions, conducted between 2012 and 2021, that violated China's 2008 Anti-Monopoly Law. Each count received a fine of 500,000 ($78,300). The regulatory body said that all were "assessed as having no effect of excluding or restricting competition".

The market regulator posted about the fines on its WeChat account and Weibo page on Saturday.

State-sponsored media Global Times reported that Alibaba and Tencent each racked up more than ten cases.

SAMR explained that by penalising companies for past violations, it would "continuously optimize the fair, transparent and predictable competitive environment, and effectively urge enterprises to enhance their compliance awareness and ability to promote the sustained and healthy development of enterprises and industries".

China's national anti-monopoly bureau was inaugurated on Thursday and guidelines for antitrust compliance of enterprises abroad were issued the same day.

The government in Beijing, and SAMR in particular, has been busy. Earlier this month the organization drafted new rules for internet platforms considered "super large" that hold them to higher standards than smaller, less influential ones in an attempt to stamp out anticompetitive behavior.

In September, the org ordered Alibaba, Tencent and more to stop blocking links to rivals. And it has been known to step in and outright ban mergers it deems imprudent.

Those new initiatives follow many others that appear to give China the power to rein in its big tech companies often in ways that would prevent them from acquiring the kind of power that Western tech companies accumulated. Perhaps ironically, the USA is currently considering legislative restrictions on new acquisitions by its tech giants, on grounds that they use such transactions to curtail competition early. By fining its own tech giants for transactions nearly a decade in the past, China appears to be applying similar logic.

Read more here:

Beijing issues fines for 43 Big Tech M&A deals all the way back to 2012 - The Register