Category Archives: Big Tech

Heard of the metaverse lately? It has been hard not to.

Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg mentioned techs latest buzzword 16 times on his companys most recent earnings call last month. The future of Facebook, he said, is a metaversea virtual environment where you can be physically present to hang out, play games, work and create.

But he didnt coin the term. Tech companies ranging from Intel Corp. to Unity Software talked up the metaverse last year. And Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella discussed the the enterprise metaverse in his companys earnings release last montha day before Facebooks call.

Nvidia has been an especially loud proponent of the idea. Last year, the company launched a platform called Omniverse for connecting 3-D worlds into a shared virtual universe. Chief Executive Jensen Huang used the companys largest annual conference in October to publicly credit Neal Stephensons 1992 science fiction novel Snow Crash as the original inspiration for the concept of a virtual reality successor to the Internet, noting the metaverse is coming.

Never mind that, in an interview for a 2017 article about his novel, Mr. Stephenson told Vanity Fair he was just making sht up. Decades after the book was published, technologys leaders are taking his ideas more seriously than ever.

Read more here:

Big Tech Wants You to Live in a Virtual World. Prepare for Real Problems. - The Wall Street Journal

While watching a streamed Phish concert may not evoke all the nuanced sounds and sights (and smells) of the live performance, big tech is betting that music fans have a healthy appetite for virtual gigs.

Axios reported Tuesday that Amazon is investing heavily in a live audio feature with the goal of "disrupting traditional radio."

Hardly Amazon's first foray into audio the e-commerce giant is deep into investments in its podcast and music subscription buildout.

But with millions of Alexa and smart speaker devices deployed in people's homes, Amazon is planning to pay musicians, celebrities, and podcast hosts for the rights to beam live content into kitchens and basements across the country:

The live audio space is quickly getting crowded with many of tech's biggest names:

Refined Tastes: Along with the revelations of Amazon's increasing push into audio, today Apple announced an acquisition of Primephonic, a streaming service specializing in the classical genre. Primephonic's functionality and playlists will be adapted to Apple Music for a "significantly improved classical music experience," with a stand-alone classic music app due in '22.

Not for nothing: radio revenues dropped nearly 25% last year during the pandemic.

Read this article:

Amazon (Along with Practically Every Other Tech Giant) is Building Up its Live Audio Portfolio - Motley Fool

In the span of a decade, subdued Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt and the Persian Empire. Like the Macedonian, Big Tech has evinced a rapacious and relentless appetite. Through technology acquisition and partnership, Amazon monopolises digital sales, while Google and Facebook control, where they do not dominate, the advertising space. Will consumer finance also go the way of brick-and-mortar stores and newspapers?

In a Bloomberg column reproduced in ET (bit.ly/3gMnUNw), Andy Mukherjee certainly thinks so. But his principal assertion - that fintech, riding on the back of Big Tech, could challenge banks - seems something of a non sequitur.

Three disparate examples are furnished to prove the existential threat posed by Big Tech. First, Google's latest announcement that it has partnered with Setu to offer its Google Pay customers a preferred fixed deposit (FD) rate from Equitas Small Finance Bank (up to 6.35% annually) 'shows the tenuous nature of the hold' banks have on activities like attracting deposits.

Each example is memorable for its siege imagery and could provide banks a much-needed wake-up call. But, together, they fall short of making a definitive argument.

For starters, banks are more than transaction houses for their customers. There is a deep psychology behind the idea of trust, which has nothing to do with published returns and everything to do with credibility. Even if one were to discount the fact that Equitas' FD rate is reminiscent of the rate offered by banks till 2019, and that the current differential could soon disappear when RBI tightens liquidity, most people would be loath to invest in an unknown bank, even if it is endorsed by Google.

In a country where deposits are not insured against default (Rs 5 lakh per account hardly inspires confidence), the average consumer who has, at least vicariously, experienced some suffering at the hands of a failing bank, will think twice about such a transaction.

Second, banking's historic moat does not consist of KYC rules alone. More than anything else, banks are straddled by an ever-increasing list of directives and statutes that complicate basic operations, and leave no time for process and product innovation. The landscape for online sales and advertising was (until recently) as unrestricted as that of financial services is tightly controlled.

For non-banking finance companies (NBFCs) and fintechs to challenge banks in their core activities - loans and the sale of certain regulated products like insurance - they need to be willing to come under the regulator's lens. There's a good reason for this. Truth in advertising, product reliability and security are still more important than technological convenience. As technology intermediaries foray deeper into banking territory - if the recent experience of the Chinese crackdown is anything to go by - it is only a matter of time before RBI comes out with a set of rules to govern these challengers.

Which brings us to the place where many fintechs are currently situated: payments. It is clear there is no money to be made in consumer payments, beyond the potential to convert some of these transactions into loans (the whole premise behind credit cards). So, when Google Pay and PhonePe process the majority of UPI transactions, they do not deny banks.

Even if one were to consider the monetisation value of data that results from these transactions, the principal owner (other than the consumer) of transaction data is the bank, not the wallet. And even when a wallet may legally harvest this data, there is no guarantee - as the US experience has shown - that real-time data harvesting by new-age fintech improves the sales performance of financial products.

More than threatening banks in the near future, Big Tech can provide financial institutions the advantages of access, convenience and speed. A partnership, with a clear division of labour, where banks earn more because they carry performance and financial risk, may be fruitful. An open contest less so.

Even Alexander stopped short of an assault on India because Magadha had three advantages: numbers, war- elephants and terrain. The Greeks wisely withdrew. The outcome of a hypothetical Indo-Hellenic confrontation on the ringing Indian plains can only be the stuff of conjecture. For now, I'd put my money on the Nandas.

View post:

View: Big Tech's increasing influence in finance is an opportunity for banks, not a threat - Economic Times

Heard of the metaverse" lately? It has been hard not to.

Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg mentioned techs latest buzzword 16 times on his companys most recent earnings call last month. The future of Facebook, he said, is a metaversea virtual environment where you can be physically present to hang out, play games, work and create.

But he didnt coin the term. Tech companies ranging from Intel Corp. to Unity Software talked up the metaverse last year. And Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella discussed the the enterprise metaverse" in his companys earnings release last montha day before Facebooks call.

Nvidia has been an especially loud proponent of the idea. Last year, the company launched a platform called Omniverse for connecting 3-D worlds into a shared virtual universe." Chief Executive Jensen Huang used the companys largest annual conference in October to publicly credit Neal Stephensons 1992 science fiction novel Snow Crash" as the original inspiration for the concept of a virtual reality successor to the Internet, noting the metaverse is coming."

Never mind that, in an interview for a 2017 article about his novel, Mr. Stephenson told Vanity Fair he was just making sht up." Decades after the book was published, technologys leaders are taking his ideas more seriously than ever.

And why wouldnt they? A virtual world featuring avatars, digital objects and functioning economies is a world where technology is all encompassing and not simply a discrete tool. So naturally, the worlds largest technology companies want to play a rolepreferably a leading one. Facebook sells virtual reality headsets, while Microsoft sells augmented reality devices designed for business use. Apple Inc. is widely reported to be working on AR devices of its own. Nvidias vast library of artificial intelligence chips and the software required to run them would also have a key place in a so-called metaverse.

This vision of the future is especially compelling for a company like Facebook, which still generates nearly all of its revenue from advertising. Put a sign on the main street of the metaverse, Mr. Stephenson wrote, and the hundred million richest, hippest, best connected people on earth will see it every day of their lives."

As a platform already created to consume peoples time and attention, Facebook would face an existential threat from a competing virtual world designed to do the same. Thus explains Mr. Zuckerbergs fervor. He told investors last month that the metaverse will require very significant investment over many years." And that is on top of the $2 billion the company laid out to acquire VR headset maker Oculus in 2014.

Virtual and augmented reality are the key technologies to enabling an immersive metaverse. They are still a work in progress, but Facebook is moving the ball forward. Oculus, which has focused mainly on the videogame market so far, sold nearly 3.5 million VR headsets last yearmore than double its level from last year, according to estimates from IDC. That was credited mostly to the success of the new Quest 2 headset that went on sale in October. But VR is still a niche even within gaming. Sales for Oculus headsets since their first launch in 2016 have totaled 9.4 million units through the second quarter, according to IDC. Sony and Nintendo have sold more than 86 million units each of their respective PlayStation and Switch consoles in that time.

But visions for the metaverse go well beyond gaming. Facebook gave a peek of this last week, with an open beta" test of its Horizon Workrooms essentially, a virtual reality workspace using its Oculus Quest headsets. Mr. Zuckerberg reportedly dropped into a few demos himselfjoining journalists as floating digital avatars without legs. The impetus behind the service after 18 months of pandemic-driven lockdowns seems sensible enough: Working remotely without colleagues can feel isolating, and brainstorming with others doesnt feel the same if youre not in the same room.

But a world through VR also has plenty of drawbacks. For many, the experience can be hot, sweaty, and even nauseating. Even the popular Oculus Quest 2 has drawn complaints for its foam face pad insert that makes users faces red and itchy. Real world hair and makeup are frequently compromised. And much like social media itself, there is still ongoing debate as to whether prolonged use of VR is physically safeespecially for children whose eyes are still developing. Plus, theres simply the weirdness factor for many: The percentage of the population keen to strap a device to their faces in order to interact with cartoon-versions of co-workers and friends is likely limited.

Mostly, though, a virtual world hands even more power to technology giants that many argue have already amassed too much. The last few years have laid bare the dark side to mobile computing and social networking. The contrast to tech executives sunny visions of the metaverse with the dystopian take of the source novel are telling: In the book, social status in the metaverse can be enhanced by coding skills, and Snow Crash is something peddled in the metaverse like a drug that can cause brain damage to users. Even while the protagonist is collecting marketable information for money.

Big tech can probably build the metaverse. But consumers will have to think hard about whether they want to be there.

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Download our App Now!!

View post:

Big Tech wants you to live in a virtual world. Prepare for real problems - Livemint

House Democrats recently unveiled anti-trust bills designed to target and curb the power of big tech companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple. However, in practice, these bills are not only a threat to the Silicon Valley powerhouses but also to Americas national security.

The problem is that they are narrowly focused on Americas most competitive and innovative companies. Breaking up the power of these tech leaders will not only weaken their standing in the global market but it will also make room for foreign tech companies, like those in China, to grow even larger and more powerful.

Currently, China is the only nation projected to match the United States cyber powers with numerous domestic companies dedicated to developing cyber capabilities. Breaking up Americas tech companies would hinder our ability to compete with these firms and increase our vulnerability to foreign cyberattacks. Lets not compromise our national security and global standing as a tech leader. We need our representatives in Congress to vote against these antirust bills and keep our country safe.

Brianna Kreisel

Lehi

Read the original:

Breaking up big tech companies would give an advantage to China |Opinion - Deseret News

Twenty-five years ago, Facebook, Google, and Amazon didnt exist. Now they are among the most valuable and well-known companies in the world. Its a great story but also one that highlights why the government must break up monopolies and promote competitive markets.

In the 1990s, Microsoft the tech giant of its time was trying to parlay its dominance in computer operating systems into dominance in the new area of web browsing. The federal government sued Microsoft for violating anti-monopoly laws and eventually reached a settlement. The governments antitrust case against Microsoft helped clear a path for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to emerge.

The story demonstrates why promoting competition is so important: it allows new, groundbreaking companies to grow and thrive which pushes everyone in the marketplace to offer better products and services. Arent we all glad that now we have the option of using Google instead of being stuck with Bing?

Todays big tech companies have too much power too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy. Theyve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. And in the process, they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation.

I want a government that makes sure everybody even the biggest and most powerful companies in America plays by the rules. And I want to make sure that the next generation of great American tech companies can flourish. To do that, we need to stop this generation of big tech companies from throwing around their political power to shape the rules in their favor and throwing around their economic power to snuff out or buy up every potential competitor.

Thats why my administration will make big, structural changes to the tech sector to promote more competition including breaking up Amazon, Facebook, and Google.

How the new tech monopolies hurt small businesses and innovation

Americas big tech companies provide valuable products but also wield enormous power over our digital lives. Nearly half of all e-commerce goes through Amazon. More than 70% of all Internet referral traffic goes through sites owned or operated by Google or Facebook.

As these companies have grown larger and more powerful, they have used their resources and control over the way we use the Internet to squash small businesses and innovation, and substitute their own financial interests for the broader interests of the American people. To restore the balance of power in our democracy, to promote competition, and to ensure that the next generation of technology innovation is as vibrant as the last, its time to break up our biggest tech companies.

Americas big tech companies have achieved their level of dominance in part based on two strategies:

Weak antitrust enforcement has led to a dramatic reduction in competition and innovation in the tech sector. Venture capitalists are now hesitant to fund new startups to compete with these big tech companies because its so easy for the big companies to either snap up growing competitors or drive them out of business. The number of tech startups has slumped, there are fewer high-growth young firms typical of the tech industry, and first financing rounds for tech startups have declined 22% since 2012.

With fewer competitors entering the market, the big tech companies do not have to compete as aggressively in key areas like protecting our privacy. And some of these companies have grown so powerful that they can bully cities and states into showering them with massive taxpayer handouts in exchange for doing business, and can act in the words of Mark Zuckerberg more like a government than a traditional company.

We must ensure that todays tech giants do not crowd out potential competitors, smother the next generation of great tech companies, and wield so much power that they can undermine our democracy.

Restoring competition in the tech sector

America has a long tradition of breaking up companies when they have become too big and dominant even if they are generally providing good service at a reasonable price.

A century ago, in the Gilded Age, waves of mergers led to the creation of some of the biggest companies in American history from Standard Oil and JPMorgan to the railroads and AT&T. In response to the rise of these trusts, Republican and Democratic reformers pushed for antitrust laws to break up these conglomerations of power to ensure competition.

But where the value of the company came from its network, reformers recognized that ownership of a network and participating on the network caused a conflict of interest. Instead of nationalizing these industries as other countries did Americans in the Progressive Era decided to ensure that these networks would not abuse their power by charging higher prices, offering worse quality, reducing innovation, and favoring some over others. We required a structural separation between the network and other businesses, and also demanded that the network offer fair and non-discriminatory service.

In this tradition, my administration would restore competition to the tech sector by taking two major steps:

First, by passing legislation that requires large tech platforms to be designated as Platform Utilities and broken apart from any participant on that platform.

Companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties would be designated as platform utilities.

These companies would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform. Platform utilities would be required to meet a standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users. Platform utilities would not be allowed to transfer or share data with third parties.

For smaller companies (those with annual global revenue of between $90 million and $25 billion), their platform utilities would be required to meet the same standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users, but would not be required to structurally separate from any participant on the platform.

To enforce these new requirements, federal regulators, State Attorneys General, or injured private parties would have the right to sue a platform utility to enjoin any conduct that violates these requirements, to disgorge any ill-gotten gains, and to be paid for losses and damages. A company found to violate these requirements would also have to pay a fine of 5 percent of annual revenue.

Amazon Marketplace, Googles ad exchange, and Google Search would be platform utilities under this law. Therefore, Amazon Marketplace and Basics, and Googles ad exchange and businesses on the exchange would be split apart. Google Search would have to be spun off as well.

Second, my administration would appoint regulators committed to reversing illegal and anti-competitive tech mergers.

Current antitrust laws empower federal regulators to break up mergers that reduce competition. I will appoint regulators who are committed to using existing tools to unwind anti-competitive mergers, including:

Unwinding these mergers will promote healthy competition in the market which will put pressure on big tech companies to be more responsive to user concerns, including about privacy.

Protecting the future of the internet

So what would the Internet look like after all these reforms?

Heres what wont change: Youll still be able to go on Google and search like you do today. Youll still be able to go on Amazon and find 30 different coffee machines that you can get delivered to your house in two days. Youll still be able to go on Facebook and see how your old friend from school is doing.

Heres what will change: Small businesses would have a fair shot to sell their products on Amazon without the fear of Amazon pushing them out of business. Google couldnt smother competitors by demoting their products on Google Search. Facebook would face real pressure from Instagram and WhatsApp to improve the user experience and protect our privacy. Tech entrepreneurs would have a fighting chance to compete against the tech giants.

Of course, my proposals today wont solve every problem we have with our big tech companies.

We must give people more control over how their personal information is collected, shared, and sold and do it in a way that doesnt lock in massive competitive advantages for the companies that already have a ton of our data.

We must help Americas content creators from local newspapers and national magazines to comedians and musicians keep more of the value their content generates, rather than seeing it scooped up by companies like Google and Facebook.

And we must ensure that Russia or any other foreign power cant use Facebook or any other form of social media to influence our elections.

Those are each tough problems, but the benefit of taking these steps to promote competition is that it allows us to make some progress on each of these important issues too. More competition means more options for consumers and content creators, and more pressure on companies like Facebook to address the glaring problems with their businesses.

Healthy competition can solve a lot of problems. The steps Im proposing today will allow existing big tech companies to keep offering customer-friendly services, while promoting competition, stimulating innovation in the tech sector, and ensuring that America continues to lead the world in producing cutting-edge tech companies. Its how we protect the future of the Internet.

We can get this done. We can make big, structural change. But its going to take a grassroots movement, and it starts right now. Sign our petition if you agree, and lets get ready to fight hard together.

Here is the original post:

Heres how we can break up Big Tech | by Team Warren | Medium

One of the remarkable trends of the past year has been the accelerated pace at which corporate power has caught up to state power. Billionaires are blasting off into space, literally but also figuratively, as truckloads of easy money have added trillions to business valuations.

Whether as a consequence of fiscal flourishing or becoming increasingly beholden to activist politics, the most influential of Americas megacorporations the Big Tech oligopoly has turned toward challenging state power.

Facebook is now making official its de facto status as the judge, jury, and executioner of the internet death penalty for elected leaders.

Big Tech now not only has the audacity to erase heads of state from the internet but also has proven willing to act with a vigor and decisiveness that has been missing from ossified public institutions. Silicon Valley coordinated to take down both President Trump and rival platform Parler within days of the January 6 riot; the Trump administrations attempt to crack down on Chinese app TikTok, on the other hand, meandered for months and was overturned by President Biden earlier this week.

With the deplatforming of Trump serving as a successful test run for impunity, Facebook made a small but decisive change to its policies last week in a blog post announcing that Trump could potentially be unsuspended in 2023. The change went underreported, with most outlets focusing on Trumps possible comeback.

The post, written by Facebooks Vice President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg, declares that the company is scaling back its newsworthiness exemption for politicians, first introduced in 2016 and then strengthened in 2019. The exemption, which permits content deemed newsworthy to remain on Facebook even if it breaks the sites rules, was previously applied by default to all heads of state, elected officials, and other important public figures.

As of last Friday, default protection no longer exists. Facebook will now suspend public figures during times of civil unrest and ongoing violence for up to two years (the same penalty given to Trump).

Nick Clegg writes,

At the end of this period, we will look to experts to assess whether the risk to public safety has receded. We will evaluate external factors, including instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly and other markers of civil unrest. If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to re-evaluate until that risk has receded.

In other words, Facebook is now making official its de facto status as the judge, jury, and executioner of the internet death penalty for elected leaders. Clegg continues,

Of course, this penalty only applies to our services Mr. Trump is and will remain free to express himself publicly via other means.

This washing of hands is comical given recent events. Trumps ordeal, as well as the experience of so many other less prominent conservatives in the past, suggests that these other means are few in number and declining all the time, in no small part because of Big Techs own aggressive persecution of its competitors.

Trumps attempt to seek other means of communicating with his supporters in the form of his blog helped to highlight the myth of Big Tech as an optional service. Despite his immense public profile, Trumps blog posts drew in only a minute fraction of the audience that his tweets and Facebook posts had received.

Clearly, social media is the primary means by which ordinary people communicate with others locally. When it comes to communication on a national or international scale, which of course is required of any important figure, that primacy grows. Closing down all of a politicians social media accounts is equivalent to gagging him.

Consider what foreign governments are thinking right now. With the exception of a few countries such as China (with its Great Firewall blanket ban on tens of thousands of websites) or Russia (which has VK, its own homegrown social media giant), the Silicon Valley titans are the worlds information conduits.

Facebook, Google, and Twitter raced into dozens of countries just as widespread adoption of the internet picked up, establishing local monopolies. There are millions of people worldwide for whom Facebook is the entire internet.

Governments will inevitably view American tech as a threat to their sovereignty. They will see it as unacceptable that platforms that account for most of the information flow in their countries are headquartered overseas, run by unelected and unaccountable foreign corporate executives, and take a growing interest in influencing domestic politics.

Nigeria is the latest country to give voice to this discontent against Silicon Valley. After Twitter deleted one of Nigerian President Muhammadu Buharis tweets in which he issued a veiled threat toward insurgents currently operating in the countrys southeast, Nigeria responded by blocking Twitter for all of its citizens.

The Nigerian Ministry of Information has since declared the ban indefinite unless Twitter meets a series of demands, including registering as a company in the country and submitting to its licensing procedure.

While Twitters initial decision to delete Buharis tweet can be debated on its merits, Nigeria is within its rights to be concerned about the platforms influence. It sees the current separatist movement as a threat to its own existence and therefore reasonably interprets Twitters intervention as an undermining of national sovereignty that goes beyond the usual critical coverage in foreign newspapers.

The Big Tech platforms showed that they were terrible arbiters of political truth the moment that they banned Trump for inciting violence in a riot in which the only violent death was an unarmed woman at the hands of police. Even if they were perfect judges, however, it would not be their place to prevent duly elected officials from communicating with their constituents.

There are many more Nigerias on our current trajectory, whether spurred by censorship incidents or through countries preempting any issues with Big Tech. The future may bring a much more fractured social media landscape, with countries either creating their own homegrown social media infrastructure or inviting in rival monopolies (probably Russian or Chinese) that undercut American platforms by offering more local control.

Original post:

Big Tech Now Threatens National Sovereignty | The American ...

Washington, D.C. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced legislation to halt Big Techs censorship of Americans, defend free speech on the internet, and level the playing field to remove unfair protections that shield massive Silicon Valley firms from accountability. The Disincentivizing Internet Service Censorship of Online Users and Restrictions on Speech and Expression (DISCOURSE) Act would hold Big Tech responsible for complying with pre-existing obligations per Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 and clarify ambiguous terms that allow Big Tech to engage in censorship.

Specifically, the DISCOURSE Act updates the statute so that when a market-dominant firm actively promotes or censors certain material or viewpoints -- including through the manipulative use of algorithms -- it no longer receives protections. The bill also limits Section 230 immunities for large corporations that fail to live up to the statutes obligations.

Big Tech has destroyed countless Americans reputations, openly interfered in our elections by banning news stories, and baselessly censored important topics like the origins of the coronavirus, Rubio said. It is absurd that these massive companies receive special protections through Federal law, even as they tear our country apart. No more free passes -- it is time to hold Big Tech accountable for their actions.

When it was first passed in 1996, Section 230 was intended to enable internet companies to host third-party content and engage in targeted moderation of the worst content without being treated as publishers, which are generally held accountable for the content that appears in its publication. But in the 25 years since the CDAs passage, internet companies have developed from tiny start-ups that needed the protections afforded by Section 230 into some of the largest corporations on Earth.

In addition to their growth, these internet companies also changed their missions. Todays tech giants use opaque algorithms and unaccountable teams of moderators to manipulate online discourse to their worldview. The result is a highly distorted public square in which Americans are censored on a daily basis.

Industry and policy experts have lauded Rubios work and the DISCOURSE Act:

"Senator Rubio deserves a lot of credit for coming up with this innovative approach to reforming Section 230. The DISCOURSE Act holds Big Tech companies accountable not only for their censorship and viewpoint discrimination, but also for their algorithmic amplification of content. This makes perfect sense. If a Big Tech company arbitrarily picks winners and losers when it comes to speech, it is itself speaking, so why should it enjoy a special immunity from civil liability for that speech? We appreciate Senator Rubio's commitment to fighting Big Tech censorship, and we hope this legislation starts an important conversation in the months ahead." - Jon Schweppe, director of policy and government affairs, American Principles Project

"We are thankful for the hard work of Senator Marco Rubio and his staff in addressing the growing concerns of NRB Members about the power of Big Tech to censor and stifle free speech. This legislation is a great first step in ensuring digital platforms are open for free speech and the gospel. We encourage the Senate to take a very serious look at this important legislation." - Troy Miller, CEO of NRB

Oracle appreciates Sen. Rubios efforts to introduce the DISCOURSE Act, which will preserve Section 230 immunities for those upstart innovators who need it but limit the protections for dominant tech platforms, who do not.

Senator Marco Rubios proposed legislation to reform Section 230 is an important step in the right direction. The Internet Accountability Project (IAP) applauds his efforts, and we hope other Republican senators will join him.

A section-by-section overview of the bill is available here, and a one-pager is here.

Key provisions of the DISCOURSE Act are also listed below.

View original post here:

Rubio Introduces Sec 230 Legislation to Crack Down on Big ...

This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it weekdays.

First there was so much shouting. And now there is action. (Maybe.)

The bad mood about the power of Big Tech companies has a new and perhaps surprising development: House lawmakers wrote a package of proposed legislation that, if it all passes a very big if could fundamentally change Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple as we know them.

I asked my colleague Cecilia Kang to walk us through the bills, and how we got here.

Shira: What does this legislation propose to do?

Cecilia: There are six bills that in different ways attempt to limit the power of big tech companies. One bill to provide more funding to government agencies that keep a check on corporations isnt that contentious.

That helped to cement a mostly bipartisan consensus although not always for shared reasons that Washington needed to be less hands-off with technology companies. And antitrust law is now perceived as a way to address a set of perceived problems with tech, including for some Republicans perceptions of bias against conservative voices and views.

Did Big Tech companies mess up and create too many enemies in Washington, or was it inevitable that they would be targeted for new laws and regulation?

Both. From my conversations with lobbyists at big tech companies, theres some regret that the companies misjudged how much good will they had with politicians and regulators. And tech companies Washington policy offices may not have fully articulated to their bosses on the West Coast how much lawmakers had turned against Big Tech.

But look, a handful of technology companies are the most valuable companies in the country and influence the economy, labor practices, how people find information and the ways we live. That exposes the companies to scrutiny.

How are the companies responding to these bills?

Their central message is that lawmakers risk creating far more problems than they might solve. Apple says, for example, that people will be exposed to sketchy apps if Congress requires the company to let people download iPhone apps outside its official store. Lobbyists have said that Amazon might be forced to stop Prime delivery for some products.

Is there a united front among Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple?

Not necessarily. There are some disagreements about policy. Facebook seems open to one of the proposals that would make it easier for people to take their data from one app to a competitor. Google is against it, and says it exposes people to scammers.

Theres also visceral anger. Quite a few tech companies, not just the biggest ones, resent Facebook for what they believe the company has done to tarnish the entire industry. A lobbyist told me that its difficult for Facebook to push back against antitrust legislation after many scandals. Apple, which is at odds with Facebook in almost every way, is effectively lobbying lawmakers on behalf of it and Facebook.

Sorry for the cynicism, but what if Big Tech just waited for divisions and fighting among lawmakers to kill the legislation?

Are you sure you havent worked in lobbying?! Thats a classic strategy and its not an illogical bet that Congress wont get its act together. But these antitrust bills, especially the ones that make acquisitions more difficult or would force companies to pull apart their businesses, are existential threats to Big Tech. The companies have to fight them.

A middle class retirement account, at $5 billion: ProPublica examines how ultrawealthy Americans including Peter Thiel, a prominent investor in young tech companies, accumulated multi-billion-dollar, tax-free fortunes in what are supposed to be retirement accounts for those with far more modest savings.

Can e-commerce giants help Indias shopkeepers? The 20 million small stores in India known as kiranas dominate shopping in the country. Bloomberg News reports that Amazon and the Walmart-owned e-commerce site Flipkart are teaming up with the shops including providing them with inventory management apps and using the stores to ship deliveries to sell more merchandise in Indian communities.

Dr. Reddit? Wired writes that a Reddit forum called DiagnoseMe, where people ask strangers for medical advice, is not as bad as it sounds. DiagnoseMe is quite good at policing itself and encourages people to advocate for themselves in the sometimes hostile health care system.

Why did mom duck and her ducklings cross the road? To go to a bagel shop. (They later made their way safely to a park.)

Go here to read the rest:

What Congress Wants From Big Tech - The New York Times

Tech giants Apple, Google and Microsofthave pledged billions to bolster U.S. cybersecurity following a meeting with President Joe Biden at the White House on Wednesday.

The meeting, which also included attendees from the financial and education sectors, was held following months of high-profile cyberattacks against critical infrastructure and several U.S. government agencies, along with a glaring cybersecurity skills gap; according to data from CyberSeek, there are currently almost 500,000 cybersecurity jobs across the U.S that remain unfilled.

Most of our critical infrastructure is owned and operated by the private sector, and the federal government cant meet this challenge alone, Biden saidat the start of the meeting. Ive invited you all here today because you have the power, the capacity and the responsibility, I believe, to raise the bar on cybersecurity.

In order to help the U.S. in its fight against a growing number of cyberattacks, Big Tech pledged to invest billions of dollars to strengthen cybersecurity defenses and to train skilled cybersecurity workers.

Apple has vowed to work with its 9,000-plus suppliers in the U.S. to drive mass adoption of multi-factor authenticationand security training, according to the White House, as well as to establish a new program to drive continuous security improvements throughout the technology supply chain.

Google said it will invest more than $10 billion over the next five years to expand zero-trust programs, help secure the software supply chain and enhance open-source security. The search and ads giant has also pledged to train 100,000 Americans in fields like IT support and data analytics, learning in-demand skills including data privacy and security.

Robust cybersecurity ultimately depends on having the people to implement it, said Kent Walker, Googles global affairs chief. That includes people with digital skills capable of designing and executing cybersecurity solutions, as well as promoting awareness of cybersecurity risks and protocols among the broader population.

And, Microsoft said its committing $20 billion to integrate cybersecurity by design and deliver advanced security solutions. It also announced that it will immediately make available $150 million in technical services to help federal, state and local governments with upgrading security protection, and will expand partnerships with community colleges and nonprofits for cybersecurity training.

Other attendees included Amazon Web Services (AWS), Amazons cloud computing arm, and IBM. The former has said it will make its security awareness training available to the public and equip all AWS customers with hardware multi-factor authentication devices, while IBM said it will help to train more than 150,000 people in cybersecurity skills over the next five years.

While many have welcomed Big Techs commitments, David Carroll, managing director at Nominet Cyber, told TechCrunch that these latest initiatives set a powerful precedent and show the gloves are well and truly off but some within the cybersecurity industry remain skeptical.

Following the announcement, some infosec veterans noted that many of the vacant cybersecurity jobs the U.S. is looking to fill fall behind on competitive salaries and few, if any, benefits.

So 500,000 open cybersecurity jobs and almost that same amount or more looking for jobs, said Khalilah Scott, founder of TechSecChix, a foundation for supporting women in technology, in a tweet. Make it make sense.

See the rest here:

Big Tech pledges billions to bolster US cybersecurity defenses - TechCrunch