Category Archives: Big Tech

Not so long ago, a Ministry of Information was an institution unique to socialist utopias, which required rigorous establishment and enforcement of official truth to maintain state power. As absurd as such an institution may have once seemed to us in the West, we are unfortunately seeing signs that it can indeed happen here.

On July 22, Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Ben Ray Lujan announced the Health Misinformation Act, proposing an exemption to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The bill stipulates that [f]eatures that are built into technology platforms have contributed to the spread of misinformation and disinformation, with social media platforms incentivizing individuals to share content to get likes, comments, and other positive signals of engagement, which rewards engagement rather than accuracy.

The initiative came in the wake of statements by President Joe Biden and Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who have been less concrete (but certainly as belligerent) in intending to hold tech platforms accountable for the public proliferation of medical misinformation.

The bills announcement comes in the midst of the more general push to do something about Section 230. As the power of tech platforms to affect the spread of information has become undeniable, the struggle to control them by means of the lever of their exemption from legal liability under Section 230 has come into full swing.

What this particular bill would allow politicians to do, thanks to its limited and seemingly uncontroversial scope, is to question whether liability for tech platforms is a good idea. After all, medical information is a topic generally discussed in terms of hard data and science.

The interesting thing, however, is that weve already seen, in the past year, how a prohibition on medical misinformation might work. In consultation with the CDC and other health authorities, platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn have removed content or peppered informative links wherever their users dared to express their views on issues related to COVID-19 or vaccines.

Discussion of possible cures or treatments has been aggressively discouraged, as has been speculation about the viruss origins. The vaccine-as-panacea narrative has been dutifully pushed, and all skepticism as to vaccine safety or effectiveness suppressed until evidence of their collateral risk could be made to fit the narrative, procrustean-style.

Meanwhile, the party line on mask-wearing seems to change quarterly, as official recommendations shift from no-mask, to mask, and back again. Disputes about the role of aerosols in transmission, a theory now quietly accepted, went on mostly in the background.

In themselves, shifts in predominant belief among experts are not problematic. After all, science starts with admitting there is something we do not know, and our understanding may be revised repeatedly before we reach any level of certainty. What has not helped matters, however, is the all-too-human tendency to be invested in positions one has taken, which makes it difficult perhaps especially for authoritative experts to change ones view in light of new evidence.

In addition, and more troubling still, we have seen during this pandemic scientific experts consulted to decide on the acceptable bandwidth of online debate, experts who were, for example, professionally and financially invested in rejecting examination of their fellows in Wuhan. Given the dry run weve just had, it is difficult to believe Klobuchars bill has anything to do with furthering the discovery and proliferation of lifesaving medical information.

In times of fear and insecurity, the pull to appeal to authority might feel irresistible. But if we keep our wits about us, we will recall that we in the West have largely resisted this fallacious approach, both in science and politics, since the time the Catholic Church censored Galileo. (As if Socrates being forced to drink hemlock wasnt enough!)

Are we now ready to feign amnesia once again and to obediently accept a truth proclaimed from the top down? Or is intense debate and controversy ah, those uncomfortable disagreements that we experience in abundance in a pluralist society an integral component of the scientific mindset, and approach which has brought us unprecedented wellbeing?

Interestingly, Klobuchars bill calls out algorithms favoring engagement over accuracy. Here she echoes others who have complained about online platforms algorithmic manipulation and monetization of controversy. Todays polarized society demonstrates that accuracy is not the only casualty of these algorithms, which have so far escaped serious scrutiny.

In the case of actual rights violations and damages due to algorithms, the proper means of redress is litigation brought by private individuals, such as those brought by former President Donald Trump. The rest should be left to a free market to decide. Government officials telling private companies to censor disfavored viewpoints on vital issues is the stuff of totalitarian regimes, not of a free country built on the homage of reason.

Amy Peikoff is chief policy officer at Parler. Benjamin Chayes is a historian.

Go here to see the original:

Democrats Using Big Tech To Control 'Misinformation' Is Totalitarian - The Federalist

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Having failed to find consensus from stakeholders, one critic says Ottawa is now using 'delay tactic' ahead of upcoming election call

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

The Liberal government is asking for public input on how to force digital platforms to compensate Canadian news outlets, a move that comes as news industry representatives urge the government to move quickly on legislation.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Daniel Bernhard, executive director of the advocacy group Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, criticized the new consultation as a delay tactic. I think that the government is trying to remind voters in the runup to an election that they are taking this issue seriously, he said.

Publishers in Canada and around the world have been calling for governments to force Big Tech to compensate them for news content shared on digital platforms, given plummeting advertising revenues that have moved to companies such as Google and Facebook. Those two companies now account for 80 per cent of digital advertising revenue in Canada, according to the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project.

While Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault initially hoped to have legislation introduced in the House of Commons by June, the Parliamentary session ended without such a bill.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Then on Aug. 3, the government launched a public consultation asking for feedback on what approach to take. Bernhard said its unfortunate that theyve resorted to these types of tricks to try to persuade Canadians theyre moving on an issue that theyre clearly not moving on.

It's unfortunate they've resorted to these types of tricks to try to persuade Canadians they're moving on an issue they're clearly not moving on

Daniel Bernhard

The new consultation follows a non-public consultation process in which the government reached out to such stakeholders as publishers and broadcasters, digital platforms and academics, as previously reported by the National Post. The government laid out two options the Australian model that imposes bargaining rules for publishers and online platforms, and a scheme similar to the one for broadcasters in which cable companies and other TV service providers must fund Canadian content.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The responses it received were split, the government said in a discussion paper released as part of the new consultation. It said no consensus emerged about the preferred way for the Government to address this issue, and the responses received regarding the two revenue sharing models were polarized.

It noted stakeholders often favoured one model substantially over the other, but neither model was unanimously preferred by any stakeholder group. The government received 46 written submissions, including from platforms Google and Microsoft, while others, such as Facebook and Twitter, provided oral comments only.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

But both Bernhard and Paul Deegan, president of the publishers group News Media Canada, said there was a clear preference by the news industry for adapting Australias approach to Canada. Deegan said the groups members, large and small, believe that by far and away the best approach is collective negotiation.

That includes the idea of final offer arbitration, in which a panel makes a binding decision if negotiations between news organizations and digital platforms hit a deadlock.

Bernhard said the industry and citizens groups alike seem unified behind the Australian style model. He argued its the most ethical and least complicated, because it doesnt require the government to be doling out cash to journalists directly. Its very important that we avoid that outcome.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The issues for Canadian publishers are urgent

Paul Deegan, News Media Canada

The second option would consist of an independent fund, into which digital platforms pay mandatory contributions, similar to the obligations that are currently in place for TV service providers like cable companies. Currently, TV providers pay at least five per cent of their revenues into funds used for the creation of Canadian content.

Those who were in favour of that model said it would be easier to access for smaller outlets, while they feared the negotiation option would further entrench established players, the consultation paper outlined. It said the government is also open to other approaches, or a combination of the two models. The deadline for submissions is Sept. 15.

While they have been waiting for government legislation, various publishers have been entering into voluntary deals with Google and Facebook, but both Bernhard and Deegan said such arrangements wont solve the issue.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Publishers are now taking probably lopsided deals with Google and Facebook, because they have no other choice and they cant wait for regulation, Bernhard said. Deegan said the view among publishers, including those who have signed deals with the Big Tech companies, is unanimous that legislation is needed quickly.

Since Parliament isnt sitting over the summer, the earliest that could happen is in the fall. But given that an election is widely expected to be called soon, realistically youre looking either late 2021 or into early enough 2022 for legislation to be passed, Deegan said.

The issues for Canadian publishers are urgent, he said. The overall decline in ad revenues, compounded with the COVID-19 pandemic, has made advertising dollars even more scarce, Deegan added, and theres definitely a need for urgent action.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read more from the original source:

Government moves to consult public on how to make Big Tech pay for news - National Post

(This interview as been edited for length and clarity.)

Nicholas Colas, co-founder of DataTrek Research

Everybody beat. All the Big Tech companies beat. And by a pretty wide margin. The low end was Microsoft at just over 10%. But we had 20 and 30, and even 40% beats from everybody else. So the base earnings were solid. And that was what the market was telling you, with most of these stocks rallying and going into earnings going through July. In Microsoft's case, the guidance was a bit fuzzy. What upset investors is that the companies were very honest that they've had a great quarter, but they don't have 100% clarity on what's happening in calendar Q3.

I think that the selling was really caused by that kind of fuzzy guidance. You're looking through all of these companies, and it was very clear that all but Microsoft face some unique challenges. Amazon, for example, has just very difficult comparisons to last year, and they don't really know how consumers will shop in the third quarter. Will they be back to physical stores? Will they be actually shopping less because they're out and about on vacations, and so forth. And yet Apple, talking about chip shortages, very valid concern that could potentially hurt Mac and iPad sales. So there is just a lot of fuzziness about the third quarter, which we're just going to have to get through.

We're personally pretty confident in Q3 for Big Tech. So it's not a big concern for us. But the other thing, and this is more broadly macro, is there's a lot of worry that have we hit kind of peak earnings power, peak earnings growth, particularly versus last year, which was obviously a very easy quarter to compare against for most companies. And how does that all play through tech demand? We've seen so much demand for tech services for tech products over the last year. Can it keep going again? We think it will. We think back to school is going to be great for the likes of Apple, and holidays will be fine as well. We think companies will advertise on Facebook and Google. And that'll be all good. But it's a legitimate concern. We're coming up against harder and harder comparisons against the very easy ones we had in Q2, and investors are taking a step back.

Continued here:

What the sell-off on Big Tech's earnings means for investors - CNBC

Enlarge / Apple offices in northern California.

All across the United States, the leaders at large tech companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook are engaged in a delicate dance with thousands of employees who have recently become convinced that physically commuting to an office every day is an empty and unacceptable demand from their employers.

But thousands of high-paid workers at these companies aren't having it. Many of them don't want to go back to the office full-time, even if they're willing to do so a few days a week. Workers are even pointing to how effective they were when fully remote and using that to question why they have to keep living in the expensive cities where these offices are located.

Some tech leaders (like Twitter's Jack Dorsey) agreed, or at least they saw the writing on the wall. They enacted permanent or semipermanent changes to their companies' policies to make partial or even full-time remote work the norm. Others (like Apple's Tim Cook) are working hard to find a way to get everyone back in their assigned seats as soon as is practical, despite organized resistance.

In either case, the work cultures at tech companies that make everything from the iPhone to Google search are facing a major wave of transformation.

The gospel of a remote-work future has long been preached by a dedicated cadre in Silicon Valley and other tech startup hubs. Influencers, writers, and business consulting gurus have for years been saying that, thanks to today's technology, working in an office is destined to be a thing of the past.

The movement reached something of a fever pitch in the late 2000s, when tech-unicorn optimism was sweeping the business world and some prominent executives in the new wave of startups seemed cozy with the idea. But remote work went on to face dramatic setbacks. Notably, Yahoo!then known as one of the most remote-friendly large tech companieschanged course in the early 2010s under the leadership of then-CEO Marissa Mayer, who mandated that a vast fleet of remote workers had to relocate and show up at their assigned desks.

Since that and other similar incidents around that time, the remote-work movement has been quieter.

Remote-work advocates and the business establishment seemed to settle into a compromise. Companies like Google or Twitter would let employees work from home periodically as the need arose (for example, to take care of a sick child or even for the occasional mental health day). But in most cases, the culture dictated that workers not play this card too often. Remote work was a privilege, not a right, and employees usually could not relocate out of daily commuting range from the cities where these companies were based.

As housing prices skyrocketed and traffic worsened in cities like San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, and Austinand as economic inequalities worsened in those places as a resultprominent commentators still occasionally penned op-eds that essentially said, "Gee, maybe some of these problems would be lessened if business leaders were more open to remote work." But the most radical vision of the remote-work movement nonetheless seemed dead in the water.

And then the pandemic happened.

Companies whose leaders long claimed remote work would never function were left with no other options. In traditional businesses, the digital-transformation movement accelerated dramatically to meet the need. And in some tech startups, the transition was so seamless that many employees (and even managers) found themselves wondering why all this hadn't been tried before.

Between the threat of future pandemics in crowded cities and insane housing prices in tech hubs, a lot of workers recently began to make plans to evacuate from places like the Bay Area for cheaper, greener pasturesbut with the hope that they could keep their high-paying jobs.

According to Glassdoor's data, the average software engineer salary in pricy tech hotspot San Jose, California, is $137,907. Shockingly, that's not enough to bankroll the whole American dream in the Bay Area. But if that hypothetical engineer relocates to St. Louis or Tucson on that salary, they can live like royalty.

Few tech companies have experienced as much widely publicized drama over this issue as Apple. Though many employees in the Cupertino headquarters and elsewhere mostly worked from home through much of 2020, CEO Tim Cook emailed staff in early June 2021 that a policy change was imminent.

Employees would be required to return to the office for at least three days of every week beginning in September. They would also be able to go fully remote for up to two weeks per year, provided they secure management approval.

Employees then circulated a survey amongst themselves to reveal that Cook's mandate was out of step with what they wanted or expected, according to reporting by The Verge's Zoe Schiffer. Ninety percent of the survey's 1,749 respondents said they "strongly agree" that "location-flexible working options are a very important issue for me." Workers wrote a letter to Cook asking him to rethink the new policy. Sixty-eight percent agreed "that the lack of location flexibility would likely cause them to leave Apple."

The threats may be legitimate because some other tech companies (like Twitter) have taken a much more permissive approach. These companies may give dissatisfied Apple employees somewhere else to go.

Apple executives did not back down from their plan. Over the summer, the upcoming change has led to turmoil in the industry giant, with longtime employees pledging to quit over a required return to the office. Some workers went to the press with claims that Apple management has begun rejecting remote-work requests more than normal in response.

A few Apple employees wrote another letter arguing for a compromise: more lenient remote-work policies in exchange for a system wherein employees in cities with lower costs of living would accept proportionally lower salaries. However, this proposal angered other employees still, who argue that Apple can afford to pay them a competitive salary regardless of where they choose to relocate to mid- or post-pandemic.

But now the battle over remote-work culture at companies like Apple looks like it is going to be extended. This summer's initial optimism about an imminent return to normal in the wealthy parts of the world has waned across the industry. Credit the rapid spread of the delta COVID-19 variant and rising cases among the unvaccinated in the US.

Apple has nudged its return-to-office plan amidst the internal turmoil and growing health concerns. The timeframe has reportedly moved from September to October, and there's a strong possibility it will be pushed back even further.

This week, Twitter announced that it is closing the US offices it had recently partially reopened. Google extended its current work-from-home policy through mid-October, and Lyft postponed a plan to move back into its office this coming September all the way back to February of next year.

Several big tech firms are requiring some or all employees to get vaccinated to return to the office, including Lyft, Google, and Facebook. And even in companies that haven't yet announced any vaccination requirement, like Apple, employees are being asked to fill out surveys disclosing their vaccination status.

Others like Microsoft are still pushing to get workers back at their desks, despite the new developments, though they might change course again in the near future. Microsoft has generally been more proactive than Apple in laying the groundwork for long-term hybrid work support, though, despite its plans to press forward with reopening offices.

Don't expect these discussions to resolve soon. Some executives are still trying to get employees back at their desks, some employees are still saying "not so fast" or "not at all," and COVID-19 is still sweeping the planet.

Every workplace is handling things differently, and whether the fully remote dream actually becomes a reality at some of these companies or not, long-time remote-work prophesiers are right about one thing: the old ways aren't going to cut it anymore, and tech is never going to be the same again.

See original here:

Big tech companies are at war with employees over remote work - Ars Technica

Does the Constitution require Americans to accept Big Tech censorship? The claim is counterintuitive but the logic is clear: If you submit a letter to this newspaper, the editors have no legal obligation to publish it, and a statute requiring them to do so would be struck down as a violation of the Journals First Amendment rights. Facebook and Twitter , the argument goes, have the same right not to provide a platform to views they find objectionable.

Big Tech censorship has provoked interest in new civil-rights statutesstate laws that would bar the companies from viewpoint discrimination on their platforms and services. The First Amendment defense of this private censorship arose in a recent federal district court opinion expressing skepticism about a Florida anticensorship statute. It will come up again when other states, such as Texas, consider civil-rights statutes that focus more tightly on viewpoint discrimination.

With the possibility of multiple state statutes barring Big Tech viewpoint discrimination, it will be essential to understand the extent of the tech companies freedom of speech. For this, it is important to consider whether they are common carriers.

A statute limiting the ability of a Big Tech company to express its own views would almost certainly be unconstitutional. What about a law limiting viewpoint discrimination where the companies serve as a publicly accessible conduit for the speech of others?

This sort of distinction has long been ingrained in federal lawincluding Section 230(c)(1) of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which distinguishes between information provided by an interactive computer service and information provided by another information content provider. Whatever the shortcomings of that statute, it draws a common and reasonable distinction between a companys own speech and the speech of others for which it provides a conduit. This distinction doesnt apply in the case of a newspaper. Its pages are not open to the public to post their views, and so it is speaking for itself when it makes editorial decisions about letters and other outside contributions.

Read the rest here:

The First Amendment Doesnt Protect Big Techs Censorship - The Wall Street Journal

Libertarian: Big Tech Widens Censorship

Tech giants have started partnering with watchdog groups and law enforcement to share information about so-called extremists using their platforms, warns Reasons Robby Soave. PayPal will work with the left-wing Anti-Defamation League to identify and block extremists, while the likes of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube will be expanding their use of a centralized database that compiles extremist content for the purposes of coordinated de-platforming. Beware: With these new capacities, information may eventually be shared with law enforcement. Private corporations may not be bound to follow the Constitution, but its federal authorities that are encouraging these changes and we have the right to speak out against government encroachment.

West Coast watch: Calis Blue Staying Power

Based on the results of last Novembers ballot initiatives in California, you might think the Golden State is poised to make a turn to the right but not necessarily, Nick Burns points out at City Journal. Rather, the ballot initiative has actually become an advantage for Democrats there. Nor are recall efforts, such as the one seeking to oust Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), a surefire panacea for the right: Even if Newsom is replaced, for example, with only a year left until fresh elections in 2022, his successor would have little time to prove his competence and might be vulnerable to the Dems return. Like the ballot initiative, the recall process does not seem to be the shortcut to overcoming the structural dominance of California Democrats that it may at first seem.

Foreign desk: Dems Losing Bet on Cuba

There is no foreign-policy issue in the United States that is less foreign than the Cuba policy, argues Carlos Gustavo Poggio Teixeira at The Hill. The case of Cuba is unique, because its directly connected to the presidential elections. The reason: Floridas 29 electoral votes. More than two-thirds of the countrys 2.5 million Cuban Americans live in the swing state, making them a particularly prized electoral asset. Former President Barack Obama made a bet that history was going the Democrats way, with polling suggesting Republicans were losing ground with the group, but history has taken a turn: Cuban Americans have become more conservative since 2016. President Bidens response to protests roiling the island was mostly meaningless statements of solidarity and even more meaningless individual sanctions whose practical effects are exactly zero. Dems do not know how to respond to their lost bet.

Conservative: CRT Infiltrates DOE

Americans have a right to expect that the leader of public educations top civil-rights-enforcement body would unequivocally oppose racial discrimination, writes the American Enterprise Institutes Max Eden. Too bad Catherine Lhamon, President Bidens pick to head the Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights, doesnt share that expectation. Lhamon defined racism as the belief that race determines character traits, but then refused to definitively say whether it is racist for schools to grade differently, segregate students or shame them based on race. Lhamons refusal to admit that any of these obviously racist, illegal practices violates federal civil-rights law comes quite close to an admission that she will, at best, not enforce equal protection equally and, at worst, actively enforce critical race theory. But without any senators willing to question her in a public hearing, Lhamon seems poised to take office, with reason to think shell be subject to minimal oversight and, at most, muted criticism.

Liberal: Gender Insanity at Med School

At Bari Weiss Substack, Katie Herzog reports on an endocrinology professor in the University of California system begging his students to summon the generosity to forgive me. His crime? I said, When a woman is pregnant, which implies that only women can get pregnant. Welcome to gender ideologys bizarro world: Some of the countrys top medical students are being taught that humans are not, like other mammals, a species comprising two sexes. The notion of sex, they are learning, is just a man-made creation.

Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Read the original post:

Big Tech widens censorship and other commentary - New York Post

Its been a busy week for company earnings. Tech companies took the spotlight this time, with most of the FAANMG companies Facebook FB, -0.56%, Amazon AMZN, -7.56%, Apple AAPL, +0.15%, Microsoft MSFT, -0.55% and Google parent Alphabet GOOG, -0.97% GOOGL, -0.77% reporting. (Netflix NFLX, +0.65% was last week.)

The numbers they delivered and the forecasts for the full year are staggering, as Therese Poletti and Jeremy C. Owens lay out. Sales from just this weeks five are on track to eclipse Australias GDP.

Jeff Reeves steps back and ranks the six Big Tech stocks from worst to first.

Tesla TSLA, +1.45% earnings zoomed past Wall Street expectations. The stock is nearing $700.

Pandemic nesting is history, as Pinterest PINS, -18.24% results show.

Nikolas NKLA, -1.33% founder is accused of lying about the companys technological breakthroughs. An indictment unveiled Thursday alleges that prototypes didnt function and were Frankenstein monsters cobbled together from parts from other vehicles. At public events, the vehicles were allegedly towed into position and were powered by plugs leading from hidden wall sockets.

It was a bad trading debut for Robinhood HOOD, +0.95%, the attention-grabbing no-fee trading app that went public this week. Is the stock worth buying? Michael Brush spells out three reasons for and three reasons against the stock.

Heres a longer-term question: Will its users age out of the app and turn to other financial-service providers?

Dole DOLE, -9.38%, the fruit and vegetable giant, also had a rocky IPO. The size was cut, shares were priced at the low end of the range and then it fell in early trade.

Dole IPO: Five things to know

A former chief investment officer weighs in: This is why I dont see a long-term future for value investing

Plus: Mark Hulbert has a two-word answer for those who accuse investors of being obsessed with short-term results: growth stocks.

The background: The delta variant is as transmissible as chickenpox. Heres the CDC report that led to a new mask policy.

Also read: Silicon Valley is hardening the line on returning to work its fully vaccinated or bust

Plus: Danny Meyer is the latest restaurant owner to tell customers, No vax, no service

A reader asks: Im retiring on my 78th birthday, have more than $200,000 in savings and share expenses with my 80-year-old boyfriend. Will I be OK?

Alessandra Malito offers thoughtful advice.

This NBA draft picks message to college athletes is valuable advice for anyone.

Plus: These investing lessons can make your working teen rich, rich, rich.

Jillian Berman explains how some colleges are using relief funds.

Mike Murphy spotlights whats worth streaming in August.

Its not with that planned $6 billion sea wall.

Read the rest here:

Weekend reads: Time to assess Big Tech earnings and Robinhood's IPO - MarketWatch

Apple shows new software for iPhone, other gadgets

Apple kicked off its second annual all-virtual developer conference with a keynote that outlined new updates to its software for iPhones and other devices but included no major product announcements. (June 8)

AP

Three tech giants Apple, Microsoft and Google owner Alphabet reported combined profits of more than $50 billion in the April-June quarter, underscoring their unparalleled influence and success at reshaping the way we live.

Although these companies make their money in different ways, the results served as another reminder of the clout they wield and why government regulators are growing increasingly concerned about whether they have become too powerful.

The massive profits pouring into each company also illustrated why they have a combined market value of $6.4 trillion more than double theircollective value when the COVID-19 pandemic started 16 months ago.

Apples first iPhone model capable of connecting to ultrafast 5G wireless networks continued to power major increases in quarterly revenue and profits for techs most valuable company.

With iPhone sales posting double-digit growth over the previous year for the third consecutive quarter, Apples profit and revenue for the April-June period easily exceeded analyst estimates. The Cupertino, California, company earned $21.7 billion, or $1.30 per share, nearly doubling profits earned during the same period last year. Revenue surged 36% to $81.4 billion.

Planning a vacation: Employees are expected to take more PTO this year, but are businesses ready?

Masks are back: Walmart, Target, Costco and other stores may soon require masks again

But a Tuesday conference call with analysts, Apple CEO Tim Cook lamented that the steadily spreading delta variant of the coronavirus is casting doubt on how the rest of the year will unfold. The road to recovery will be a winding one, Cook said. That uncertainty has already led Apple to delay employees mass return to its offices from September to October. Most of Apples stores, though, are already open.

The iPhone 12, released last autumn, is shaping up to be Apples most popular model in several years, largely because its the first to work on the 5G networks that are still being built around the world. Apples iPhone sales totaled nearly $40 billion in the latest quarter, up 50% from a year ago.

Apples services division, the focal point of a high-profile trial revolving around the commissions it collects from iPhone apps, saw revenue climb 33% from last year to $17.5 billion. A potentially game-changing decision from the trial completed in May is expected later this summer.

Among Apples upcoming challenges is whether shortages of computer chips and other key parts will force the company to delay its next iPhone this year, as it did last year. While Apple expects revenue to rise 10% in the current quarter, it said it may have more trouble getting parts for iPhones and iPad during the upcoming months. Executives skirted questions about another possible iPhone delay.

Googles earnings improved markedly over the year-ago period, when the pandemic was starting to bite consumer spending and its partner, advertising. Now that vaccines have allowed people to shed the shackles of the pandemic and splurge again, a big chunk of that pent-up demand has spurred advertisers to spend more too, with a big chunk going to Google and its corporate parent Alphabet Inc.

Powered by Google, Alphabet earned $18.53 billion, or $27.26 per share, during the quarter, a nearly threefold increase from last years earnings of $6.96 billion, or $10.13 per share. Googles advertising revenue soared 69% to $50.44 billion thanks to what CEO Sundar Pichai called a rising tide of online activity among consumers and businesses.

Retail, along with travel and entertainment ads, were the biggest contributors to the revenue increase, the company said. Total revenue surged 62% from last year to $61.88 billion. Revenue after subtracting TAC, or traffic acquisition costs, was $50.95 billion.

The April-June quarter looks particularly strong since the 2020 downturn forced Google to report its first decline in quarterly ad revenue from the previous year.

Analysts were expecting Alphabet to earn $19.24 per share on revenue of $56.2 billion, and $46.2 billion after subtracting TAC. Alphabets stock jumped $135, or 5.1%, to $2,773 in after-hours trading after the results.

Microsoft on Tuesday reported fiscal fourth-quarter profit of $16.5 billion, up 47% from the same period last year. Net income of $2.17 per share beat Wall Street expectations. The software maker also topped forecasts by posting revenue of $46.2 billion in the quarter that ended on June 30, a 21% increase over the same time last year.

Analysts were expecting Microsoft to earn $1.91 per share for the April-June quarter on revenue of $44.1 billion. Microsoft profits have soared throughout the pandemic thanks to ongoing demand for its software and cloud computing services for remote work and study. But the companys shares fell 2.9% to $278.19 in after-hours trading.

Growth in sales of Microsofts cloud services, which compete with Amazon and other companies, and its Office productivity tools for handling work documents and email both outpaced overall revenue growth. The companys historical pillar personal computinggrew just 9% in the quarter.

Microsoft noted that supply issues were affecting its personal-computing division, including for its Surface and Windows products. The company recently unveiled the next generation of Windows, called Windows 11, its first major update in six years. It will be available later this year.

Read more here:

Big tech, big earnings: Apple, Microsoft and Google parent Alphabet report massive profits - USA TODAY

This article was first featured in Yahoo Finance Tech, a weekly newsletter highlighting our original content on the industry. Get it sent directly to your inbox every Wednesday by 4 p.m. ET. Subscribe

China is relentlessly cracking down on tech giants ranging from ride-sharing firm Didi (DIDI) to internet giant Tencent and Alibaba (BABA) affiliate Ant Financial Group. Along the way, billions of dollars have been washed away, as Chinese stocks tank amid concerns that what were once easy growth opportunities are now high-risk bets.

The swift crackdown follows the meteoric growth of Chinas biggest tech companies and leaders who dont always tow the party line, like Alibabas Jack Ma.

The move to rein in Chinese tech giants also comes after the U.S. passed a law that bars foreign companies from trading on U.S. exchanges unless they surrender to audits. That law, the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, could stoke the Chinese governments fears that data on its citizens could end up in the hands of its biggest political rival.

Even though [President Xi Jinping] has said that he aspires to [have] globally successful companies operating abroad, I think that there are real challenges for regime security, explained Jessica Brandt, a fellow with the Brookings Institution.

And that means the party is likely over for Alibaba, Tencent, Didi, the shopping platform Meituan, and any other tech companies that threaten the Communist Partys authority.

Chinas Communist Party is dedicated to control, whether thats through state media, the Great Firewall that blocks out huge swaths of the internet, or restrictions on free speech. Chinas big tech companies have to abide by the same set of rules, but as theyve grown in size and wealth, theyve created new challenges to the governments authority.

Chinese companies collect massive amounts of data on their users, eclipsing the capabilities of even their Western cohorts. Didi, for instance, collects GPS, trip, traffic personal user information, facial-recognition data, and even recordings of passengers in-car audio.

Story continues

BEIJING, CHINA - JUNE 17: A logo of Chinese ride-sharing company Didi is pictured at its headquarters' building on June 17, 2021 in Beijing, China. (Photo by VCG/VCG via Getty Images)

When you think about...foreign intelligence risks, that's like a lot of sensitive data there. So I think that's a piece of what's driving this, Brandt explained.

To ensure that sensitive data doesnt end up in the hands of foreign officials, China wants its companies to go public on domestic exchanges. China also wants tech giants to avoid foreign influence by being funded domestically.

While foreign investors used to play an outsized role in funding the first generation of Chinese tech firms such as Alibaba, Baidu and Tencent, they are now locked in fierce competition with home-grown funds, state-sponsored incubators, as well as Chinese internet giants to fund Chinas booming tech sector, Angela Zhang, a professor at Hong Kong University wrote in a new paper published on Wednesday.

In both the U.S. and China, tech giants have been blamed for growing wealth inequality. Tech firms in both countries provide top executives and engineers with generous pay and bonuses, while their contract and gig economy workers make minimum wage.

Tech giants in both countries have also been accused of exploiting consumers. While China is trying to protect the state by regulating big tech, its also simultaneously clamping down on actual anticompetitive practices and price gouging.

By leveraging the vast amount of data collected from their consumers, Chinese e-commerce platforms employ smart algorithms in order to price discriminate and extract more surplus from Chinese consumers, Zhang explains in her piece.

That kind of predatory pricing can further exacerbate inequality in China, which is already one of the most unequal countries in the world, according to a 2018 IMF working paper.

I think a great concern is what rising inequality in China is going to do for the popularity of the regime, and I think Chinese big tech can be a target for some of those frustrations, Brandt said.

So what does all of this mean for investors hungry for their own stake in Chinese companies looking at the potential for stratospheric growth? According to Chester Spatt, professor of finance at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business, its all part of the risk of investing in China.

if you're investing in companies with a footprint in China. I think I would think you understand you're going to be subject to these kinds of risks. And maybe the import of these risks has become a little clearer, Spatt told Yahoo Finance.

I think people need to understand that the rule of law is interpreted differently in different parts of the world, but that's a longstanding theme. That's not a new theme.

Got a tip? Email Daniel Howley at dhowley@yahoofinance.com over via encrypted mail at danielphowley@protonmail.com, and follow him on Twitter at @DanielHowley.

Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Flipboard, LinkedIn, YouTube, and reddit

More:

Chinas Big Tech crackdown is about protecting the Communist Party - Yahoo Finance

The news: Coronavirus infections in the US are on the rise in every state because of the highly contagious Delta variantjust as companies are returning employees to in-person work. Big Tech companies are being forced to reassess back-to-office timeframes as well as whether to impose vaccination and mask policies, per Mashable.

How we got here: As the nations vaccination rates plateau, the sudden and sustained spread of COVID-19 variants has resulted in surging infections in every state.

The bigger picture: Businesses have looked to Big Tech companies as models for implementing remote and hybrid work during the pandemic, and have largely followed their lead on return-to-office policies. These policies have been a source of tension between employers desire to return staff to the office, and employees preference to remain remote. Meanwhile, many tech workers looking to change jobs are seeking more flexibility around remote work per Fast Company.

The dilemma: Big Tech companies who were looking at returning to work by September are scrambling plans made before the sudden surge of the highly contagious Delta variant. The unpredictable nature of coronavirus variants and increased rates of infection will continue to confound businesses as they struggle to remain profitable while keeping employees and customers safe.

See original here:

Big Tech wrestles with unpredictable back to work reality as pandemic surges - eMarketer