Category Archives: Big Tech

Growth-oriented investors tend to focus on tech stocks, and with good reason. Some of the biggest names in tech have been overachievers in recent years, delivering substantial returns.

But you can find high-growth companies outside of tech.On this clip fromMotley Fool Live,recorded onMay 6, Fool.com contributor Lou Whiteman identifiesXPO Logistics(NYSE:XPO) as a market beater and explains why he believes that outperformance will continue in the years to come.

Lou Whiteman: XPO Logistics, one of my favorite companies to talk about, and I'm going to convince you why that is. Earlier this week, first-quarter earnings, oy, did they "deliver." See what I did there? The company earned $1.46 per share, $0.50 above the $0.97 consensus, and that consensus was way up because I don't know if you've noticed, but with the pandemic, delivery companies, shipment companies have done really well. They raised full-year guidance too. This is a company, an old economy company, that now expects 2021 adjusted EBITDA to be up more than 30% over 2020. On a per-share basis, the low end of their guidance is $0.40 above the consensus estimate, even with raised expectations they are killing it right now.

So what's going on? First, XPO spends about $500 million annually on tech and it seems to be paying off. XPO Connect is a product that's almost like Match Group (NASDAQ:MTCH) for truckers which, I don't know. [LAUGHTER] If you imagine, you have a lot of truckers who try to avoid not having a full truck whenever they're on the road. You have a lot of shippers that are looking to get things from point A to point B using technology to bring them together. This is a very sticky offering. Truck brokerage revenue was up 83% year over year. They are also investing in automation and warehousing, which is leading to faster fulfillment times, better efficiency. This is a well-run company.

Secondly, as I mentioned, we had a pandemic. We were doing a lot of e-commerce, subsequent need from delivery capacity. What's going on behind the scenes is that the pandemic accelerated this trend on the corporate side of looking to outsource warehousing and outsource logistics due to its complexity and because of the vulnerabilities in the system. XPO is a huge player here. Their scale, their automation, it allows them to manage these tasks cheaper than their customers can on their own. The company has brought in more than $4 billion in new customer agreements so far in 2021. One of their new customers, you might have heard of a company called Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), who is partnering with XPO to build a new distribution center in Indiana.

I know, still, this is just a logistics company and that bores people and I get that and we'll see if I can share my screen here, because this is why you should care. Tell me if this comes up. This is a 10-year chart comparing XPO's performance with Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), Netflix (NASDAQ:NFLX), Apple, and Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT). It's done pretty darn well. There are special companies all over the stock market. Not every logistics company does this, but it's not just a tech thing to get an over-performance. XPO is one of the special stories, special companies, there's a lot to like from here. They are actually splitting off this logistics and e-commerce business from the trucking company. It's going to be a pure-play for all the growth. For all of the boring old industrial that this looks like, I'd argue we're in the early stages of a huge opportunity here, and XPO is the best way to play it. Everyone should have this on their radar screen.

This article represents the opinion of the writer, who may disagree with the official recommendation position of a Motley Fool premium advisory service. Were motley! Questioning an investing thesis -- even one of our own -- helps us all think critically about investing and make decisions that help us become smarter, happier, and richer.

View post:

This Transportation Stock Has Outperformed Big Tech Over the Past Decade - The Motley Fool

Seton Motley is the president of Less Government, a DC-based non-profit organization dedicated to reducing the power of government and protecting the First Amendment from governmental assault.

One of America's leading authorities on technology and telecom policy, Motley is a writer, television and radio commentator, political and policy strategist, lecturer, debater, activist, and policy advisor to The Heartland Institute.

President Donald Trump began to revolutionize US trade policy for the very much better. Wed spent decades getting royally screwed by everyone else on the planet. Wed spent more than half a century committing slow-motion national suicide to the perpetual benefit of Communist China.

Trump put our outsourcing everything to corrupt China on the national radar. We went from not talking about it at all to roundly denouncing it in about three Trump seconds. Suddenly everyone was conversant in the Uyghurs west China plight. Trumps Make America Great Again easily transmogrified into a national movement to Make It in America Again.

Trumps use of tariffs wasnt because he liked tariffs. It was because he disliked everyones tariffs. And trade limits. And subsides. Trump imposed tariffs upon countries that were massively subsidizing their exports to us and taxing and severely limiting their imports from us. Trump wanted to reduce all of these anti-trade impositions from and by everyone.

The point of Trumps trade policy was identical to the point of all Trump policy: Make things better for Average Americans. Outsourcing everything to China and everywhere else is a huge boon to Americas Bigs Big Tech, Big Business, Big Banks, Big Stocks, etc. But it royally screws Average Americans. Allowing foreign countries to export their domestic cronyism to us is a huge boon to Americas relocating Bigs but it royally screws Average Americans.

Trump was trying to undo many decades of trade dumbness. The underlying theme of all the dumbness was cronyism. Big Cronies benefited Average Americans got screwed.

Bidens trade people have spent most of its four months in power almost singularly focused on getting monstrous Big Tech out from under some international digital taxes. Trump too was opposed to these taxes. But Biden is nigh myopically working to end/prevent them to the exclusion of almost all other things trade. Its almost as if Biden issupplicant to Big Techs bidding.

Europes Digital Service Taxes in the Crosshairs:

USTRs potential action against Austria, India, Italy, Spain, Turkey and the U.K. has its roots in the Trump administration.

But U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, in one of her first moves after taking office in March, issued a set of reports that found each of the six countries had adopted a digital service tax that unfairly hurts U.S. commercial interests.

The OECD talks have definitely advanced since Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and her team took the reins, Chip Harter, a consultant with PwC, told our colleagues at Morning Tax. Harter was Treasurys lead negotiator under Yellens predecessor, Steven Mnuchin.

Tariff Hearings Shift Focus to India:

USTR will conclude a series of hearings to gather feedback on retaliatory tariffs against six countries seeking to impose digital services taxes on American firms.

After four years of Democratsincessantly whiningabout Trumps judicious use of tariffs to better things for Average Americans? Biden prepares to tariff to benefit Big Tech.

U.S. Trade Chief Readies Tariffs Against Six Countries Over Digital Taxes

These foreign nations are looking to impose upon US Big Tech companies what is known as a Digital Services Tax (DST).What is a DST?:

(S)ome countries are seeking to impose taxes on multinational tech companies based on their digital rather than physical presence.

Now, you may oppose the DST predicated upon the principle of wanting less taxes everywhere. So do I. But that absolutely isnt a principle Biden shares with us.

Biden Will Reportedly Announce a $3.5 Trillion Tax Hike

Im guessing its the fact that other governments besides Bidens gets the tax money.

You may oppose the DST predicated upon the principle of not taxing people who dont live in your country. So do I. But that absolutely isnt a principle Biden shares with us.

Biden Plan Sets Tax Penalties for Companies Offshore Profits

There are LOTS of really important things trade on which to focus. Almost all of them are getting short shrift from Biden so that Biden can provide crony assistance to Big Tech.

And here are some more fun numbers. While looking to raise our taxes by trillions Biden is fighting tooth and nail to save obscenely rich Big Tech mere millions:

The potential tariff hit: In its investigations, USTR found that U.S. internet companies face a combined digital services tax liability of up to $880 million in the six countries.

So all six countries are looking to impose a combined tax bill on all of Big Tech of less than $1 billion. That is NOTHING to these corporate monstrosities.

Lets peruse some Big Tech Market Caps, shall we?

Apple: $2.1 trillion

Microsoft: $1.84 trillion

Amazon: $1.64 trillion

Google: $1.52 trillion

Facebook: $888.4 billion

Lets pretend each Big Tech company could take respective turns paying the annual DST bill to all six countries for all Big Tech companies. And for simplicitys sake lets round the tax bill up 12% to an even $1 billion.

$1 billion is 0.0476% of Apples Market Cap. $1 billion is 1.31% of Apples$76.31 billion 2020 net profits.

For Big Tech, these digital taxes are a rounding error. Each Big Tech company has more in its petty cash drawer. This is NOTHING to them.

Of course, Big Tech doesnt want to pay even these relatively minuscule amounts. That is understandable.

Biden going all out to get Big Tech to not have to pay them? To the exclusion of nigh all other US trade policy?

That is Big Government cronyism pathetic-ness.

[Originally posted on RedState]

Bidens International Trade Big Tech Cronyism Is Ridiculously Small Ball was last modified: May 17th, 2021 by Seton Motley

Read the rest here:

Biden's International Trade Big Tech Cronyism Is Ridiculously Small Ball | The Freedom Pub - Somewhat Reasonable - Heartland Institute

May 17, 2021President Joe Biden revoked an executive order previously signed by Donald Trump that would have had the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission regulate speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.

On May 14, President Biden revoked executive order 13925, which concerned online censorship. Trump signed this executive order into law on May 28, 2020, and listed Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube as its prime targets. He also revoked executive orders concerning everything from the destruction of monuments and memorials to foreign assistance.

This revocation represents the Biden Administrations stark departure from Trump-era tech policy.

In order 13925, Trump broadly accused social media platforms of harming national discourse, stating that they were engaging in selective censorship. He also harshly criticized the current application of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects companies from being held liable for the content their users post. Trump called on the FCC to clarify the scope of Section 230 and devise new rules to reflect a narrowed interpretation.

The executive order would also have called on the FTC to investigate unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce that Trump believed was taking place on Twitter and other social media platforms.

Executive orders represent a somewhat ambiguous region in executive authority, and there remain unresolved legal issues regarding the scope of executive policies. All of that considered, it is not unprecedented for an incoming president to revoke in-force executive orders in the early days of his term.

The rest is here:

Biden Revokes Trump-Era Executive Order Designed To Crack Down On Big Tech - BroadbandBreakfast.com

(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) Sen. Mike Lee speaks with delegates attending the Utah Republican Partys 2021 Organizing Convention at the Maverik Center in West Valley City on Saturday, May 1, 2021.

By Christian Vanderhooft | The Public Forum

| May 16, 2021, 12:00 p.m.

On May 12, the Senate Commerce Committee voted in favor of Lina Khans nomination to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Khan is the author of the influential Yale Law Journal article, Amazons Antitrust Paradox, which called for breaking up Amazon, and later served as counsel for the House of Representatives antitrust subcommittee, where she published a report accusing Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google of acting as monopolies. Giving her a seat on the FTC, which investigates businesses for antitrust violations, is quite simply a nightmare for Big Tech.

Eight Republicans on the committee voted in favor of her nomination. But Sen. Mike Lee voted against her.

Lee likes to talk the talk when it comes to Big Tech. Earlier this year, he wrote that Big Tech had divide[d] the nation, undermine[d] fundamental liberties, and distort[ed] the market. He referred to them as a corporatist nightmare of censorship and hypocrisy and claimed that he had repeatedly warned of the dangers posed by Big Tech.

But he also argued new antitrust laws were unnecessary and a non-starter. Instead, our current laws were sufficient: Our antitrust enforcers [have been] asleep at the wheel, he complained, but if properly enforced, our current laws are more than up to the task of policing anti-competitive conduct.

Of course, as soon as President Biden nominated someone who was actually eager to enforce those laws, Sen. Lee balked.

It is simply hypocritical for Sen. Lee to pretend to take on Big Tech, while simultaneously doing all he can to protect them from facing any consequences for their monopolistic behavior. Utah voters should remember that, whatever his rhetoric, in a choice between big businesses and everyday people, Lee will always choose business.

Christian Vanderhooft, Draper

Submit a letter to the editor

See the article here:

Letter: Sen. Lee pretends to take on Big Tech, while doing all he can to protect them - Salt Lake Tribune

Would you like to read a U.S. senators book about antitrust law? No? How about two U.S. senators books about antitrust law?

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, and Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, recently published books with a combined 825 pages about the history of Americas skepticism of large and powerful corporations.

I read them both and wouldnt recommend that other mortals follow my lead.

But the books are remarkable if only for what these senators on opposite sides of the political spectrum agree on: They want tougher regulation, new laws, more aggressive judges and citizen movements to tame what they see as Americas too-big business elite, especially technology powers like Google, Facebook and Amazon. A shorthand for these two books is that Teddy Roosevelt was good and big tech is bad.

I dont want to draw too much of a false equivalence. Ms. Klobuchars Antitrust is deeply researched and comprehensive. (Maybe too comprehensive.) Mr. Hawleys The Tyranny of Big Tech is largely an incoherent mess. But let me explain some of what I learned from reading them:

The senators agree that big is bad. One of the strangest sights in modern American politics is how powerful tech companies like Google and Facebook have generated bipartisan hatred. They have few friends. Certainly not these writers. To them, the power of tech companies is emblematic of what goes wrong when big corporations are left mostly alone to do what they want. Its weird, really, how alike they sound.

Mr. Hawleys book opens with an anecdote of a 2019 meeting with Mark Zuckerberg in which the senator says he challenged Facebooks boss to break up his company. (Zuckerberg said no, not surprisingly.) The tech barons have risen to power on the back of an ideology that blesses bigness and concentrated power in the economy and government, Mr. Hawley writes.

And Ms. Klobuchar: The sheer number of mergers and acquisitions, outsized monopoly power and grotesque exclusionary conduct in the Big Tech sector exemplifies what is going on with the power of BIG.

Quite similar, no?

Mr. Hawley and Ms. Klobuchar are channeling a view among some economists and legal scholars that the accelerating concentration of many American industries is a root cause of many problems, including income inequality. In this view, if U.S. laws more effectively enforced competition, Americans would have better health care, cheaper cellphone bills and more control over what happens to our digital data.

Wow, they love Teddy Roosevelt. Both senators are nostalgic for when the former president challenged the big corporate barons of his day in railroads, oil, finance and other industries. (This view of history, but especially Mr. Hawleys, is a little off base.)

The point of the hero worship is to say that U.S. law and the American public throughout history have fought back against companies they felt were getting too powerful. The senators want to bring back that spirit of both citizen and government rebellion against corporate bigness. This is also a point that the law professor and antimonopoly advocate Zephyr Teachout made effectively in her book on corporate monopolies last year. (Yes, there are a lot of books about antitrust.)

If you want to read at length about the Pullman Strike of 1894 and the Grange movement opposing agricultural monopolies after the Civil War, then Ms. Klobuchar has the book for you. Both senators are trying to make people see and care about the consequences of corporate monopolies in their lives. Their shared message is that people who feel that the system and economy arent working for them should be engaged about antitrust law.

The best idea: Stop calling it antitrust. Ms. Klobuchar says that the word is an artifact of 19th-century corporate giants like Standard Oil and is meaningless to 21st-century Americans. Shes right. Ms. Klobuchar says that we should instead start talking about competition policy, monopolies or simply bigness. And yes, Ms. Klobuchar acknowledges that her book is titled Antitrust.

What about Congress? Both senators agree that the government watchdogs and courts have failed to restrain big companies from getting even bigger and abusing their power. Neither one takes enough time to blame themselves and their peers in Congress for this.

It is the job of legislatures to write laws that tell companies what they can and cant do, and to empower government watchdogs like the Department of Justice with money and authority to enforce the rules. In other words, THIS IS YOUR JOB, SENATORS. In their books, the senators liberally mention bills that they have proposed to restrain big tech companies. They are less forthcoming in talking about failures to pass those bills or whether they were good ideas in the first place.

Ms. Klobuchar, for example, led legislation in 2017 that would have forced internet companies like Facebook to disclose what organizations were spending on political ads, similar to the disclosures for conventional media. It hasnt passed.

The senators are best when they talk about themselves. Ms. Klobuchar talks about relatives who emigrated from Slovenia at the turn of the 19th century and worked in mines with terrible conditions and poor wages. In her telling, she wouldnt be where she is today without ordinary citizens fighting against big, bad companies and petitioning for laws to better restrain monopolies and provide genuine competition for their labor.

Mr. Hawley is most effective when he talks about his anxieties as a parent. Like many of us, he spends too much time on his phone and says his children have noticed. He agonizes when his young son is drawn to smartphones and tablets, and he tries to be more conscious about the time and attention his family devotes to screens.

Im not sure Mr. Hawleys beef has much to do with the power of big tech companies rather than the general brokenness of our brains thanks to our constant access to gizmos. The effects of screen time arent so clear. But Mr. Hawley has some ideas that are worth listening to: Emphasize real-life communities, not only ones we engage with through screens. The government should intervene to ban techniques like websites that let people scroll forever without end and automated recommendations that feed us one video after another from YouTube or TikTok.

Recommended reading: I wouldnt hand either senators book to people who are curious about why they pay so much for medicine or worry about their kids being hooked on Instagram. Instead Ill suggest two other works that tread similar ground but are shorter, more readable and already influential among people who care deeply about powerful corporations effect on the world.

Tim Wus 2018 book, The Curse of Bigness, is a short, breezy and captivating history of American monopolies and the risk he sees from todays powerful corporations. (Did I mention that its short?) Lina Khans 2017 law school review paper, Amazons Antitrust Paradox, was an intellectual cannonball that questioned decades of development in U.S. law and how it failed to account for the influence of new corporate powers like Amazon.

Read the original:

Antitrust by Amy Klobuchar, and The Tyranny of Big Tech by Josh Hawley - The New York Times

Wall Street followed up a three-day losing streak with a broad stock market rally Thursday powered by Big Tech companies and banks.

The S&P 500 notched a 1.2% gain, clawing back almost half of its loss from a day earlier, when it had its biggest one-day drop since February. Even so, the benchmark index is on track for a 2.8% weekly decline, which would be its largest since January. The other major indexes were also on pace for sharp weekly declines, despite recouping some of their losses.

Technology stocks, which were hurt badly earlier in the week as investors fretted about signs of rising inflation, were among the bigger gainers.

Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Googles parent company all rose. Financial companies also did well. JPMorgan Chase, Charles Schwab and Capital One Financial each rose more than 2%.

In a switch from Monday, the energy sector was the only loser in the S&P 500 as oil prices fell sharply. Its not uncommon for markets to reverse direction after sharp gains or losses over a period of days as investors reassess markets and pause during periods of volatility.

Investors have kind of gotten conditioned about when theres volatility and when there are pullbacks: step in and buy the dip, and you will be rewarded in short order, said Sameer Samana, senior global market strategist at Wells Fargo Investment Institute.

The S&P 500 gained 49.46 points to 4,112.50. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 433.79 points, or 1.3%, to 34,021.45. The Nasdaq, which is heavily weighted with technology stocks, climbed 93.31 points, or 0.7%, to 13,124.99.

Smaller company stocks, which for most of this year had outgained the broader market, also recovered some of their losses from earlier in the week. The Russell 2000 index picked up 35.81 points, or 1.7%, to 2,170.95.

Recent economic reports have left many investors uneasy. Last weeks jobs report showed fewer employers hiring than had been expected, and on Thursday the government reported that wholesale prices jumped 0.6% last month, driven by higher costs for services and food. That was more than expected and the latest indication that inflation pressures are mounting.

Rising prices reflect growing economic activity after last years global shutdown to fight the coronavirus pandemic. However investors worry inflation might disrupt the recovery or prompt central banks to withdraw stimulus and near-zero interest rates.

The capital markets are clearly grappling in a tug of war, said Bill Northey, senior investment director at U.S. Bank Wealth Management.

Investors have been questioning whether rising inflation will be something transitory, as the Federal Reserve has said, or something more durable that the Fed will have to address. Currently, the central bank has maintained low interest rates in order to help the economic recovery, but concerns are growing that it will have to shift its position if inflation starts running too hot.

Is there something more durable being embedded within rising prices? The next several months will not likely resolve this debate, Northey said.Bond yields rose sharply this week in response to the data but pulled back slightly on Thursday. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note was 1.66% compared to 1.70% the day before.

In other markets, the price for Bitcoin plunged 10% after Tesla CEO Elon Musk reversed his earlier position on the digital currency and said the electric car maker would no longer accept it as payment.

The price of U.S. crude oil fell 3.4% after a key gasoline pipeline on the East Coast was reopened late Wednesday. The price of crude oil is now down slightly for the week. Energy stocks fell along with oil prices. Occidental Petroleum slid 5.6% for the biggest loss in the S&P 500.

Here is the original post:

Stocks climb after three days of losses, led by Big Tech - The Business Journal

Applied Finance Capital Management, an asset manager rooted in research on company valuations, has spotted attractive buying opportunities in the stock market, including some big technology companies, according to one of its founders.

Undervalued, high-quality companies are on a super sale right now, Rafael Resendes, who co-founded Applied Finance in 1995, said in a Tuesday phone interview. His stock picks include tech giants Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp., Facebook Inc., as well as discount stores operator Walmart Inc. and fast-food chain McDonalds Corp.

In his search for intrinsic value, Resendes says he is not after companies that appear cheap based on measures, such as price-to-book. Instead, Applied Finance makes projections about a companys profitability in part by treating research and development as an investment, rather than an expense, as done under traditional accounting rules, according to the co-founder.

U.S. stocks have been falling this week, with losses of the tech-laden Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, +2.32% exceeding declines posted by the S&P 500 SPX, +1.49% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +1.06%. But while many investors have grown concerned about stretched valuations in tech stocks, Resendes says his models show growth companies have begun to look attractive this year.

He now sees a tug of war of opportunities in growth versus value, but says Applied Finance doesnt have a dog in the race between the two investment styles. Were always looking for what the undervalued stocks are, he said.

Growth stocks have been trailing value equities in 2021, a switch after outperforming for years.The Russell 1000 Growth index RLG, +1.91% has gained 1.4% this year through Wednesday, trounced by a 14.1% rise for the Russell 1000 Value index RLV, +1.28%, according to FactSet data.

We differ from probably the vast majority of people in that we dont think value is necessarily that attractive, he said. We think the easy money in value was made starting last August.

Some tech names Resendes likes have mixed performances so far in 2021. Shares of Apple AAPL, +1.98% tumbled about 7.5% this year through Wednesday, while Microsoft MSFT, +2.11% was up 7.5% and Facebook FB, +3.50% gained 10.8%.

That compares with a Nasdaq COMP gain of just 1.1% for the year through Wednesdays close, trailing an 8.2% gain for the S&P 500 and the Dows 9.7% rise.

Big tech names may be a bit more controversial in terms of buying opportunities as other investors have expressed concerns that their valuations are too high, according to Resendes. But he sees a big runway for these stocks.

Opinion: This selloff in tech is irrational even more so than last years climb

The firms mutual funds Applied Finance Select Fund, Applied Finance Explorer Fund and Applied Finance Core Fund are up double-digits this year, according to FactSet data.

The Select Fund AFVZX, +1.30%, which invests in large-cap stocks, was up 16.5% at last check for the year, FactSet data show. The Explorer Fund AFDZX, +2.23%, focused on small and midsize companies, gained 26.1% over the same stretch, while the Core Fund AFAZX, +1.44%, which primarily targets large-cap companies, was up 16.4%.

Read more here:

There is a super sale in Big Tech and other high-quality stocks, says this fund manager - MarketWatch

Americans have fallen further out of love with Big Tech, the latest Axios/Harris 100 brand reputation poll shows.

Why it matters: Even though Americans were hyper-connected to their devices throughout the pandemic, their relationship with many of the world's biggest tech firms has continued on a downward trend, suggesting that people see their products as necessary evils.

Social media leaders Facebook and Twitter failed to improve their standing near the bottom of the list, despite their role in helping users stay connected through pandemic-era isolation.

Overall, companies that sell products and services to businesses and individuals like Microsoft, Apple, Sony and HP fared much better than ad-supported social media and information tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, TikTok and Reddit.

How it works: The Harris poll first identifies the 100 most visible companies and then ranks them based on what respondents think of them.

The big picture: Tech's reputation does not compare favorably to other industries in the poll. While sectors like pharmaceuticals, energy and financial services saw tremendous gains during the pandemic, tech and media suffered.

What to watch: Newcomers to the poll this year, like TikTok and Reddit, show that newer tech firms are becoming more visible to Americans.

Go deeper: Read the full results of our Axios/Harris 100 reputation poll and learn more about the methodology.

The rest is here:

Big Tech's reputation takes a pandemic plunge - Axios

In an interview last fall, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault compared theInternet giants of today platforms such as Facebook and Google to the big pollutershe fought for many years as an environmental activist.

The comparison is intriguing,perhaps even apt and it might explain how Guilbeault is going about the task now of reining in this new generation of multinational corporate behemoths. Whilethe battle Guilbeault fought before entering government was about the future of the planet, the struggle between governments and Big Tech is, in the words ofTaylor Owen, foundingdirector of The Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy at McGill University,"about the future of liberal democracy itself."

But that comparisonshould have reminded Guilbeault that this fight would not be easy andthat he would need as many allies as he could muster. He also might haveguessedthat being a cabinet minister with a bill to passmeans dealing with intensescrutiny ofevery statement probably unlike anything he faced in his previous career.

Now,Guilbeault and the Liberal government need to worry that their clumsy handling of Bill C-10 the first of what is supposed to be a series of moves to regulate Big Tech is going to make it even harder to win the battles ahead.

WATCH: Heritage MinisterSteven Guilbeault questioned about C-10

Amid mounting consternation about C-10, Guilbeault was summoned again by the heritage committee this week and appeared for an hour on Friday afternoon. If he was at all shaken or deterred by the events of the last few weeks, it wasn'tapparent.

The bill's basic aim is to modernizethe Broadcasting Act and bringing some of the major streaming sites such as YouTube and Netflix under the same sort of Canadian content regulations that govern traditional broadcasters. It would, for instance, ensure that those American platforms pay fees into a fund for Canadian producers.

First tabled in the House in November, the bill only really emerged as a flashpointa few weeks ago.

During committee study in April, a majority of committee members voted to remove a clause from the bill that had excluded content uploaded to social media from regulation. The argument for removing the clause was that it might have inadvertently excluded YouTube from regulation.

Butexperts soon warned that, without that exclusion, social media companies would have to scrutinize what Canadians upload, which could infringe on a citizen's freedom of expression.

Successfully navigating those concerns was going to require a careful and steady hand. But Guilbeault has gone out of his way to make things harder on himself.

First, the minister struggled in an interview with CBC's Power & Politics to explain why the change was made. Then, after insisting the government had no interest in regulating Canadians' social media activity, he suggested in another interview that social media users with a large number of followers might be regulated.

Within a day, the minister had takenthat statement back, conceding that he "should have been more precise." It's thesecond time in hisbrief ministerial career that he has had to eat his own words about the government's intentions.

Days later, Guilbeault tweeted someone else's claim that a "deliberate campaign of misinformation" was being waged by "commercial interests." That tweet ledone expert to accusethe minister of employing "Trumpian tactics" against his critics.

For all of that, Guilbeault and the government could take some solace from the fact that the bill appeared to bequite popular in Quebec, where the arts and culture community is very conscious of the need to createand preserve aspace for French-language content.

Erin O'Toole's Conservatives, apparently unconcerned about the votes they might lose in Quebec by opposing C-10, are leaning hard into the idea the bill is a threat to free speech a notion thatregisters with supporters who are ready to believe that Justin Trudeau is itching to censor their tweets.

WATCH: Erin O'Toole says he'd repeal C-10

On Friday, Conservative MP Rachael Harder pushed the Conservative argument further to suggest that the combination of clunky CanCon rules and new regulation of social media would have resulted in someone like Justin Bieber never being discovered.

(Depending on your taste in music, that might not actually count as an argument against the bill.)

Armed with anew analysis from the Department ofJusticethat said a newlyamended version of C-10 would not infringe on the charter right to freedom of speech, Guilbeault insisted that his bill would not regulate the content created by Canadians and cited polling data that suggest Canadians support the sort of platform regulation that his government is pursuing.

But NDP MP Heather McPherson practically begged the minister to show some contrition and reach out to those experts who fearthat C-10 is deeply flawed. "I have to express my disappointment in the way that you've managed the creation and the communications around this legislation," she said.

Guilbeault appeared unmoved and eventually suggested that some experts simply oppose all regulation of Internet platforms a suggestion that Michael Geist, one of the leading academicvoices on technology law in Canada, declared to be "simply false."

There's probably still a chance that C-10 will end up in some broadly acceptable form by the time it's made its waythrough the heritage committee, a third-reading vote in the House and further study in the Senate.

But C-10 is only just the start,one small piece of a larger puzzle. Guilbeault is also supposed to table legislation that would require platforms to remove hate speech and deal with other "online harms." He has promised that platforms like Facebook will soon be required to compensate news producers. AndInnovation Minister Francois-Philippe Champagneis trying to overhaul digital privacy laws.

Belatedly engaged, the challenge posed by these globe-spanning platformsis broad and deep so much so that Guilbeault and his counterparts in several other Western countries have banded together to help each other confront it. That might be another similarity between the fight against climate change and the struggle to deal with Big Tech.

But that same spirit of cooperationmight inform Guilbeault's domestic approach. If he's going to get to durable solutions, he needs as much goodwill as he can muster. He needs to offer clarity. He needs to avoid alienating every informed observer.

So far, it's not going great. And it's not going to get any easier.

Read the original:

Steven Guilbeault is trying to take on Big Tech. It's not going well. - CBC.ca

Rodgers Silicon Valley Acquisition CEO TJ Rodgers argues car makers are feeling the strain of the semiconductor shortage due to their inefficient supply chains.

Big Tech and top chipmakers have formed a new lobbying group that is seeking government chip manufacturing subsidies.

The Semiconductor in America Coalition, made up of chip buyers including Amazon Web Services, Apple, Google and Microsoft, and manufacturers like American Micro Devices, Intel, Nvidia and Texas Instruments, has asked Congress to provide funding for the CHIPS for America Act, which authorized domestic chip manufacturing incentives and research initiatives.

President Biden has previously asked Congress to provide $50 billion of federal money.

"Robust funding of the CHIPS Act would help America build the additional capacity necessary to have more resilient supply chains to ensure critical technologies will be there when we need them," the group said in a letter to congressional leaders.

Chip supply chains were disrupted due to production shutdowns that were implemented to help slow the spread of COVID-19.

The resulting global chip shortage has caused auto manufacturers to slash production. Automakers have asked Biden to use the Defense Production Act to reallocate chips to the sector, but the administration has balked at the request amid concerns doing so would cause other industries to face a shortfall.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

The share of chips manufactured in the U.S. has fallen from 37% in 1990 to 12% today, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association, which says the decline is mostly due to subsidies offered by foreign governments to global competitors, putting American companies at a disadvantage.

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo will hold a summit on May 20 with companies impacted by the global chip shortage, according to a report from Bloomberg News.

Continue reading here:

Big Tech, semiconductors team up to lobby US government on chip production funding - Fox Business