Category Archives: Big Tech

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

On Thursday afternoon, the House Energy and Commerce Committee sat three executives of the most powerful companies in the world down and scolded them.

For roughly five hours, members of the House told Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey that their companies were up to no good. A few lawmakersgot in a sick dunk or two. And then the legislators promised the tech lords would soon face the consequences. Again.

If you pay attention to Congress a bit, youll know that these kinds of hearings happen kind of often now. Lawmakers pillory the CEOs in (decreasingly) viral clips in the hearing. They threaten to bring down the hammer.And then no one brings down the hammer.

Today, hearing co-chair Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) promised impending legislation to regulate the companies. Committee chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said that the time has come to hold online platforms accountable for their part in the rise of disinformation and extremism. But no bills are expected to pass soon that would do anything like that, really.

This isnt exactly a big secret. Previous hearings have produced these headlines: Two words describe the Senates latest Big Tech hearing: Worthless and petty, (CNN); How Congress missed another chance to hold big tech accountable (The Verge); and the bluntest, Why is Congress so dumb? (a Washington Post opinion piece).

In the beginning, it made sense.For years, tech companies werent called before Congress as they became increasingly powerful. In 2018, when Mark Zuckerberg was set to testify on Capitol Hill for the first time concerning Russian interference during the 2016 election,it was a massive deal. At the time, I had a bum foot and I asked my doctor about dates for surgery, with the hope that we could find a day that would still allow me to cover it. As I explained my plan for medical leave following the surgery and covering the hearing, my editor nodded knowingly. This is the Super Bowl of your beat, he said. I hobbled on crutches into a packed Senate room to cover it one day before my scheduled surgery. It felt like something big was about to happen and as a tech reporter, I felt like I couldnt miss it.

It turns out I could have, because, for the next two and a half years, that same hearing happened, with some differences in personnel, with slightly different details, over and over. The formerly primetime event became a recurring daytime soap opera.

Several months go by, something bad happens. Another hearing is announced. Sometimes legislation gets drafted. And it doesnt go anywhere. Work is done, papers are pushed around, very little is achieved but everyone is very busy. Its almost as if everyone involved is more interested in creating an illusion of progress more than achieving any actual progress.

What worked in 2018, no longer seems to make any sense. Making tech companies feel pressured to make changes sounds nice, except they arent handling the supposedly pressing issues that their lawmaker antagonizers say that they must handle immediately: disinformation thats damaging to public health, exacerbating violent extremism, and furthering voter suppression.

The hearings, in theory, could be good for holding people to account without legislation. But, as of now, they almost seem like a stand-in for creating legislation, instead of a tool of accountability paired with meaningful bills. They even allow the CEOs to get away with misleading lawmakers if they want to, like when Zuckerberg gave Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) incorrect information about how Facebook picked the Daily Caller to be one of its fact-checking partners. Or, companies give belated answers to specific questions that executives couldnt answer off the top of their heads.

The hearings also just give some lawmakers a chance to publicly gripe about anti-conservative biasan argument that theyre usually forced to give within the confines of the conservative media echo chamber, which is where it belongs until anyone can produce data suggesting that it is true, and not the product of sloppy moderation that also affects the left.

The farce is compounded by the fact that the lawmakers staffs will continue to leave for six-figure salary jobs on their government affairs (the dignified rebranded term for lobbying) teams, and use the connections they forged on Capitol Hill to help make that the status quo is preserved as much as possible.

Its possible that with a Democratic majority in both chambers, and President Biden tapping high-profile technology critics, that something finally gives, but if theyre interested in doing something, policymakers and regulators can just go do it. Hold the hearings if you must. But its starting to feel like getting in the dunks is the only point unless you actually do something.

See the article here:

Why Are We Still Doing These Big Tech Hearings? Mother Jones - Mother Jones

European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager talks to the media during a news conference on the concurrence case with Google online search advertising on March 20, 2019 in Brussels, Belgium.

Thierry Monasse | Getty Images News | Getty Images

LONDON While the European Union may lack tech giants, it's not short on rugged regulation for the sector.

The 27-member bloc has been at the forefront of tightening the rules on big technology players and it's showing no signs of changing that approach. More regulation is in the works and the Silicon Valley superpowers like Google may soon have to adapt their business models as a result.

"This EU potential to shape business models can be huge. And it's remarkable that it has an extraterritorial aspect to it: firms abiding by European regulations usually abide by it worldwide for operational reasons," Jeremy Ghez, an associate professor of economics at H.E.C. Paris, told CNBC via email.

This was the case with Europe's data protection rules, known as GDPR, which was introduced in 2018. The landmark regulation gave citizens a stronger say over what firms could do with their data and also served as inspiration for lawmakers outside the bloc, including in Brazil and Australia.

There is a real willingness and wide political support in the EU to set the highest global standards when it comes to tech regulations.

Dessislava Savova

partner at law firm Clifford Chance

In addition, it also spurred more discussions on data protection in the United States. Although there is not a data privacy law at a federal level yet, California in 2020 became the first state to introduce personal data rules similar to Europe's GDPR.

"In a sense, European law can increasingly become the law of the land everywhere. And Chinese tech giants looking to penetrate the European market will need to abide by these regulations. This explains why the EU is becoming the world's top tech regulator," Ghez said.

But the EU has gone a step further since implementing GDPR. In December, it presented a new plan that will force tech giants to take responsibility for the content on their platforms, and it will also ensure there is fairer market competition given how dominant some of these companies have become.

The Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, as the new legislation is called, could enter into law as early as next year and will require companies to change how they operate. One of its potential impacts is ending self-preferencing when, for instance, app search results in an Apple product display options developed by the tech giant.

"This package will be a real game changer. It will create a single regulatory framework and will set up the foundation of a strong cooperation and a new governance structure in the EU, with tangible enforcement mechanisms and important sanctions," Dessislava Savova, partner at law firm Clifford Chance, told CNBC earlier this month.

Firms operating in the EU will have to comply with the new rules.

But the pipeline for tougher regulation doesn't end there. The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, is also drawing up plans on how to regulate artificial intelligence. This is becoming increasingly important as more digital giants develop and incorporate new AI.

"There is a real willingness and wide political support in the EU to set the highest global standards when it comes to tech regulations. That also ensures a first mover advantage, allowing the EU to set the standard rather than playing catch-up with other jurisdictions," Savova also said.

The EU is often criticized for being a slow political machine with different institutions. But when it comes to tech regulation, they are all on the same page. The commission, which proposes laws; lawmakers in the European Parliament; and most member states are in favor of getting tough on Big tech. This makes it easier to take quicker action in this field.

This is an expression of Europe's geopolitical power in a world it wants to maintain some influence

Jeremy Ghez

professor at H.E.C. Paris

More often than not, political action mirrors certain citizens' demands, and Europeans are some of the most supportive when it comes to regulating tech giants.

In a survey released in December 2019, 74% of European citizens said they want to know how their data is used by social media platforms when they access other websites. In addition, the survey said those aged between 15 and 54 are also keen to take a more active role in controlling the use of their personal information.

Mario Mariniello, senior fellow at Brussels-based think tank Bruegel, told CNBC that the "main driver" behind the data concerns among Europeans "is cultural."

Concerns over data protectionhave grown in recent years in the wake of different scandals. This has included the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook saga that emerged in 2018, where users' data was being used to try to influence the outcome of elections.

Ghez added that the EU "doesn't have the same military might as the U.S. nor the same financial firepower as China, but it has a huge internal market, with consumer-citizens who increasingly pay attention to privacy-related issues." There are about 450 million consumers across the EU.

"The EU is regulating platforms both to address the impact of platforms on society and competition," Nathan Furr, associate professor at INSEAD business school, said.

However, he added that the EU is "also asking, or should be asking, why there are so few European platforms, and given their economic power, how to encourage European platforms."

European officials, but also tech industry experts, have often been asked why the region is not home to a truly global tech giant. There are some, such as Spotify, Zalando, Skype or Krampf but they don't enjoy the same market dominance as companies like Apple or Amazon.

However, regulating the big players, irrespective of where they come from, allows the EU to play a role on an international scale.

"This is an expression of Europe's geopolitical power in a world it wants to maintain some influence," Ghez from H.E.C. Paris said.

Read the rest here:

How Europe became the world's top tech regulator - CNBC

Russias policy of preventing conflicts in cyberspace must be preserved, says Putin(TASS)He recalled that the previous version of the document was adopted in 2013. It set a task of promoting the formation of a global system of protecting the international cyberspace"

Now Russia Has Its Own Ultimatum for Twitter(Foreign Policy)If Twitter doesnt remove content Putin dislikes, hell ban it. But that will hurt him more than the platform.

Policing cyberspace(HIndu BusinessLine)Rising cyber attacks on Indias infrastructure call for a concerted policy response

Indias highest cyber security office finalizes trusted gear vendor list; meets global vendors, chipmakers, telcos(ETTelecom.com)The National Cyber Security Coordinator (NCSC) has finalized the criteria for identifying trusted sources and products, and conveyed to the telcos and..

Updated Guidelines on Canadas National Security Review Bring Greater Clarity(Competition chronicle)On March 24, 2021, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry (the Minister) announced updates to the Guidelines on the National Security Review

Minister Champagne highlights updated guidelines on national security review of foreign investments(Canada.ca)Today, the Honourable Franois-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, made the following statement regarding updates to the 2016 Guidelines on the National Security Review of Investments, issued under the Investment Canada Act (ICA).

Guidelines on the National Security Review of Investments(Investment Canada Act)Guidelines on the National Security Review of Investments

Proposed Amendment to the Ministerial Ordinances of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information of Japan: Cross-Border Transfer Rules (Part V)(Lexology)In the following, we will deal with the details of the cross-border transfer rules. Please refer to Part I to this newsletter for a general

Census 2021: How Safe Will Our Data Be Over the Next 100 Years?(Infosecurity Magazine)The digital-first citizen survey is crucial to government planning, but what are the cybersecurity implications?

EU, US Make New Attempt for Data Privacy Deal(SecurityWeek)Facebook, Google, Microsoft and thousands of other companies want a new data privacy deal to keep the internet traffic flowing without facing significant legal jeopardy over European privacy laws.

Even When Covid-19 Vaccines Arrive, EU Struggles to Get Shots in Arms(Wall Street Journal)Despite rising coronavirus cases, many European countries remain reluctant to overhaul slow and bureaucratic vaccination programs.

Director Says NSAs Domestic Surveillance Authority Rightly Limited(Nextgov.com)Gen. Paul Nakasone, who oversees both the intelligence agency and U.S. Cyber Command, stressed the need for greater visibility through private-sector information streams.

Nakasone Says Federal Cyber Defenders Need Better Visibility Within U.S.(Meritalk)As adversaries from overseas continue to threaten the cybersecurity of U.S. companies and organizations, National Security Agency (NSA) director and U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) chief Gen. Paul Nakasone told senators today that Defense Department (DoD) agencies need to be able to operate more freely within the U.S. to deal with those threats swiftly.

Senators Raise Concerns About Energy Dept. Cybersecurity(BankInfo Security)Eleven U.S. senators are raising concerns about the Department of Energy's cybersecurity readiness as the department continues to investigate a breach related to

Biden Team Boosts Effort to Shield U.S. Power Grid From Hackers(Bloomberg)Moves to include plan for better coordination with industry. Effort seeks to harden cyber defenses and map U.S. responses.

Report: US Gov Executive Order to Mandate Data Breach Disclosure(SecurityWeek)Reuters is reporting that a U.S. government executive order would set new rules on data breach disclosure and use of multi-factor authentication and encryption in federal agencies.

US Vows Consequences for Russian Actions(Voice of America)U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says there will be costs and consequences for Russia for its allegedly malign activities against the United States. We will take the steps necessary to defend our interests at the time of the U.S.s choosing, Blinken said in a CNN interview that aired Sunday but was taped last week as he completed talks with other NATO diplomats in Brussels. He said there was a shared commitment among Western allies to be clear-eyed about Moscows actions and hold the Kremlin accountable. The top U.S.

Opinion | The United States has a major hole in its cyberdefense. Heres how to fix it.(Washington Post)We must empower the Department of Homeland Security to quickly respond to attacks originating in the United States.

The Agency at the Center of Americas Tech Fight With China(New York Times)Washington lawmakers, lobbyists and other parties have been vying to influence how the Bureau of Industry and Security, under the Biden administration, will approach a technology relationship with China.

DHS dissolves independent advisory council, ousting Trump-era officials(CNN)Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Friday dissolved the Homeland Security Advisory Council, according to a letter obtained by CNN, ousting a board of independent advisers that included Trump-era officials and setting up a plan to reconfigure the council.

How Bidens Administration is Revamping US Cybersecurity(Analytics Insight)The Biden administration has been formulating plans to rebuild the area of cybersecurity. One of the key steps is giving the top cybersecurity veteransthe authority to lead administration positions. This is a new step towards advanced security.

Broken trust: Lessons from Sunburst(Atlantic Council)Sunburst was a startling reminder of the United States collective cyber insecurity and the inadequacy of current US strategy.

As US Loses its Edge, Game of Cyber Chicken Could Have Deadly Consequences(NewsClick)all countries have offensive and defensive capabilities and stealing data and knowledge from other countries are time-honoured tasks of spook agencies. It becomes an act of war only if it leads to physical damage to critical equipment or infrastructure.

Did China cross a new red line in cyberspace?(The Sunday Guardian Live)The Mumbai hack showed complete disregard for collateral damage. Washington, DC: Did China cause the blackouts in Mumbai last year? Nearly six months later, the answer is still unclear, but if recent reports that a Chinese cyber operation bears partial responsibility are accurate, Beijing just signalled a willingness

States enact safe harbor laws against cyberattacks, but demand adoption of cybersecurity frameworks(CSO Online)Connecticut might soon follow Ohio and Utah by enacting a law that offers liability protection against ransomware and other cyberattacks, but only if victims follow security best practices.

See the rest here:

"Costs and consequences." DHS-NSA cooperation? Big Tech and Section 230 reform. EO on disclosure coming? - The CyberWire

Yesterday's hearing with the CEOs of Google, Facebook and Twitter was as messy as you might have predicted and we'll get into that below. But I want to start today with voice assistants. Alexa, Siri, Google Assistant and the rest know a lot. But they barely remember anything, which curtails exactly how much they can truly assist with your life beyond music controls, timers and reminding you exactly what shows youve seen Joel Kinnaman in. (Answer: Altered Carbon). A new feature spotted for Google Assistant on Android called Memory could transform it into the assistant we need, however.

Getty

According to an early APK, you will be able to store items in Memory using a verbal command or use a home screen shortcut. You can file away books, contacts, events, music, notes, photos, places, playlists, recipes, reminders and more. It will also save contextual information, like screenshots, URLs and your location, when you store something away.

Voice assistants are everywhere, but major upgrades that could change how you use them (or even if you use them) are not a regular occurrence. Googles idea is a clever one.

Mat Smith

Reuters

A marathon hearing Wednesday with Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and Sundar Pichai was supposed to be about the platforms handling of misinformation and extremism. The issue has taken on a new significance during the coronavirus pandemic and in the wake of the January 6th riot at the US Capitol. Through five hours of questioning, Democrats and Republicans both expressed theyre ready to impose new rules on internet platforms, but they have very different ideas about what that might look like. Continue reading.

Engadget

It doesn't matter if you own one of LG's new CX TVs, Sony's Master Series or even an older or used OLED. Your screen will still look far better than the vast majority of LCD sets, with unmatched black levels and eye-popping contrast. But even if you've got one of the best screens around, there are always a few upgrades you can still make. Read on for advice from Devindra Hardawar about what you can add to get the most out of your high-end 4K TV. Continue reading.

Sigma

Sigmas cameras have a die-hard following, and the design is often off-piste compared to increasingly homogenous cameras from the big players like Nikon, Canon and Sony. Its new full-frame camera is a great example. Despite its tiny frame, the Sigma fp L packs a 61-megapixel sensor, making it one of the highest-resolution full-frame cameras out there. Sigma promises a raft of improvements to its autofocus systems. The camera arrives in mid-April for $2,499. Continue reading.

Bank of England

The UK has finally unveiled its Alan Turing bank note, and the durable polymer 50 bill completes the Bank of England's "most secure" set of notes to date. It includes anti-counterfeiting features appropriate for the legendary WWII codebreaker, including a metallic hologram. There are lots of easter eggs and nods to Turings life built into the notes design: The mathematical formula you see comes from Turing's influential 1936 paper "On Computable Numbers," a foundational work for computer science. Theres also an image of the Automatic Computing Engine Pilot Machine (the trial model for a very early computer) and schematics for the British Bombe codebreaking machine. Continue reading.

Triumph

Historic British motorcycle maker Triumph has shared details of its TE-1 electric bike project, including the concept image you see here, and details on the prototype drivetrain that will one day power it. Triumph claims the TE-1's electric motor can output 107 horsepower continuously and peak at 174 horses while total range will be around 120 miles. The bike is intentionally designed to look like a traditional fossil-fuel guzzler in a bid to tempt buyers across to the world of e-motorcycles. The company plans to start testing the TE-1 prototype later this year. Continue reading.

Since 2018, all of Google's Pixel phones have included a Titan M chip. It's what's known as a Secure Element (SE). Separate from your phone's processor, it does things like store encryption keys and validates the operating system. And now Google sees the Titan M and other Secure Elements as key to bringing digital passports and identity cards to Android phones.

The company has formed the Android Ready SE Alliance, which aims at speeding this process up. Google will work with other Secure Element companies and phone makers to create a collection of open source and ready-to-use applets for SE chips. The group has already launched its first applet with StrongBox, a tool for storing cryptographic keys. Continue reading.

Engadget

Many companies wouldve completely redesigned their true wireless earbuds by the time they introduced a fourth model. But not Master & Dynamic. With new materials and smaller size, the company simply continues to improve its earbud series. According to News Editor Billy Steele, when you combine the updated design with more robust active noise cancellation, ambient sound modes, stellar audio and extended battery life, its not hard to argue these are Master & Dynamics best earbuds yet. Continue reading.

Here's how you shift gears in Tesla's updated Model S and Model X

Sony's latest free PlayStation games include 'The Witness'

Sony is making a 'Ghost of Tsushima' movie with John Wick director Chad Stahelski

Microsoft shows off Windows 10's new File Explorer icons

Samsung unveils a 512GB DDR5 RAM module

WSJ: Microsoft is now in 'exclusive' talks to acquire Discord

What it will take for humans to colonize the Moon and Mars

Google's new alliance wants to get digital keys, mobile IDs working on Android

Porsche adds the Taycan EV to its car subscription service

Engadget Deals: Samsung's T7 Touch SSD is cheaper than ever on Amazon

Read more:

The Morning After: Congress tries to grill Big Tech's CEOs - Engadget

Editorial Note: Forbes may earn a commission on sales made from partner links on this page, but that doesn't affect our editors' opinions or evaluations.

Congress is taking a hard look at Big Tech through the lens of antitrust lawand Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is leading the fight.

Sen. Klobuchar, long an advocate of strengthening antitrust law to keep markets competitive, is the new chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary Committees antitrust subcommittee. In early February, she rolled out a major antitrust reform proposal, and on March 11 she gaveled in the first of many Senate hearings on her bill.

We have gotten more interest in antitrust, and we are making antitrust cool again, Klobuchar told Axios before her first hearing as chairwoman.

Antitrust law can be a pretty technical subject, but it plays an essential role in keeping markets functioning smoothly and supporting competition, with the goal of protecting consumers. Heres what you need to know about Sen. Klobuchars antitrust bill.

Antitrust law is the cornerstone of free markets.

In the U.S., three lawsthe Sherman Antitrust Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Antitrust Actwork in concert to prevent any one company from becoming powerful enough to block competition in its sector, industry or market. When markets stay competitive, businesses innovate to keep prices low and quality high, which benefits consumers.

Lawmakers like Sen. Klobuchar argue that over recent decades, court rulings and inaction by regulators have eroded the ability of antitrust law to protect the market and consumers from monopolies. Theres growing bipartisan agreement that more needs to be done to reign in Big Tech companiesspecifically Facebook, Google and Amazonwhich many argue have become too powerful.

In December 2020, Facebook was sued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 46 states for snapping up competitors Instagram and WhatsApp in mergers over the last decade. The FTC is aiming to unravel the acquisitions with its lawsuit. Facebook also has a long history of purchasing dozens of smaller companies that promise to become competitors if left free to grow.

Why should any dominant corporation be able to merge with any other entity? Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said during the Thursday hearing. Why should Google, for instance, or Facebook be able to buy anything else given their dominant size?

Outside of acquisitions, Google is also facing scrutiny for other anticompetitive actions, including its $12 billion yearly deal to be the default search engine on Apple products, Safari and iPhone.

In addition, lawmakers have discussed how these platforms dominate online advertising revenue and the consequences on other industries. A big focus is also on mobile platforms banning certain apps from their stores, like Parler, or services like Twitter blocking people from using their service, as in the notorious case of former President Donald Trump.

Sen. Klobuchar introduced her bill just after Facebook and Google were hit with antitrust lawsuits. Titled The Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act, her proposal aims to revamp antitrust laws and fund stronger enforcement.

Here are five key ways the bill would revamp antitrust laws:

Bill Baer, visiting fellow of governance studies at the Brookings Institute, a nonprofit public policy think tank, writes in a recent blog post that the bill is a step in the right direction. But he warns the road to antitrust law reform will be a long and arduous one, with many obstacles along the way.

Baer notes that Klobuchars bill, if signed into law, wouldnt be retroactivemeaning some current companies currently under fire could be off the hook. Under current antitrust law, he writes, its unclear if Facebooks mergers violate current antitrust law.

Theres also the necessity of bipartisan agreement for any new legislation to passand though both sides of the political aisle seem to be on board right now, theres no guarantee theyll agree on the nuts and bolts of an antitrust reform law in the near future. Regardless, Baer sees the bill as starting discussiona crucial component to help regulators finally crack down on Big Tech.

But what we have is an atmosphere that makes constructive dialogue possible, Baer writes. And that dialogue is long overdue.

Read the original:

Big Tech In Crosshairs As Congress Takes Up Antitrust Reform - Forbes

If you're among the billions of people globally who rely on Big Tech for information and social interaction, then you know that Facebook, Twitter, Google, et al. often include inconspicuous, verbose, and Byzantine provisions in their terms-of-service agreements. Some of the more extensive stipulations include: customer indemnification of the website for costs arising out of third-party lawsuits; customer waiver of litigation and acceptance of binding arbitration; website access to the customer's browsing history and personal data; the website's right to alter the terms without advance warning; and restrictions on cancellation by the customer.

Those agreements are called contracts of adhesion: boilerplate fashioned to favor one party, with no opportunity for the other party to negotiate a better bargain essentially, a take-it-or-leave-it deal. They're not illegal, but when the terms are too oppressive, courts will sometimes bar enforcement under a doctrine called "unconscionability."

In determining if a contract is unconscionable, a judge will usually consider the knowledge and relative bargaining power of the two parties whether the buyer has a choice, and whether the seller has deliberately misrepresented one or more terms.

The criterion of fairness is not whether there's haggling over every transaction, but whether the seller incorporated reasonable terms in his standard-form contract. Would the buyer have assented if they realized that a particular term was, or was not, part of the agreement? The buyer's awareness, in turn, can hinge on such factors as the size of the print, the length of the agreement, and the complexity of the terminology.

Consumers wrongly perceive that abusive terms will not be enforced by the courts. As a result, the typical user glosses over or disregards caveats that demand more than fleeting attention.

Yet legal doctrines such as "unconscionability" vary by jurisdiction and can change as technology evolves. Moreover, one-sided conditions are now more prevalent and widely publicized, and consequently, users are presumed to be better informed and less able to claim incomprehension or surprise.

There's a powerful economic justification for standard-form contracting: It reduces transaction costs, thus promoting economic efficiency by precluding the need for buyers and sellers to negotiate the many details of a sale each time a product is sold. So, how should law and public policy harmonize these two competing concerns maximizing aggregate welfare of buyers and sellers versus balancing the distribution of benefits between the two groups?

Customarily, we let the market decide such questions. Facebook's audience doesn't have a right to use its website except on Facebook's terms. The choice to consent, or not, is up to the user.

The counterargument, however, is that true consent isn't realistic when the terms of the bargain are too costly to unravel. Yes, customers retain the option to go elsewhere and to seek alternative channels of communication, and if Facebook were to lose enough customers in that manner, the company would likely respond by modifying its terms. When the company persists in offering take-it-or-leave-it deals, perhaps we should conclude that users are content with the bargain. After all, Facebook may enjoy a certain amount of market power, but unlike the government, it cannot force compliance.

Still, even hardcore free-marketers concede that tactics such as tiny print, thousands of words, and impenetrable legalese can more than offset the advantages of standard forms. The result: prohibitive transaction costs a market imperfection that, although short of outright fraud, can nevertheless negate the element of consent. Accordingly, government may have a legitimate role to play.

If the government acts, the worst outcome from a free-market perspective would allow federal or state authorities to dictate selected terms of service for example, no indemnity, no waivers, and no website use of personal data. More sensible, and more consistent with our time-honored belief in private ordering and freedom to contract, would be for the government to focus on reducing transaction costs, thus ensuring that users can knowledgeably accept or reject the bargain.

Such measures might be as simple as specifying a minimum type font, maximum word length, or an objective grade-level rating. Other requirements might include advance publication of material changes, and an opportunity for users to comment prior to implementation. Government might even propose one or more templates, which the website could alter, subject to appropriate notice and clarity.

Government intervention of that type may offend market purists. But simple, specific regulations directed at facilitating the bargaining process are far less intrusive than government intervention mandating inflexible, one-size-fits-all terms of service.

Ideally, Big Tech might react by offering variable terms with tradeoffs perhaps fewer ads in return for access to browser history as a market segmentation strategy. The ingenuity of the private sector is boundless when transaction costs are low and the government does no more than lubricate the wheels of commerce.

Bob Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute.

Originally posted here:

Big Tech's head-scratching terms of service agreements need simple, specific government regulation - Business Insider

Arisha Hatch is Vice President and Chief of Campaigns at Color Of Change.

Its been two months since Donald Trump was kicked off of social media following the violent insurrection on Capitol Hill in January. While the constant barrage of hate-fueled commentary and disinformation from the former president has come to a halt, we must stay vigilant.

Now is the time to think about how to prevent Trump, his allies and other bad actors from fomenting extremism in the future. Its time to figure out how we as a society address the misinformation, conspiracy theories and lies that threaten our democracy by destroying our information infrastructure.

As vice president at Color Of Change, my team and I have had countless meetings with leaders of multi-billion-dollar tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google, where we had to consistently flag hateful, racist content and disinformation on their platforms. Weve also raised demands supported by millions of our members to adequately address these systemic issues calls that are too often met with a lack of urgency and sense of responsibility to keep users and Black communities safe.

The violent insurrection by white nationalists and far-right extremists in our nations capital was absolutely fueled and enabled by tech companies who had years to address hate speech and disinformation that proliferated on their social media platforms. Many social media companies relinquished their platforms to far-right extremists, white supremacists and domestic terrorists long ago, and it will take more than an attempted coup to hold them fully accountable for their complicity in the erosion of our democracy and to ensure it cant happen again.

To restore our systems of knowledge-sharing and eliminate white nationalist organizing online, Big Tech must move beyond its typical reactive and shallow approach to addressing the harm they cause to our communities and our democracy. But its more clear than ever that the federal government must step in to ensure tech giants act.

After six years leading corporate accountability campaigns and engaging with Big Tech leaders, I can definitively say its evident that social media companies do have the power, resources and tools to enforce policies that protect our democracy and our communities. However, leaders at these tech giants have demonstrated time and time again that they will choose not to implement and enforce adequate measures to stem the dangerous misinformation, targeted hate and white nationalist organizing on their platforms if it means sacrificing maximum profit and growth.

And they use their massive PR teams to create an illusion that theyre sufficiently addressing these issues. For example, social media companies like Facebook continue to follow a reactive formula of announcing disparate policy changes in response to whatever public relations disaster theyre fending off at the moment. Before the insurrection, the companys leaders failed to heed the warnings of advocates like Color Of Change about the dangers of white supremacists, far-right conspiracists and racist militias using their platforms to organize, recruit and incite violence. They did not ban Trump, implement stronger content moderation policies or change algorithms to stop the spread of misinformation-superspreader Facebook groups as we had been recommending for years.

These threats were apparent long before the attack on Capitol Hill. They were obvious as Color Of Change and our allies propelled the #StopHateForProfit campaign last summer, when over 1,000 advertisers pulled millions in ad revenues from the platform. They were obvious when Facebook finally agreed to conduct a civil rights audit in 2018 after pressure from our organization and our members. They were obvious even before the deadly white nationalist demonstration in Charlottesville in 2017.

Only after significant damage had already been done did social media companies take action and concede to some of our most pressing demands, including the call to ban Trumps accounts, implement disclaimers on voter fraud claims, and move aggressively remove COVID misinformation as well as posts inciting violence at the polls amid the 2020 election. But even now, these companies continue to shirk full responsibility by, for example, using self-created entities like the Facebook Oversight Board an illegitimate substitute for adequate policy enforcement as PR cover while the fate of recent decisions, such as the suspension of Trumps account, hang in the balance.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and many other Big Tech companies kick into action when their profits, self-interests and reputation are threatened, but always after the damage has been done because their business models are built solely around maximizing engagement. The more polarized content is, the more engagement it gets; the more comments it elicits or times its shared, the more of our attention they command and can sell to advertisers. Big Tech leaders have demonstrated they neither have the willpower nor the ability to proactively and successfully self-regulate, and thats why Congress must immediately intervene.

Congress should enact and enforce federal regulations to reign in the outsized power of Big Tech behemoths, and our lawmakers must create policies that translate to real-life changes in our everyday lives policies that protect Black and other marginalized communities both online and offline.

We need stronger antitrust enforcement laws to break up big tech monopolies that evade corporate accountability and impact Black businesses and workers; comprehensive privacy and algorithmic discrimination legislation to ensure that profits from our data arent being used to fuel our exploitation; expanded broadband access to close the digital divide for Black and low-income communities; restored net neutrality so that internet services providers cant charge differently based on content or equipment; and disinformation and content moderation by making it clear that Section 230 does not exempt platforms from complying with civil rights laws.

Weve already seen some progress following pressure from activists and advocacy groups including Color Of Change. Last year alone, Big Tech companies like Zoom hired chief diversity experts; Google took action to block the Proud Boys website and online store; and major social media platforms like TikTok adopted better, stronger policies on banning hateful content.

But were not going to applaud billion-dollar tech companies for doing what they should and could have already done to address the years of misinformation, hate and violence fueled by social media platforms. Were not going to wait for the next PR stunt or blanket statement to come out or until Facebook decides whether or not to reinstate Trumps accounts and were not going to stand idly by until more lives are lost.

The federal government and regulatory powers need to hold Big Tech accountable to their commitments by immediately enacting policy change. Our nations leaders have a responsibility to protect us from the harms Big Tech is enabling on our democracy and our communities to regulate social media platforms and change the dangerous incentives in the digital economy. Without federal intervention, tech companies are on pace to repeat history.

Read the original here:

Big Tech companies cannot be trusted to self-regulate: We need Congress to act - TechCrunch

Mar 15th 2021

THE LIST of complaints against the leading web platforms runs long, from privileging their own products and operating both sides of an advertising exchange, to ignoring the problems that result from their activities. Applying conventional rules like antitrust law is difficult, since it is hard to show consumer harm when the service is free. But there is another way to regulate big tech: treat the companies like big banks.

The American banking industry learned much from the financial crisis of 2008, the regulatory crackdown and the collapse of return on equity as banks had to build up reserves of capital and liquidity under the new, Dodd-Frank regulations. Today, banks lend to clients and make markets for them, with occasional stresses but no panic. Although many bankers look back longingly at their pre-2008 returns on capital, they still operate lucrative businesses.

I saw this transformation first hand as an executive at Goldman Sachs. Yet I came to banking from the technology sector and today I invest in and sit on the boards of several tech companies. So I appreciate how both industries work, and how regulatory trends from one domain can usefully apply to the other. The lessons from banking offer a way forward that regulators, the public and even the web firms themselves can buy into.

Today big tech is in disrepute, not unlike banks after the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the situation in 2008. In both cases, regulators marched in. The 1933 and 1934 securities-exchange laws required that investors receive financial information and prohibited deceit, misrepresentations and other fraud. It curbed the worst excesses. Since then, caveat emptor has given way to the best interest rule, which requires that broker-dealers place retail customers interests first, and creates an obligation of disclosure, diligence, care and skill to the customer.

Lawmakers and regulators should apply that ethos by imposing similar obligations on the tech titans. The state could require the companies to create and manage meaningful information barriers. For banks, this means separating mergers-and-acquisitions departments from the trading business, or the trading business from prime brokerage. For tech platforms, those barriers could limit the interactions between a logistics business and a product business, or an app store and a hardware business, or the ad-exchange operator and the advertiser- and publisher-facing units.

Cross-applying the spirit of banking regulations onto web platforms, lawmakers should ask: Does the content served up to retail users meet appropriate standards for truthfulness and accuracy? Does the digital business establish and enforce a code of conduct, with structures and practices where the customer comes first? Has the business attested that customers understand what the firm does with their data, and how its algorithms influence customer behaviour? Does the business, in its role as a common carrier of information, give fair and symmetric access to the products and services of rivals?

Next is the issue of identification and anonymity. The 1970 Bank Secrecy Act introduced anti-money-laundering rules to safeguard the financial system from abuses, such as terrorist financing and organised crime. The know your customer rules from the 2001 Patriot Act require banks to implement a client-identification programme. Similar rules should be placed on tech platforms: a global system for digital identities, perhaps along the lines of Singapores National Digital Identity or Indias Aadhaar digital identitybut with a difference: individuals can opt in to get a better, more trustworthy user experience.

For example, the rules could require digital businesses to flag content created by unverified identities and highlight content created by verified people. This would give consumers the ability to consider the source of the content and to discount it appropriately. The bots and trolls that stifle online interactions would be pushed back to a corner of the web. Anonymity and privacy are sacred rights, but just as in the financial system, there can be no digital right to cover for deliberate misinformation, incitement to violence, human trafficking and other illicit activities.

Then there are stress tests: simulating crises as a way to protect against them. The Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) programme, established under the Dodd-Frank rules, is an annual exercise to assess whether the largest American banks account for their unique risks and have the capital to continue in times of economic and financial disruption without having to turn to the government. Banks are presented with disaster scenarios and have to simulate their cash flows, income statements and balance sheets for nine quarters into the future, showing that they could continue ordinary operations. The process requires collaboration inside banks, and between banks and regulators. (CCARs rigour is one reason why banks operated smoothly amid the economic gyrations of the covid-19 crisis.)

The rules place onerous burdens on 34 major financial institutions. Tens of thousands of people, and perhaps millions of computers, work year-round to calculate and interpret the data, spurring deep and manifold changes in the decision processes that underlie mergers and acquisitions, leverage, capital- and risk-allocation, share buybacks and dividends. There is complaining and grumbling by bankers, of course. But there is also nearly universal acknowledgment that it has greatly reduced the probability of a catastrophic banking crisis.

There are useful parallels between CCAR and the regulation of big tech platforms. Regulators can require that digital businesses simulate potential disasters and develop policies to prevent them. As in banking, the online companies can be required to measure, capitalise for and compensate society for negative externalities, ranging from lost peace of mind and competitiveness, to self-harm, violence and human-rights abuses.

For example, tech platforms measure emotional resonance, engagement and outrage when they choose to increase their advertising revenue by amplifying or promoting specific content. Those companies should have to pay the equivalent of a carbon tax, estimated by their own models and governed by the regulator, if they pollute the infosphere with falsehoods and incendiary content.

Just as CCAR places limits on the leverage in derivatives portfolios by imposing capital requirements, digital regulators would insist that platforms constrain the algorithmic amplification of outrage and emotional resonance by limiting the propagation of viral content. Regulators would base their rules on a deep and shared understanding between the regulator and the regulated of how digital companies make money, just as banks simulate their complex chain of interlinked businesses into the future in a stress test.

No one would call the current financial regulations perfect. Bright lines do not divide global, systemically important banks from other institutions. Fines and remedies vary inconsistently. Still, regulators and bankers can step back and acknowledge their common efforts to create a safer, sounder financial system. And it is a systema collection of rivals and regulators working together with societys interest in mind.

The parallels between financial networks and social networks are obviously inexact. Some digital firms will balk at rules that mandate they simulate their business and capitalise for externalities (though they have computing power and financial resources to do the job). Yet just as the public deserves a banking system it can trust, why should it settle for less when it comes to sharing and accessing information, which is the basis of liberal democracy?

_________

R. Martin Chavez is a senior advisor to Sixth Street Partners and the former chief financial officer of Goldman Sachs, which he joined in the 1990s after earning a PhD in bioinformatics. He currently invests in and serves on boards of several technology startups. He is also president of the Board of Overseers of Harvard University.

See original here:

Martin Chavez on how to regulate big tech like big banks - The Economist

The World Wide Web turns 30 in August and Ottawa is finally updating key laws from the last millennium.

Bill C-10 would bring foreign streaming services under the Broadcasting Act, while Bill C-11 would update Canadas pre-Google privacy laws. They promise another bill to address harmful and/or illegal online content and yet another to compel Google and Facebook to pay for Canadian news, following Australias recent move.

Yet these erstwhile acts of resistance against Silicon Valleys overwhelming power actually reflect Canadas resignation to this power. A pattern is emerging. The government seems to have accepted that some digital businesses will cause widespread harm. Instead of trying to prevent these harms, Ottawa is creating systems to manage them consistently.

Canada may wish to appear defiant, but our approach to big tech is fundamentally defeatist.

Bill C-11 would compel tech companies to explain, upon request, how your personal data resulted in a certain recommendations. But the law would not prohibit Facebook from collecting so much personal data in the first place, even from people dont have Facebook accounts.

Bill C-10 gives YouTube, arguably Canadas largest broadcaster, a categorical exemption from the Broadcasting Act because it traffics exclusively in user-generated content. That leaves it free to show beer ads on Bugs Bunny clips or let Steve Bannon threaten to put Dr. Faucis head on a pike acts that would land any other media organization in court.

The exemption for user-generated content would also cover Pornhub, the Canadian company found to be broadcasting tens of thousands of videos depicting the sexual assault of children as young as nine.

The government promises to address the scourge of harmful material in a new bill, yet early signals suggest this law will likewise be rooted in a fundamental acceptance of widespread harms.

Media reports suggest the law would require the likes of YouTube and Pornhub to remove some illegal content within 24 hours. Yet they would not be responsible for finding offending content and face no consequences for having promoted it widely, provided they remove it when notified. This is like letting bars illegally serve middle-schoolers provided they drink light beer and get home by 11.

This defeatist approach to businesses facilitating harmful or illegal activity on a massive scale is gravely concerning. Canada is establishing a worrisome legal principle: in broadcasting, search, social media, and other major digital industries, anything goes so long as the undesirable or illegal outcome is the result of decisions taken by an algorithm on a humans behalf.

Even more worrisome is how closely the governments resigned outlook echoes Big Techs talking points.

When Pornhub got caught broadcasting illegal material at scale, they blamed an automated system that failed to detect illegal content. This was not a confession but a defence.

When Congress asked why so much illegal content appears on Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg explained that Facebooks content moderation efforts relies heavily on AI that is getting good in certain areas but mostly inadequate. Zuckerberg was trying to instill the principle that companies are not responsible for the failings of their algorithms.

This is obviously ridiculous. Algorithms dont cash cheques. Yet the Trudeau government seems poised to entrench this philosophy in law. Instead of telling Facebook to operate legally or not at all, Canada is accepting that Facebook et al can violate Canadians privacy and even criminal law, so long as they manage the resulting harms in a prescribed manner, such as providing an explanation.

Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...

A sovereign, moral approach would start from the premise that illegal activity is unacceptable. Remove the blanket exemption for social media companies from Bill C-10. Prohibit business activities that depend upon the non-consensual collection of personal data. Executives should be held personally liable for their companys transgressions, including possible jail time. Fines may be part of the cost of doing business for big tech companies. Personal ruin and prison are not.

When a business is offside, we should blow the whistle. Instead, Canada is proposing to move the blue line. Those of us who are concerned by Canadas defeatist approach should speak up now, before Canada submits to another 30 years of digital lawlessness in service of Silicon Valley.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Q:

How do you think Canada should approach regulating big tech? Share your thoughts.

Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)

Sign In

Register

The rest is here:

Opinion | Canada's approach to regulating big tech is fundamentally defeatist - Toronto Star

Text size

Chinas market regulator has imposed fines on some of the countrys biggest tech companies relating to 10 deals that violated anti-monopoly laws, it said on Friday.

Separately the watchdog is reportedly weighing a record fine of more than $975 million on Alibaba, according to the Wall Street Journal, as Chinas antitrust crackdown continues. The reports have been denied by Beijing.

The State Administration of Market Supervision (SAMR) said it had issued 500,000 yuan ($77,000) fines to twelve companies, including WeChat owner Tencent, search engine Baidu, ride-hailing giant Didi Chuxing and Japans SoftBank.

The deals investigated by the watchdog include Tencents 2018 investment in online tutoring start-up Yuanfudao and Baidus 2014 acquisition of smart home robot manufacturer Ainemo.

A joint venture set up by Didi Mobility Pte, a unit of Didi Chuxing, and Japanese conglomerate SoftBank was also probed.

The investigation found that none of the deals eliminated or restricted competition, but that they all breached anti-monopoly rules by failing to notify the authorities.

Read:Chinese Retailer JD.com Beats Sales Estimates. The Online Boom May Be Here to Stay.

The fines come as part of a wider antitrust crackdown by Beijing on Chinas internet giants. In December the SAMR fined JD.com, Alibaba Vipshop 500,000 yuan each for pricing irregularities. The watchdog also opened an antitrust investigation into Jack Mas Alibaba at the end of last year shortly after Beijing halted the IPO of internet finance giant Ant Group.

Read:Ant Group Has a Deal With Regulators. What It Could Mean for Its IPO.

The regulator released new anti-monopoly guidelines in February, following a draft law in November, tightening restrictions. The SAMR said the new rules would stop monopolistic behaviours in the platform economy and protect fair competition in the market.

See the rest here:

Chinas Antitrust Regulators Fine Tencent, Baidu and 10 Others as Big Tech Crackdown Intensifies - Barron's