Category Archives: Big Tech

Getty Images

As the global financial situation weighs on wallets and portfolios, big names like Meta, Twitter and Amazon have all initiated layoffs in 2022. November tech layoffs alone have surpassed 45,000 heads, with the largest firms trimming the fat by 10,000+ heads each.

But Google has largely managed to shy away from talks of downsizinguntil now.

According to a report from tech news site The Information, Google parent Alphabet is now feeling the pressure. Adverse market conditions continue to bash profit margins and stock prices. The company is also facing calls from at least one wealthy activist investor to reduce excessive headcounts and per-employee costs.

And with the aid of a new performance improvement plan, Googles layoffs could total 6% of its workforce (around 10,000 employees) in early 2023.

Heres what else to know.

According to The Information, Google has requested that team managers evaluate employees using a new ranking and performance improvement plan.

Under previous systems, managers were generally expected to slash around 2% of the companys total workforce to weed out the lowest performers. But the new plan requires nearly three times that many workers some 10,000 to be cut loose.

In broad strokes, the system allows management to rate employees based on performance and their impact on the business. Updated guidelines limit the number of employees who can score the highest ratings. Roughly the bottom 6% could be eliminated from the company entirely.

The Information further reports that, Managers could also use the ratings to avoid paying [employees] bonuses and stock grants to further reduce costs.

Google, like many others in big tech, enjoyed substantial growth and hiring during and post-pandemic. The spike was led by surging technologies use, as well as companies fighting back against the Great Resignation by finding (or poaching) top talent wherever possible.

But as inflation and interest rate hikes rampage on, advertisers slash spending and experts squawk about a potential recession, many firms have realized they way over-hired. Thats left many with no choice but to choose between deflated bottom lines or deflated headcounts.

So far, Google itself hasnt confirmed any layoffs (yet). But its hiring and growth patterns mimic many of the trends in the broader tech industry over the last two years. The company recently froze all new hiring while telling some teams to shape up or ship out if they cant meet new expectations.

CEO Sundar Pichai has also hinted at coming changes. In particular, Pichai stated that Google could grow 20% more efficient, hinting at job cuts and productivity improvements. Though Google continues to make long-term investments, his stance is that the firm must [be] smart, [be] frugal, [be] scrappy, [be] more efficient.

As if macroeconomic pressures werent enough, Google also faces calls from at least one notable activist investor to make major changes.

Recently, hedge fund billionaire Christopher Hohn argued in a letter from TCI Fund Management to Alphabet that Googles employee costs have gotten out of control. The letter states that Alphabets management needs to take aggressive action to curb costs and improve its profit margins.

It recalls that executives have stated Google should be 20% more efficient. TCI Fund Management contends that Google doubling its headcount since 2017 is excessive and that employee ranks should be reduced to come in line with the present business environment. (Currently, Alphabet employs around 187,000 individuals.

Not only that, but TCI Fund Management believes that Googles per-employee costs are too high, too. Hohn points out that Googles median salary in 2021 totaled $295,884, sitting 67% higher than at Microsoft MSFT and 153% higher than the 20 largest listed technology companies in the U.S.

TCI Fund Management believes that these bloated figures, alongside declining ad spend, helped reduced Googles YOY profits by 27% in Q3.

On one hand, TCI has a point Googles profits did decline on a YOY basis (though it still netted nearly $14 billion). However, while TCIs letter may have provided impetus, its unlikely the hedge fund was solely responsible for Googles new firing practices. Simply put, the funds $6 billion stake is a mere drop in Googles $1.27 trillion bucket.

Theres also an argument to be made that the reason for Googles massive success is because it retains top-tier talent. Paying above-market rates allows the internet giant to collect and keep the best and brightest, prevent costly attrition and keep production and creativity flowing.

Of course, Google is far from the only Big Tech firm to implement layoffs this year.

Already, Meta has started slashing the first of 11,000 employees.

Amazon is considering cuts in a nearly equal amount.

And Twitter is being sued after reducing its workforce by half. Several hundred more employees have reportedly walked out following mercurial Elon Musks controversial takeover.

With so many layoffs in the works and on the horizon, its natural to be concerned for your portfolio. Investors large and small have spent the last decade relying on high-growth tech firms to drive profits to greater heights. Now that bottom lines (and stock prices) are slowing their roll, it may be time to reevaluate your strategy.

And what better way to do that than with the power of artificial intelligence driving your investment potential?

With a portfolio full of specially-curated, AI-backed Investment Kits, you can diversify your capital among industries, concepts and innovations.

You can invest in global trends, capitalize on a green energy future, or start with a solid foundation.

Whatever you need, Q.ai has the tools to help you build long-term wealth. All you have to do is open an account and take your pick.

Download Q.ai today for access to AI-powered investment strategies.

Continue reading here:

Google Layoffs: Big Tech Continues Downsizing - forbes.com

Grabien dropped a concerning video from Admiral Rachel Levine, the chief U.S. public health official on Monday. The video is of Levine, in May, speaking virtually at an event of the Federation of State Medical Boards. But it didnt get a lot of attention at the time and in light of what we are seeing from things like the Twitter files about censorship and big tech now, it reveals another important piece about government pressure on tech companies as well as the effort to influence even state medical boards and schools.

Levine tells the other medical professionals from the state medical boards that they have a critical role to play, We must continue to expand and work to address health misinformation. That doesnt just include COVID, Levine said, but also another area of substantial misinformation that was directly impacting health equity. That was the health equity of sexual and gender minorities. Levine claimed that they were facing substantial misinformation about gender-affirming care and anti-LGBTQI+ actions that were dangerous to the public health. The positive value of gender-affirming care for youth and adults is not in dispute, Levine argued.

We all need to work together to get our voices out in the front line. We need to get our voices in the public eye. And we can we know how effective our medical community can be talking to communities, whether its at town halls, schools, conversations with others, and we need to use our clinicians voice to collectively advocate for tech companies to create a healthier, cleaner information environment. During a moment when public trust in our leaders and our information is very challenged, the healthcare worker community, the medical community does I believe maintain a high degree of trust, and we have to utilize that and we have to utilize it effectively.

Levine is not just saying accord people who want to transition the ability to transition, Levine is attacking misinformation and saying theyre leaning on tech companies to enforce their will. Levine also talks about reaching out to schools to push this as well.

What qualifies as misinformation and who gets to decide that? Its the top government public official declaring what qualifies as a healthier, cleaner information environment and telling the boards they need to collectively convey that to the tech companies.

Is saying that Levine was born a biological male misinformation? But thats the truth and thats science. When the government is telling you what it is that you are required to believe and now pressuring tech companies to ensure that healthier, cleaner narrative, thats censorship and thats problematic constitutionally.

Levine claims that the positive value of gender-affirming care for youth and adults [translation: potentially changing/cutting off body parts] is not in question. This is a claim that Levine has made before and as we pointed out, it isnt true that everyone agrees with it. So science doesnt mean questioning whether its a good thing for a 14-year-old to get body parts removed or to take puberty blockers, to Levine and the Biden team. Science means complying with what the government says. Levine is reaching out to make sure that this narrative isnt just part of the federal government mantra, but goes out to the states as well.

We already have seen in the Twitter files how that is problematic when government becomes enmeshed with social media and the effort to control speech. We saw how under the old Twitter, the satire site Babylon Bee was suspended from Twitter for calling Levine a man. It was that ridiculous suspension that sparked Elon Musks interest in buying Twitter thus ultimately leading to the changes and freer speech that we are now seeing today on the site. Was that suspension part of the effort to ensure the healthier environment the Biden team is dictating?

Trending on Redstate Video

Excerpt from:

Here Comes More Censorship: Rachel Levine Pressuring Big Tech to Shut ...

Now is the time for the Senate to pass the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, requiring platforms like Facebook and Google to pay fairly for news content.

David Chavern| Opinion contributor

Microsoft pushes Congress toward new media laws

Microsoft's President Brad Smith tells Congress it endorses the Journalism Competition and Protection Act (JCPA), that would give news organizations the ability to negotiate collectively, with Microsoft and other tech giants. (March 12)

AP

Local journalism is a cornerstone of democracy and a vital source of information for communities across the country, with newsrooms covering local politics, high school sports, local business openings, cultural eventsand other matters that help a community remain vibrant and connected. But the industry is facing an existential crisis because of the unyielding power of Big Tech platforms such as Google and Facebook.

With not that much timeleft in this Congress, now is the time for the Senate to pass the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act. The JCPA was reported out of committee on Sept.22 with strong bipartisan support and now must head to the floor for a vote. The JCPA would hold tech giants accountable and provide a necessary lifeline for local newspapers, requiring Big Tech to compensate small and local outlets for the use of their content.

Big Tech benefits tremendously from journalism content, yet they refuse to pay local publishers fairly for the journalistic content that fuels their platforms. As a result, local papers are being replaced by tech platforms using black box algorithms designed to keep users inside their walled gardens, all while charging exorbitant ad fees up to 70% of every advertising dollar.

Since 2000, U.S. newspaper circulation has dropped by half, with more than 31 million fewer daily newspapers in circulation in 2020. The vast majority of U.S. counties with no regular newspaper "news deserts" are in rural areas. Despite record audiences, revenue has drastically declined since news outlets transitioned to digital.

And as local publications struggle to stay afloat, Big Tech has only doubled down, further consolidating their control over the flow of information.

Our View: Local newspapers are shrinking or disappearing. Congress must act.

This is fundamentally unfair, and the JCPA wouldbring about much-needed change.

The JCPA wouldbenefit small and local publishers exclusively and impose severe penalties if the tech platforms do not negotiate in good faith. The bill has a limited scope of four years to address a broken marketplace, while the broader competitive landscape is fixed through other legislation and the courts.

The JCPA also would incentivizepublishers to hire more journalists and protectour constitutional freedoms of speech and the press. The bills scope is limited to compensation and does not allow for negotiations around up/down ranking or display it serves only to ensure fair compensation for local news outlets. The JCPA has strict transparency requirements on the terms of each agreement reached between tech platforms and journalism providers and establishes clarity in how news outlets spend any funds they receive.

Opinions in your inbox: Get a digest of our takes on current events every day

Australia passed a similar policy to the JCPA, the news media bargaining code, for media organizations to bargain for payment, which has produced significant revenue (billions of dollars, if translated to the U.S. market) for hundreds of publications of all sizes.One Sydney journalism professor noted that she hadnt seen her industry so financially robust in decades. There are so many open positions for reporters, they cannot all be filled, a signal of the improved economic health of the industry.

The swift and clear successes of the Australian code and efforts in other countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, European Unionand more should serve to encourage the passage of the JCPA.

Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.

Thousands of hometown newspapers from across the political spectrum, as well as both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, support the JCPA. Moreover,in these highly polarized times, polling data found that 70% of Americans support the JCPA. It has such broad support because, ultimately, it is about basic fairness.

Local newspapers cannot afford several more years of Big Techs use and abuse, and time to take action is dwindling. If Congress does not act soon, we risk allowing social media to become Americas de facto local newspaper.

The Senate must advance the JCPAfor a vote before the end of the year to rein in Big Tech and restore fairness to local journalism one of the most important checks and balances we have against corporate power and government corruption before its too late.

David Chavern ispresident and chief executive of theNews/Media Alliance.

See original here:

Preserve local journalism by holding Big Tech accountable

Wed Dec 7, 2022 - 9:39 am EST

WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) Dr. Anthony Faucis testimony in a federal lawsuit that accuses U.S. government officials of colluding with Big Tech to censor speech, confirmed that social media companies want to control not only what you think, but especially what you say, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said on Tuesday.

Landry, along with Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, have sued numerous federal government officials for working with Big Tech to suppress speech online, including criticism of the official government position on masks, vaccines, and other COVID policies.

The attorneys general released Tuesday the results of Faucis deposition, which him saying I dont recall 174 times, according to Landrys and Schmittsnews release. The press statement also revealed that Faucis daughter worked at Twitter as a software engineer until last year.

Fauci testified that he had never personally contacted a social media company to ask for content to be taken down. However, Fauci and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had 13 different conversations during 2020, according to information obtained during the lawsuit process.

He also testified that he was aware of the concept of freedom of speech.

Do you think that there should be steps taken to curb the spread of misinformation and disinformation? an attorney asked Fauci.

You know, thats not my area. Im very well aware of the concept of freedom of speech. The area of the curtailment of that is something that is not in my area of the expertise, Fauci said. Those are legal andother things. And I really dont have any opinion on that.

READ: Fauci responsible for suppression of COVID lab-leak theory, newly revealed emails confirm

Article continues below Petition

9855 have signed the petition.

Let's get to 10000!

Thank you for signing this petition!

Add your signature:

Show Petition Text

Sign the petition to let Abp. Broglio know that you support his stance against the woke mob!

In a thrilling win against the leftist infiltrators in the Church, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) made a key electoral decision at their Fall General Assembly in Baltimore, Maryland last week.

As reported on LifeSiteNews, Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, was elected Tuesday to serve as the next president of the USCCB.

Broglio has consistently defended Catholic teaching his orthodox record has been a constant source of frustration to liberal bishops across the country. The military archbishop is one of a small number of prelates who:

Abp. Broglio has shown support for our pro-life, pro-family, and pro-freedom movement lets show our support for him!

Say THANK YOU to Abp. Broglio for standing up to left-wing bishops and defending Catholic values!

Tuesdays election was a clear rejection ofdecidedly liberal candidates, including pro-LGBT Archbishop Paul Etienne of Seattle and radical leftist Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Sller of San Antonio.

Left-wing Catholics are outraged about the results of the USCCB elections now more than ever, Abp. Broglio needs the support of faithful Catholics like YOU!

STAND WITH ABP. BROGLIO against the woke mob and left-wing infiltrators of the Church! Add your name to the growing list NOW.

For more information:

Archbishop Broglio elected USCCB president

New USCCB head: Link between clergy sex abuse and homosexual priests cant be denied

Both Landry and Schmitt said the transcript reveals further details on the COVID tyranny.

Missouri and Louisiana are leading the way in exposing how the federal government and the Biden Administration worked with social media to censor speech. In our deposition with Dr. Fauci, it became clear that when Dr. Fauci speaks, social media censors, Attorney General Schmitt said. I encourage everyone to read the deposition transcript and see exactly how Dr. Fauci operates, and exactly how the COVID tyranny that ruined lives and destroyed businesses was born.

WATCH: ER doctor exposes the fraud of Fauci medicine and the lies behind the COVID pandemic

Faucis recent deposition only confirmed what we already knew: federal bureaucrats in collusion with social media companies want to control not only what you think, but especially what you say, Landry said. During no time in human history was this more obvious than during the COVID-19 crisis where social engineering tactics were used against the American public, not to limit your exposure to a virus, but to limit your exposure to information that did not fit within a government sanctioned narrative.

The deposition further confirmed Faucis flip-flopping on COVID issues.

Fauci sent a colleague an email in February of 2020 instructing her not to wear a mask when traveling. Just a couple months later, he was advocating for universal mask mandates, Schmitt noted on Twitter, in a thread that included highlights from the deposition.

One of Faucis deputies joined a WHO delegation to China in February of 2020, and in talking to Fauci afterwards, was impressed with how the Chinese were handling the isolation, the contact tracing, the building of facilities to take care of people,' Schmitt wrote.

As Fauci testified, the idea for strict lockdowns came from how he perceived China handled the outbreak of COVID.

Other Biden administration officials deposed include former Press Secretary Jen Psaki.

READ: Canadian doctors facing discipline for opposing COVID regime speak out

Defend pro-life and pro-family journalism today!

Now is your chance to join the LifeSiteNews family and defend what your loved ones will cherish forever. Support LifeSiteNews now and take a stand with our cutting-edge pro-life news.

See the rest here:

Fauci testimony 'confirms' Big Tech collusion to censor free speech on ...

How big tech defeated the biggest antitrust push in decades on Capitol Hill  Los Angeles Times

Go here to see the original:

How big tech defeated the biggest antitrust push in decades on Capitol Hill - Los Angeles Times

Google gave the feds the personal data of nearly 1,500 individuals based on cell phone location data indicating their presence near the Capitol complex on Jan. 6, 2021. The Department of Justice sought substantially more information, as well, according to a recent court filing, including data on Jan. 6 cell phone users wholly outside the Capitol. These facts, coupled with Googles apparent disregard for the privacy rights of its customers, expose the potential for the government and Big Tech to collaboratively target political enemies.

In response to the riot that erupted inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, following a rally at the National Mall and a peaceful protest outside the Capitol, the Department of Justice launched a massive investigation seeking to identify and prosecute the individuals who committed crimes that day. Just a week after the Jan. 6 riot, the government sought and was granted a geofence warrant for data held by Google.

A geofence warrant compels tech companies, such as Google, to provide the identity of individuals whose cell phones were physically located within a defined geographical area during a specific time period. The Jan. 6 warrant served on Google compelled the tech giant to search all accounts to identify devices that appeared physically present on Jan. 6 from 2:00 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. in the target location. The target location or the geofence covered by the warrant included the Capitol building and the area immediately surrounding it, which together covered about four acres of land.

In total, Google identified 5,723 unique devices that were or could have been within the geofence during the relevant time period. Of the 5,723 devices, the federal government then obtained a warrant forcing Google to provide the phone number, google account, or other identifying information for more than 1,500 cell phones that appeared located completely in the geofence area or in cases where the user had later deleted the location data.

How extensively the government used the data obtained from Google in investigating the riot is unclear, but the records eventually led the Department of Justice to charge David Rhine with four federal crimes: entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct in a Capitol building; and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

Rhine pleaded not guilty, and his public defender filed a motion to suppress the data obtained from Google connecting Rhines cell phone location to the Capitol, as well as any evidence the federal government obtained as a result of identifying Rhine through the geofence warrant. In his motion to suppress, Rhine argued that the geofence warrant was overbroad and lacking in particularity in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Whether a geofence data search constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment remains hotly debated, and to date, only a few lower courts have addressed the issue. The handful of courts that have considered the issue have concluded the Fourth Amendment applies to requests for geofence data and thus the government must establish probable cause to obtain the data. And in upholding the geofence warrants in those cases, the courts have stressed the narrowness of the scope of the warrants at issue.

In contrast, here the government obtained the personal data of more than 1,500 people whose cell phones appeared to have been located within a four-acre area. This case will thus likely lead to significant developments in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence related to geofence searches.

It will likely be years, however, before there is any clarity on the Fourth Amendment question. But what the Rhine case reveals now is the danger that a partnership between an equally politicized federal government and Big Tech presents to disfavored groups.

The geofence warrant obtained by the federal government to investigate the Jan. 6 riot reached the personal data of more than 1,500 individuals who, according to Googles estimation, were only 68 percent likely to have been present in the four-acre area consisting of the Capitol and its surrounding area. And even then, not all the areas outside the Capitol were off-limits. Further, while irrelevant to Rhines case, his attorney noted that, in addition to the personal data related to the 1,500-plus individuals, the government later sought substantially more data from geofences in areas next to, but wholly outside of, the Capitol Building.

The majority of individuals whose personal data was obtained by the federal government committed no crimes but likely attended the pro-Trump rally, making them political enemies of the Biden administration. Yet, because they were not charged with a crime, those American citizens will never know the government collected their personal information. And then there is the concern over what use the Biden administration may make of the information of innocent Americans it collected.

Equally concerning is the potential for the federal government to use geofence warrants only for disfavored suspects, or as a pretext to create an enemies list. The federal government sought geofence warrants for Jan. 6, but did they do so when St. Johns burned or to identify Antifa criminals? What about to identify the individual who planted pipe bombs at the RNC and DNC or to locate the vandals who targeted crisis pregnancy centers? Or might the Biden administration seek a geofence warrant to create a list of parents protesting school board meetings, using creative lawyering to devise a pretextual criminal investigation to justify the warrant?

In the past, Google has served as a check of sorts on overbroad data requests, as a Guardian article from last year highlighted. Then The Guardian warned of geofence warrants, suggesting that Texas law enforcement officials could use a pretext, literally any other law on the books, to obtain a list of cell phones connected to abortion facilities to target individuals under new abortion laws. A Google spokesman, however, told The Guardian that the company has challenged many overly broad government requests. We use a rigorous process designed to honor our legal obligations while narrowing the scope of data disclosed, the Google representative said in a statement.

Google also filed an amicus curiae, or friend of the court brief, in a criminal case the federal government brought against a bank robber, with the tech giant taking the position that a geofence search is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and as such requires the government to obtain a warrant. To date, Google has not filed a similar brief in the Rhine case, and an email to the attorneys representing Google in the previous case, inquiring whether they intended to submit a brief in the Jan. 6 case, went unanswered.

Briefing in the Rhine case also revealed another anomaly, with Rhines attorney claiming that even before the government served a geofence warrant on Google, the tech giant actually preserved the location data of its users from the evenings of Jan. 6 and 7. According to Rhines attorney, Google preserved that data in violation of its own policies that represent to its users that if they choose to delete Location History, that data is indeed gone (not preserved by Google). Then, after the DOJ served the geofence warrant on Google, Google searched the preserved data for the government.

Whether the DOJ asked Google to preserve the location data is unknown, but given the cozy relationship between the government and Big Tech as demonstrated by the censorship of disfavored views, that is a distinct possibility. Either way, Google apparently ignored its own policies to help the government when it was a matter of potential crimes related to Jan. 6. One must wonder if Google would have done the same had the DOJ sought data related to the violence flowing over from a Black Lives Matter protest.

While the country waits for the courts to decide the constitutional question, the conversation should not be so limited because the Fourth Amendment represents but a sliver of the concerns geofence warrants raise.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prizethe law schools highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Link:

J6 Witch Hunt Is What Happens When Big Tech And Feds Team Up

Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) hasdecided to fine Facebook265 million euros or $275 million for violating the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by enabling the scraping of sensitive user data between May 2018 and September 2019. This fine marks the fourth for platforms owned by Facebook's parent company Meta. Even though it might seem like a considerable sum, it's not the most significant amount of money a company had to pay in the history of the GDPR.

As Statista's Florian Zandt shows in the chart below, that questionable honor goes to Amazon, another member ofGAFAM.

You will find more infographics at Statista

In July of 2021, Luxembourg's data watchdog issued the European branch of the multi-billion dollar tech firm a fine of roughly $774 million in current prices for the "non-compliance with general data processing principles" according to the GDPR Enforcement Tracker by CMS Law. The fourth place on the list of highest fines goes to WhatsApp, followed by three counts of Google, Facebook, and Swedish fashion companyH&Mviolating the GDPR.

The regulatory framework of theGDPRaims to give users more control over their data and lays the groundwork for fining companies offering their services in the EU for breaching its articles. The GDPR was instated on May 25, 2018, as a replacement for the EU's Data Protection Directive from 1995 and contains 99 articles.

So far, the GDPR Enforcement Tracker lists 1,507 individual breaches of the GDPR, although the data is most likely incomplete since not all fines are made public.

Loading...

Go here to read the rest:

Big Tech, Big Fines | ZeroHedge

A federal judge ruled on Monday that former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki must comply with an investigation that seeks to uncover the federal governments collusion with Big Tech to suppress Covid-related posts they deemed misinformation.

Writing for the Western District of Louisiana District Court, Judge Terry A. Doughty denied a request by Psaki to quash a subpoena seeking her deposition in a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry. In his reasoning, Doughty said that [p]reparing for and giving a deposition is part of the normal process for every person subpoenaed for a deposition and that despite Psakis contention, it is not an undue burden.

Psakis request for the Louisiana court to stay the deposition pending appeal was also denied, with Doughty reasoning that Psaki and federal defendants did not make a strong showing for why their case would likely succeed. (A stay is when a court takes action to halt a judicial proceeding or the actions of a party.)

The ruling came a day after a separate federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, refused to quash the subpoena and summarily transferred the case back to Louisiana where the lawsuit was filed.

Ms. Psakis effort to eliminate or delay her deposition in this action had failed because of the swift action of two judges in widely dispersed courts, one in Virginia and one in Louisiana, and by the implausibility of her reasons for not testifying as to Federal efforts to censure social media that made quick resolution possible, said John J. Vecchione, who serves as senior litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (a party in the suit), in a statement.

The Monday ruling from Doughty comes a month after he ordered Psaki, along with other high-profile Biden administration officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, to comply with Schmitt and Landrys investigation.

In the early stages of their lawsuit, the Missouri and Louisiana AGs uncovered a trove of communication records from top-ranking Biden administration officials showing coordination with companies such as Facebook and Twitter to censor Covid-related information that disputed the governments approach to the virus. In a July 2021 email addressed to U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, for example, a representative from Facebook noted how the company and Biden administration officials had previously met to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from [Facebook] on misinformation going forward.

A separate email from later that month also shows the social media platform asking the CDC if the agency would be interested in doing a monthly [Covid] misinfo/debunking meeting with Facebook employees, to which an agency official replied, Yes, we would love to do that.

Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

See the original post:

Court: Psaki Must Testify Over White House's Big Tech Collusion

What is included in my trial?

During your trial you will have complete digital access to FT.com with everything in both of our Standard Digital and Premium Digital packages.

Standard Digital includes access to a wealth of global news, analysis and expert opinion. Premium Digital includes access to our premier business column, Lex, as well as 15 curated newsletters covering key business themes with original, in-depth reporting. For a full comparison of Standard and Premium Digital, click here.

Change the plan you will roll onto at any time during your trial by visiting the Settings & Account section.

If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for $69 per month.

For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the Settings & Account section. If youd like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial.

You may also opt to downgrade to Standard Digital, a robust journalistic offering that fulfils many users needs. Compare Standard and Premium Digital here.

Any changes made can be done at any time and will become effective at the end of the trial period, allowing you to retain full access for 4 weeks, even if you downgrade or cancel.

You may change or cancel your subscription or trial at any time online. Simply log into Settings & Account and select "Cancel" on the right-hand side.

You can still enjoy your subscription until the end of your current billing period.

We support credit card, debit card and PayPal payments.

Read more:

Big Tech shows off its AI | Financial Times

Big Tech and governments are fighting the fake reviews industry. India is gearing up too.  Economic Times

Read the rest here:

Big Tech and governments are fighting the fake reviews industry. India is gearing up too. - Economic Times